4.1 Article

Reciprocal Longitudinal Relationship Between Fitness, Fatness, and Metabolic Syndrome in Brazilian Children and Adolescents: A 3-Year Longitudinal Study

期刊

PEDIATRIC EXERCISE SCIENCE
卷 33, 期 2, 页码 74-81

出版社

HUMAN KINETICS PUBL INC
DOI: 10.1123/pes.2020-0197

关键词

adiposity; cardiorespiratory fitness; cardiometabolic risk factors; youth

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study highlights a reciprocal inverse relationship between %body fat and metabolic syndrome risk, suggesting that %body fat may play a more crucial role in the development of metabolic syndrome compared to CRF.
Purpose: To verify the reciprocal longitudinal relationships between cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF), percentage body fat (%body fat), and metabolic syndrome in Brazilian primary school students. Method: This longitudinal study involved 420 children and adolescents followed for 3 years (2011-2014). The continuous Metabolic Syndrome (cMetSyn) score was calculated by summing adjusted z scores of glucose, systolic blood pressure, total cholesterol/high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio, triglycerides, and waist circumference. The CRF was assessed using running/walking tests, and %body fat was assessed through sex-specific 2-site skinfold thickness. Cross-lagged panel models were used to analyze longitudinal reciprocal relationships between CRF and %body fat with cMetSyn. Results: Results indicated that 2011 %body fat significantly predicted both 2014 CRF scores and 2014 cMetSyn scores (P<.001); however, 2011 CRF only predicted 2014 %body fat (P < .001) but not 2014 cMetSyn (P=.103). Furthermore, 2011 cMetSyn predicted 2014 %body fat (P=.002). The model explained 36%, 48%, and 37% of the variance in 2014 CRF, %body fat, and cMetSyn, respectively. Conclusion: The results suggest a reciprocal inverse relationship between %body fat and metabolic syndrome risk and that %body fat may play a more important role in the risk of developing metabolic syndrome compared with CRF.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据