大学生肥胖与体适能水平间的关系

Relationship between obesity and various parameters of physical fitness of college students

目的探究大学生肥胖与体适能水平之间的关系，为该类人群体适能管理提供研究依据。方法采集扬州市某高校725名男大学生身高、体质量、腰围以及体适能数据，依据世界卫生组织亚太平洋地区肥胖判定标准将研究对象分为4个组别[体质量指数肥胖组（BOG），腰围肥胖组（WOG），体质量指数和腰围均肥胖组（BWOG），正常体质量组（NG）]，采用Logistic回归探究大学生肥胖与体适能之间的关系。结果（1）肥胖组大学生1500m跑（P〈0．01）和仰卧起坐（P〈0．05）、BOG和WOG组俯卧撑（P〈0．01）、单脚站立时间以及BOG组身体移动反应时（P〈0．01）均低于正常体质量组。（2）BWOG和WOG组肺活量（P〈0．01）、BWOG和BOG组背力与握力（P〈0．01）高于正常体质量组。（3）多因素Logistic回归分析显示，与正常体质量组相比，1500m跑水平低的大学生发生身体质量指数肥胖（βBOG=-1．002，OR=0．367，95％CI=0．191～0．702，P〈0．01）和腰围肥胖（βWOG=-1．785，OR=0．169，95％CI=0．038-0．772，P〈0．05）危险度增加；肺活量高的大学生发生身体质量指数和腰围均肥胖（βBWOG=1．776，OR=5．901，95％CI=1．298～26．828，P〈0．05）以及腰围肥胖（βWOGG=1．681，OR=5．365，95％CI=1．667～24，670，P=0．032）危险度增加；俯卧撑（βBOG=-0．658，OR=0．518，95％CI=0．280～0．960，P〈0．05）和身体移动反应时（βBOG=-0．902，OR=0．405，95％CI=O．213～0．775，P〈0．01）低的大学生发生身体质量指数肥胖危险度增加；背力高的大学生的发生腰围肥胖危险度增加（βWOG=-1．583，OR=0．207，95％CI=0．045—0．946，P〈0．05）；握力高的大学生发生身体质量指数和腰围均肥胖（βBWOG=1．786，OR=5．974，95％CI=1．315～27．155，P〈0．05）、身体质量指数肥胖（βBOG=0．712，OR=2．036，95％CI=1．088—3．806，P〈0．05）危险度增加。结论肥胖组大学生心肺耐力差，BOG和WOG组上肢肌肉耐力、平衡能力差，BOG组灵活性差，BWOG和WOG组上肢肌肉力量、肺活量大；身体质量指数和腰围均肥胖大学生肺活量、背力，上肢肌肉力量大。

Objective To explore the relationship between obesity and the various parameters of physical fitness and provide the basis of physical fitness management for people. Methods A total of 725 male college students recruited from a University in Yangzhou.Height, weight, waist circumference and physi- cal fitness of the subjects were measured. According to Obesity criteria （BMI and/or WC ） , the college students were divided into the following 4 groups （ BMI obesity group （ BOG）, WC obesity group （ WOG）, BMI and WC obesity group （BWOG） and normal group （NG））. Logistic regression analysis was used to explore the relationship between obesity and physical fitness. Results （ 1 ） Significantly, 1 500 m （P〈 0.01 ） of BWOG,BOG and WOG,push-ups （P〈0.01） and standing time on one foot with closed eyes （P〈0.01） of BOG and WOG and whole body reaction time（P〈0.01 ） of BOG were lower than that of NG. （2） Vital capaci- ty of BWOG and WOG （P〈0.01） ,and grip strength （P〈0.01） and back strength of BWOG and BOG （P〈 0.05 ） were higher than that of NG. （3） Multiple logistic regression showed that the odds ratios of WOG（βBOG = - 1.002, OR= 0.367,95%CI= 0.191-0.702, P〈0.01 ） and BOG（βWOG = - 1.785, OR= 0. 169,95% CI= 0.038- 0.772,P〈0.05） for low 1 500 m subjects were higher,of BWOG（βBWOG= 1.776,OR= 5.901,95%CI= 1.298-26.828,P〈0.05） and BOG（βWOG = 1.681, OR= 5.365,95%CI= 1.667 ~ 24.670, P〈0.05 ） for high vital ca- pacity subjects were higher, of BOG for subjects of low Push-ups （βBOG = - 0. 658, OR= 0.518,95% CI = 0.280-0.960, P〈0.05 ） and whole body reaction time （βBOG = -0.902, OR= 0.405,95% CI= O. 213-0.775, P= 0.005 ） were higher, of WOG for high back strength （βWOG= - 1.583, OR = 0.207,95 % （21 = 0.045-0.946, P〈 0.05） were higher while of BWOG and BOG for high grip strength subjects （βBWOG= 1.786, OR= 5.974,95% CI-= 1.315-27.155 ,P〈0.05 ;βBOG = 0.712, OR= 2.036,95%CI= 1.088-3.806, P〈0.05 ） were higher, as com- pared to the NG.Condusion Subjects of BWOG,BOG and WOG show reduced eardiorespiratory,BOG and WOG show lower upper arm muscular endurance and balance.The subjects of BOG show lower agility, BWOG and WOG show increased muscular strength and vital capacity while the subjects of BWOG have higher vital capacity ,upper ann muscular and back strength.