| Literature DB >> 33276473 |
María Rivera-Ochoa1, Javier Brazo-Sayavera2,3, Barbara Vizmanos-Lamotte4, Asier Mañas5,6, Juan Ricardo López-Taylor4, Marcela González-Gross1, Amelia Guadalupe-Grau1,6.
Abstract
Mexico shows a high prevalence of obesity in children and adolescents. Geographical location and cultural environment could play a role in the promotion of healthy lifestyles in terms of physical activity (PA), sedentary behavior (SB) and nutrition. The purpose of this study was to assess rural and urban differences in body composition (BC), physical fitness (PF), PA and nutritional status of adolescents from the state of Jalisco (Mexico). The study involved 469 students aged 13-17 years (55.0% girls) from eight high schools. BC was analyzed by bioimpedance and PF by standardized field tests. Objective measurements of PA and SB were taken in a subsample (n = 240). Energy intake (EI) was calculated from two 24h recalls. Rural residents presented a higher prevalence of overweight, waist circumference, trunk fat mass, regional fat free mass and muscle handgrip strength (all p < 0.05, η2p < 0.06). Cardiorespiratory fitness was similar among participants, whereas urban adolescents showed higher muscle power, speed-agility and flexibility scores (all p < 0.05, η2p < 0.07). Overall lifestyle behavior in urban adolescents was more sedentary (p < 0.05, η2p = 0.11). EI was similar in both locations. In conclusion, rural Mexican adolescents presented a generally lower sedentary behavior and a lower fitness and fatness profile than their urban peers.Entities:
Keywords: body composition; nutritional status; physical fitness; sedentary behavior
Year: 2020 PMID: 33276473 PMCID: PMC7729600 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17238959
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Percentage of adolescents evaluated and population density by area. * Metropolitan Area; green color = Rural Area; purple color = Urban Area.
Descriptive statistics and comparisons of anthropometry and body composition in rural and urban adolescents.
| Variables | Rural | Urban | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| M ± SD |
| M ± SD | |
| Height (cm) | 211 | 162.42 ± 0.47 | 258 | 163.09 ± 0.42 |
| Weight (kg) | 210 | 59.73 ± 0.91 | 249 | 57.83 ± 0.83 |
| BMI for age (z-score) | 209 | 0.59 ± 0.09 | 247 | 0.23 ± 0.08 * |
| WHR | 210 | 0.81 ± 0.00 | 256 | 0.80 ± 0.00 * |
| Fat mass (%) | 209 | 27.15 ± 0.58 | 248 | 26.00 ± 0.53 |
| FMI (FM/height2) | 209 | 6.39 ± 0.21 | 248 | 5.99 ± 0.20 |
| FMI arms | 209 | 0.88 ± 0.03 | 242 | 0.80 ± 0.03 |
| FMI trunk | 209 | 3.21 ± 0.12 | 248 | 2.89 ± 0.11 * |
| FMI legs | 209 | 1.90 ± 0.06 | 248 | 1.86 ± 0.05 |
| Fat Free Mass (%) | 209 | 72.85 ± 0.58 | 248 | 74.00 ± 0.53 |
| FFMI (FFM/height2) | 209 | 16.14 ± 0.13 | 248 | 15.67 ± 0.12 * |
| FFMI arms | 209 | 1.64 ± 0.02 | 248 | 1.50 ± 0.02 * |
| FFMI trunk | 209 | 7.31 ± 0.06 | 248 | 6.9 ± 0.06 * |
| FFMI legs | 209 | 1.90 ± 0.06 | 248 | 1.86 ± 0.05 |
Note: BMI = Body Mass Index; WHR = Waist-Hip Ratio; FMI = Fat Mass Index; FFMI = Fat Free Mass Index. * Significant differences between rural vs. urban areas (p < 0.05).
Figure 2Classification of adolescents according to their BMI. T = Thinness; NW = Normal-weight; OW = Overweight; O = Obese.
Descriptive statistics and results of physical fitness ANCOVAs in rural and urban adolescents.
| Variables | Rural | Urban | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| M ± SD |
| M ± SD | |
| Handgrip (kg) 1 | 204 | 28.73 ± 0.42 | 227 | 26.15 ± 0.40 * |
| Standing long jump (cm) | 207 | 144.24 ± 1.74 | 227 | 146.38 ± 1.66 |
| SJ (cm) | 207 | 20.42 ± 0.36 | 227 | 21.75 ± 0.34 * |
| CMJ (cm) | 207 | 21.81 ± 0.36 | 227 | 21.29 ± 0.34 |
| ABA (cm) | 208 | 25.27 ± 0.42 | 228 | 26.68 ± 0.40 * |
| VO2max (ml/kg/min) | 204 | 29.84 ± 0.41 | 185 | 30.13 ± 0.43 |
| 4 × 10 m shuttle run test (sec) | 207 | 13.35 ± 0.09 | 227 | 12.75 ± 0.08 * |
| BSSR (cm) 1 | 208 | 23.54 ± 0.51 | 228 | 27.53 ± 0.49 * |
Note: SJ = Squat Jump; CMJ = Counter Movement Jump; ABA = Abalakov Jump; VO2max = maximal oxygen consumption; BSSR = Back-saber sit and reach. 1 Handgrip and BSSR are expressed as mean of right and left side. * Significant differences between rural vs. urban areas (p < 0.05).
Descriptive statistics and results of physical activity (PA) and sedentary time (ST) ANCOVAs in rural and urban adolescents.
| Variables | Rural | Urban | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| M ± SD |
| M ± SD | |
| ST (%) | 159 | 68.24 ± 0.52 | 81 | 73.14 ± 0.74 * |
| Light PA (%) | 159 | 21.49 ± 0.35 | 81 | 18.77 ± 0.49 * |
| Moderate PA (%) | 159 | 6.01 ± 0.16 | 81 | 4.94 ± 0.22 * |
| Vigorous PA (%) | 159 | 4.26 ± 0.16 | 81 | 3.15 ± 0.22 * |
| MVPA (%) | 159 | 10.28 ± 0.26 | 81 | 8.09 ± 0.37 * |
| MVPA (min/day) | 159 | 77.05 ± 2.12 | 81 | 61.97 ± 2.99 * |
Note: MVPA = Moderate to Vigorous PA. * Significant differences between rural vs. urban areas (p < 0.05).
Figure 3Prevalence of meeting physical activity international recommendations on PA for adolescents according to their BMI. T + NW = Thinness + Normal-weight; OW = Overweight; O = Obese.
Descriptive statistics and comparisons of dietary intake (DI) and caloric expenditure in rural and urban adolescents.
| Variables | Rural | Urban | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| M ± SD |
| M ± SD | |
| Carbohydrates (g) | 205 | 266.36 ± 6.70 | 227 | 264.15 ± 6.36 |
| Lipids (g) | 205 | 70.64 ± 2.38 | 229 | 66.04 ± 2.25 |
| Saturated fatty acids (g) | 205 | 22.28 ± 0.84 | 229 | 24.12 ± 0.80 |
| Proteins (g) | 200 | 81.00 ± 2.39 | 226 | 80.75 ± 2.24 |
| Caloric intake (kcal/day) | 205 | 1993.67 ± 47.33 | 227 | 1949.06 ± 44.92 |
| BMR (kcal/day) | 209 | 1302.60 ± 10.25 | 248 | 1277.12 ± 9.39 |
| PA (kcal/day) | 159 | 399.06 ± 14.72 | 81 | 292.42 ± 20.78 |
| BMR + PA (kcal/day) | 159 | 1686.22 ± 24.90 | 80 | 1542.46 ± 35.38 * |
Note: BMR = Basal Metabolic Rate; PA = Physical Activity. * Significant differences between rural vs. urban areas (p < 0.05).