Drechsler, Wendy I

Ecclestone, C

Ferrari, J

Mahaffey, Ryan

Morrison, Stewart C

St Mary's University Open Research Archive

Correlations:Multiple regression:BMI z-score was significantly associated with: CoP MLexcursion MC to FF, CoP AP excursion FC to MC, andmaximal hip flexion force (Table 3).This research aims to investigate the relationshipsbetween childhood obesity with physical function,locomotion and strength.Nine overweight/obese (OWB) and nine sex-, age- andheight-matched healthy weight (HW) children (mean age9.69 ± 0.63 years) participated in the study (IOTF cut-offs).Measures:• Physical function – Six Minute Walk Time (6MWT) andtimed chair rise• Strength – hip, knee and ankle isometricflexion/extension dorsiflexion (DF)/plantarflexion (PF)hand-held dynamometer• Locomotion – medial/lateral (ML) and anterior/ posterior(AP) Centre of Pressure (CoP) excursions during firstcontact (FC), metatarsal contact (MC), foot flat (FF),heel off (HO), last contact (LC) stance phase of walkingIndependent t-tests for between group differences.Bi-variate correlation among variables (Spearmans)Multivariable linear regression with BMI z-score asdependent variable.Group differences - compared to HW, OWB:• Weaker hip and knee flexors (Table 1)• Greater medial and posterior CoP excursions (Figure 1)• Less distance in 6MWT (451.33 ± 69.13m and 379.11 ±65.01m for HW and OWB respectively)Physical functionStrengthFitnessPhysical activityLocom-otionObesityTable 1. Group mean ± standard deviation of maximal force (N•kg.^67). *significant deference between OWB and HW groups (p<.05)OWB HWHip extension 1.27 ± 0.17 1.31 ± 0.47Hip flexion 1.01 ± 0.13* 1.49 ± 0.64*Knee extension 1.24 ± 0.27 1.63 ± 0.62Knee flexion 1.14 ± 0.42* 1.91 ± 0.65*Ankle dorsiflexion 1.14 ± 0.16 1.19 ± 0.51Ankle plantarflexion 1.75 ± 0.32 1.74 ± 0.80Relationships between physical function, strength and obesity in children: Implications for physical fitness and activityMahaffey R, Ecclestone C, Morrison SC, Ferrari J, Drechsler WISchool of Health, Sport & Bioscience. University of East LondonIntroductionTable 3. Multiple linear regression of Centre of Pressure, strength and physical function variables with BMI z-score (dependent variable). Predictor Beta SE P(predicator)Model R2P (model)CoP ML excursionbetween MC and FF-0.84 0.28 .011* 0.66 .004*CoP AP excursion between FC and MC-0.76 0.29 .024*Maximal hip flexion force -0.78 0.36 .037*MethodsResultsDiscussion/ConclusionTable 2. Correlation matrix of selected variables of interest. * significant correlation, p<.05BMI Z-Score6MWT CoP ML CoP AP Hip flexionKnee flexionAnkle DF6MWT -.378CoP ML-.666* to -.077-.304 to.102 CoP AP -.578* to.213-.470* to-.072-.148 to.477*Hipflexion-.442* .450* -.556* to-0.36.448* to .042Kneeflexion-.517* .524* -.623* to.093-.441* to.138.930*AnkleDF.119 .221 -.490* to-.192-.330 to-.009.486* .407AnklePF.172 .191 -.555* to-.081-.416 to.115.625* .399 .931*Figure 1.  Centre of Pressure trace in HW (white line) and OWB (black line)This study presents novelinformation on CoP data inOWB children and therelationships to physical functionand strength. The findingsindicate altered physicalfunction and reduced flexorstrength in OWB childrencompared to HW peers1,2,3.This has implications formusculoskeletal health as wellas physical fitness and activityinitiatives used as part of weightloss programmes.References1. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2009;10:47.2. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2014;11:82. 3. Pediatric Phys Ther. 2013;25(2):130-8

Relationships between physical function, strength and obesity in children: Implications for physical fitness and activity

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

St Mary's University Open Research Archive