4.6 Article

Active commuting to and from university, obesity and metabolic syndrome among Colombian university students

期刊

BMC PUBLIC HEALTH
卷 18, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12889-018-5450-5

关键词

Active transport; Physical activity; Cardiometabolic risk; Young adults

资金

  1. Centre for Studies on Measurement of Physical Activity, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Universidad del Rosario [FIUR DN-BG001]
  2. Universidad de Boyaca [RECT 60]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: There is limited evidence concerning how active commuting (AC) is associated with health benefits in young. The aim of the study was to analyze the relationship between AC to and from campus (walking) and obesity and metabolic syndrome (MetS) in a sample of Colombian university students. Methods: A total of 784 university students (78.6% women, mean age = 20.1 +/- 2.6 years old) participated in the study. The exposure variable was categorized into AC (active walker to campus) and non-AC (non/infrequent active walker to campus: car, motorcycle, or bus) to and from the university on a typical day. MetS was defined in accordance with the updated harmonized criteria of the International Diabetes Federation criteria. Results: The overall prevalence of MetS was 8.7%, and it was higher in non-AC than AC to campus. The percentage of AC was 653%. The commuting distances in this AC from/to university were 83.1%, 13.4% and 3.5% for < 2 km, 2-5 km and > 5 km, respectively. Multiple logistic regressions for predicting unhealthy profile showed that male walking commuters had a lower probability of having obesity [OR = 0.45 (CI 95% 0.25-0.93)], high blood pressure [OR = 0.26 (CI 95% 0.13-0.55)] and low HDL cholesterol [OR = 029 (CI 95% 0.14-0.59)] than did passive commuters. Conclusions: Our results suggest that in young adulthood, a key life-stage for the development of obesity and MetS, AC could be associated with and increasing of daily physical activity levels, thereby promoting better cardiometabolic health.

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

4.6
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