4.4 Article

CARDIOVASCULAR RISK IN STUDENTS WITH DIFFERENT LEVEL OF AEROBIC CAPACITY

Journal

BIOLOGY OF SPORT
Volume 27, Issue 2, Pages 105-109

Publisher

INST SPORT
DOI: 10.5604/20831862.913076

Keywords

cardiovascular risk; youth; aerobic capacity

Categories

Funding

  1. statute research Academy of Physical Education [DS. 108]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Study aim: Estimation of cardio-vascular risk in young adults with different level of aerobic capacity. Materials and Methods: In 162 students,75 women and 87 men in average age 20.19 +/- 1.11 and 20.18 +/- 0.77, respectively were assessed: smoking, daily energy expenditure for physical activity, body height and mass, BMI, heart rate, blood pressure, VO(2)max, lipids and glucose concentration in plasma. Cardio-vascular diseases risk were estimated using SCORE system. Comparative analysis CVD risk were done according to the level of VO(2)max. Results: The most developed risk factor CVD was hypercholesterolemia, appearing in 19.5% men and 14.7% women and next smoking, 4.6% and 9.3%, respectively. In low quartile VO2max men and women compare to high VO(2)max quartile, was found smaller percentages persons without risk factors (63.3% vs 86.4% and 68.4% vs 73.7%, respectively) and bigger with hypercholesterolemia (36.4% vs 9.1% and 21.1% vs 10.5%, respectively). CVD risk in women was: AR 1%, RR 0.31%, AR60 2.16%, in men 1.02%, 0.43% and 5.49%, respectively. Men from LVO(2)max compare to HVO(2)max had significantly higher relative risk (p<0.043) and risk extrapolated on 60 years (p<0.033). 12 men (54,5%) from LVO2max subgroup and 6 (27,3%) from HVO2max subgroup had high risk extrapolated on age 60 years (AR 60>5%). Differences between subgroups were not significant. Conclusion: between aerobic capacity and relative risk as well extrapolated on 60 years CVD risk we found significant correlation in men. When CVD risk is evaluated aerobic capacity should be taken for consideration.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available