| Literature DB >> 36098850 |
Laurent Béghin1, David Thivel2, Jean-Benoît Baudelet3, Thibault Deschamps4, Hervé Ovigneur4, Jérémy Vanhelst5.
Abstract
Numerous studies reported a significant decline in physical activity level in adolescents as a result of the COVID-19 lockdown. Physical fitness is recognized as a powerful marker of health in youth. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown on health-related physical fitness in French adolescents. Two cross-sectional studies were performed comparing two different groups of French adolescents, before (sample 1) and after the first lockdown (sample 2). A total of 1231 adolescents (aged to 16.5 ± 1.5 years) participated in the two cross-sectional studies. Complete data for physical fitness and anthropometrics data were obtained. Adolescents from sample 2 showed lower physical fitness levels compared to adolescents from sample 1. Regarding physical fitness for boys and girls, physical fitness levels were significantly lower in both sex between adolescents from the sample 1 and adolescents from the sample 2, except for cardiorespiratory fitness and flexibility for boys and girls, respectively. The physical fitness global score was also significantly lower between adolescents from the sample 1 and 2 for boys (-9.8%, p < 0.01) and girls (-16.2%; p < 0.01), respectively. Overall, the higher difference was found for performance in the speed body displacement test (-30%). A difference of 12.8% and 25% was observed for boys and girls, respectively.Entities:
Keywords: Health; Health crisis; Youth
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36098850 PMCID: PMC9469075 DOI: 10.1007/s00431-022-04610-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur J Pediatr ISSN: 0340-6199 Impact factor: 3.860
Characteristics of the study population of adolescents for two cohorts
| N | 532 | 699 | |
| Age ( | 16.5 ± 2.0 | 16.6 ± 1.1 | 0.17 |
| Height ( | 168.3 ± 8.9 | 168.4 ± 10.3 | 0.80 |
| Body mass ( | 62.1 ± 12.7 | 61.2 ± 12.2 | 0.19 |
| BMI ( | 21.9 ± 3.7 | 21.8 ± 7.8 | 0.81 |
| N | 318 | 325 | |
| Age ( | 16.5 ± 2.2 | 16.7 ± 1.1 | 0.17 |
| Height ( | 172.7 ± 7.6 | 174.7 ± 9.2 | 0.79 |
| Body mass ( | 65.6 ± 13.4 | 65.5 ± 13.2 | 0.19 |
| BMI ( | 21.95 ± 3.98 | 21.71 ± 8.25 | 0.81 |
| N | 214 | 374 | |
| Age ( | 16.5 ± 1.6 | 16.6 ± 1.1 | 0.17 |
| Height ( | 161.8 ± 6.4 | 163.0 ± 7.9 | 0.80 |
| Body mass ( | 57.0 ± 9.6 | 57.4 ± 9.7 | 0.19 |
| BMI ( | 21.76 ± 3.38 | 21.86 ± 7.50 | 0.81 |
* BMI, body mass index
Physical fitness levels (mean ± SD) according to sex among two cohorts
| Pre lockdown sample | Post lockdown sample | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CRF* ( | ||||
| Total | 538.9 ± 101.2 | 516.3 ± 159.5 | 0.002 | |
| Boys | 575.6 ± 98.0 | 579.9 ± 149.9 | 0.002 | |
| Girls | 484.4 ± 78.9 | 461.0 ± 146.6 | 0.002 | |
| LES* ( | ||||
| Total | 184.4 ± 39.4 | 161.1 ± 36.3 | < 0.001 | |
| Boys | 203.1 ± 34.1 | 184.2 ± 30.9 | < 0.001 | |
| Girls | 156.5 ± 28.9 | 141.1 ± 27.7 | < 0.001 | |
| Speed/agility ( | ||||
| Total | 10.8 ± 1.52 | 12.1 ± 2.6 | 0.003 | |
| Boys | 10.2 ± 1.2 | 11.1 ± 2.2 | < 0.001 | |
| Girls | 11.8 ± 1.5 | 13.0 ± 2.6 | < 0.001 | |
| UMSE* ( | ||||
| Total | 32.5 ± 21.0 | 28.0 ± 19.1 | < 0.001 | |
| Boys | 40.8 ± 20.7 | 39.2 ± 19.2 | < 0.001 | |
| Girls | 20.4 ± 14.7 | 18.2 ± 12.5 | < 0.001 | |
| LMSE* ( | ||||
| Total | 931.6 ± 209.2 | 835.5 ± 216.1 | < 0.001 | |
| Boys | 1036.3 ± 170.1 | 957.1 ± 198.7 | < 0.001 | |
| Girls | 776.1 ± 159.5 | 729.8 ± 170.3 | < 0.001 | |
| SBD* ( | ||||
| Total | 5.0 ± 0.9 | 6.5 ± 2.0 | < 0.001 | |
| Boys | 4.7 ± 0.7 | 5.3 ± 1.4 | < 0.001 | |
| Girls | 5.6 ± 0.9 | 7.0 ± 1.9 | < 0.001 | |
| Coordination ( | ||||
| Total | 1012.8 ± 167.6 | 875.2 ± 195.4 | < 0.001 | |
| Boys | 1096.2 ± 139.8 | 989.3 ± 166.9 | < 0.001 | |
| Girls | 888.7 ± 122.9 | 776.1 ± 161.5 | < 0.001 | |
| Global score ( | ||||
| Total | 48.6 ± 16.4 | 39.9 ± 17.2 | 0.004 | |
| Boys | 57.8 ± 12.6 | 52.2 ± 14.5 | 0.004 | |
| Girls | 34.9 ± 10.8 | 29.1 ± 11.1 | 0.004 |
*CRF cardiorespiratory fitness, LES lower explosive strength, UMSE upper muscular strength and endurance, LMSE lower muscular strength and endurance, SBD speed body displacement
Fig. 1Flexibility levels (n) according to sex between pre (T0) and post (T1) lockdown samples
Fig. 2Difference (%) in physical fitness levels between pre (T0) and post (T1) lockdown samples