NR <strong>57</strong> <strong>2012</strong>ANTROPOMOTORYKAANTHROPOLOGICAL EVALUATIONOF THE INFLUENCE OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC FACTORSON THE DEVELOPMENT AND PHYSICAL FITNESSOF RURAL BOYS FROM LUBLIN REGIONANTROPOLOGICZNA OCENA WPŁYWU CZYNNIKÓWSOCJOEKONOMICZNYCH NA ROZWÓJ I SPRAWNOŚĆFIZYCZNĄ CHŁOPCÓW WIEJSKICH Z LUBELSZCZYZNYHelena Popławska*, Krystyna Buchta*, Agnieszka Dmitruk** PhD, Faculty of Physical Education and Sport in Biała Podlaska; Józef Piłsudski University of Physical Education inWarsaw, PolandKey words: boys, socio-economic conditions, body height, body mass, BMI, motorabilities, time changesSłowa kluczowe: chłopcy, warunki socjoekonomiczne, wysokość ciała, masa ciała, BMI,zdolności motoryczne, zmiany czasoweSUMMARY • STRESZCZENIEAim of the study. The aim of the work was to evaluate changes of the influence of family socio-economicfactors on the level of the somatic development and motor fitness of rural boys from Lublin region in the years1998–2007.Material and methods. The research included 547 boys in 1998 and 484 boys in 2007 in selected categoriesof boys aged 10–11, 14–15, and 17–18 years. Physical development of the subjects was evaluated on the basisof body height and mass measurements, which were then used to calculate BMI. Motor fitness was defined withthe use of Eurofit tests. Taking into consideration the level of education of parents and the number of childrenin families both in 1998 and in 2007, two groups were distinguished according to socio-economic stratification(SES), i.e., with a high and low SES status. The values of somatic parameters and the results of motor abilitiestests were normalized for the arithmetic mean and standard deviation in particular age categories.Results. In both 1998 and in 2007, higher normalized values of body height, mass, and BMI were noted insubjects belonging to the group with a high SES status. Only in 17–18-year-olds from 2007 were higher valuesof body height and mass observed in the group with a low SES status. As far as physical fitness was concernedin the categories of those aged 10–11 years and 17–18 years, higher normalized values of the majority of theanalyzed motor tests occurred in boys from families with a low SES status, both in the research from 1998 andfrom 2007. However, in the age group of 14–15-year-olds, in the majority of the analyzed motor tests highernormalized values were observed in boys from the group with a high SES status.Conclusions. No substantial changes in the influence of socio-economic variables on the somatic developmentand motor fitness of rural boys from Lublin region in the years 1998–2007 were observed.Cel pracy. Celem pracy była ocena zmian w oddziaływaniu czynników socjoekonomicznych rodziny na poziomrozwoju somatycznego i sprawności motorycznej chłopców wiejskich z Lubelszczyzny w latach 1998 – 2007.Materiał i metody. Badaniami objęto 547 chłopców w 1998 roku i 484 w 2007 roku w wybranych kategoriachwieku 10–11, 14–15 i 17–18 lat. Rozwój fizyczny badanych oceniono na podstawie pomiarów wysokości i masy– 103 –
Helena Popławska, Krystyna Buchta, Agnieszka Dmitriukciała, na podstawie których obliczono wskaźnik BMI. Sprawność motoryczną określono za pomocą prób wchodzącychw skład testu Eurofit. Biorąc pod uwagę wykształcenie rodziców i dzietność rodzin, zarówno w 1998 jaki w 2007 roku, wydzielono dwie grupy, tj. o wysokim i niskim SES. Wartości parametrów somatycznych i wynikiprób motorycznych znormalizowano na średnią arytmetyczną i odchylenie standardowe w poszczególnych kategoriachwieku.Wyniki. W 1998, jak i w 2007 roku wyższymi wartościami unormowanymi wysokości, masy ciała i BMI charakteryzowalisię badani zaliczeni do grupy o wysokim SES. Jedynie u 17–18-latków z 2007 roku wyższe wartościwysokości i masy ciała zaobserwowano w grupie o niskim SES. W przypadku sprawności fizycznej w kategoriachwieku 10–11 oraz 17–18 lat wyższe wartości unormowane większości analizowanych prób motorycznychwystąpiły u chłopców z rodzin o niskim SES, zarówno w badaniach z 1998, jak i z 2007 roku. Natomiast w grupiewieku 14–15 lat w większości analizowanych prób motorycznych wyższe wartości unormowane zaobserwowanou chłopców z grupy o wysokim SES.Wnioski. Nie zaobserwowano wyraźnych zmian w oddziaływaniu zmiennych socjoekonomicznych na rozwójsomatyczny i sprawność motoryczną chłopców wiejskich z Lubelszczyzny w latach 1998–2007.IntroductionSociety’s changing living standards stimulate the needfor multivariate analysis of physical and motor developmentin children, adolescents, and adults. Typically, socioeconomic,ecological, and cultural factors are listedamongst environmental determinants of development.In the case of anthropological studies, the size andcharacter of social environment, parental educationlevel and profession, as well as the number of childrenper family are usually taken into account [1, 2, 3]. All ofthese factors can be identified objectively; furthermore,the results of a study based on the aforementionedcriteria can be assessed in view of other findings. Insome cases, other elements of the living environment,e.g., the size of the farm, family type, the form of child’svacation, as well as the sport activities of children andtheir families, are also considered as determinants ofmotor development in children and adolescents [4].In most well-developed countries, no observed effectsof the environmental variables on the developmentand physical capacity of children and adolescentshave been noted in the past several years. Thus, theso-called “biological classlessness” is postulated to occurin such countries [5, 6]. In contrast, disparities in thedegree of somatic development and physical fitness ofchildren and adolescents originating from groups characterizedby various socioeconomic statuses can stillbe observed in Poland. Many authors have noted thata superior economic status along with a higher levelof parental education and a lower number of childrenper family are associated with higher average valuesof somatic parameters in the representatives of a givensocial class [7, 8, 9]. However, the results of recentlypublished studies examining large city environmentspoint to a lack of significant social variable-dependentdifferences in the developmental parameters [10, 11,12].The research presented in this paper pertainedto children and adolescents from rural areas of theLubelszczyzna region. This region, at the end of the20th century, was characterized by the low educationallevels of its inhabitants and a high number of childrenper family. Furthermore, social inequities were observedin terms of somatic development and physicalfitness of children and adolescents from Lubelszczyzna[13, 14].The principal objective of this study was to answerthe following question: was there any variation on theimpact of the socioeconomic factors on the degree ofsomatic development and motor capacity in children andadolescents from the rural areas of the Lubelszczyznaregion in the 1998–2007 time period?Material and methodsThis cross-sectional study was performed in 1998 and2007, and included 547 (1998) and 484 (2007) boysfrom selected age categories, i.e., boys aged 10–11,14–15, and 17–18 years, corresponding to various educationallevels (primary, grammar, and secondary). Theparticipants attended rural schools located in northwesternLubelskie province. In 1998, the investigatedschools were selected at random from a register listingall rural schools, kindly provided by the Department ofEducation in Biała Podlaska, and in proportion to the totalnumber of schools of a given type in the former BiałaPodlaska province. The schools in Janów Podlaski,Klonownica, Konstantynów, Leśna Podlaska, andRokitno were selected. In 2007, the study was repeatedin the same schools. The survey intended to examineall school children whose parents expressed their con– 104 –
- Page 2:
ISSN 1731-0652COMMITTEE FOR REHABIL
- Page 5 and 6:
ANTROPOMOTORYKAISSN 1731-0652KOMITE
- Page 7 and 8:
NR 57 ANTROPOMOTORYKA20
- Page 9 and 10:
From Editorsching stimulus had a po
- Page 12 and 13:
NR 57 ANTROPOMOTORYKA20
- Page 14 and 15:
NR 57 ANTROPOMOTORYKA20
- Page 16:
ORIGINAL PAPERSPRACE ORYGINALNE
- Page 19 and 20:
Kazimierz Mikołajec, Adam Maszczyk
- Page 21 and 22:
Kazimierz Mikołajec, Adam Maszczyk
- Page 23 and 24:
Kazimierz Mikołajec, Adam Maszczyk
- Page 25 and 26:
Kazimierz Mikołajec, Adam Maszczyk
- Page 28 and 29:
NR 57 2012ANTROPOMOTORY
- Page 30 and 31:
The impact of rapid weight loss on
- Page 32 and 33:
The impact of rapid weight loss on
- Page 34 and 35:
The impact of rapid weight loss on
- Page 36 and 37:
NR 57 2012ANTROPOMOTORY
- Page 38 and 39:
Body response of hurdle runners to
- Page 40 and 41:
Body response of hurdle runners to
- Page 42 and 43:
Body response of hurdle runners to
- Page 44:
Body response of hurdle runners to
- Page 47 and 48:
Ewa Dybińska, Marcin Kaca, Magdale
- Page 49 and 50:
Ewa Dybińska, Marcin Kaca, Magdale
- Page 51 and 52:
Ewa Dybińska, Marcin Kaca, Magdale
- Page 53 and 54: Ewa Dybińska, Marcin Kaca, Magdale
- Page 55 and 56: Ewa Dybińska, Marcin Kaca, Magdale
- Page 58 and 59: NR 57 2012ANTROPOMOTORY
- Page 60 and 61: Assessment of the effectiveness of
- Page 62 and 63: Assessment of the effectiveness of
- Page 64 and 65: NR 57 2012ANTROPOMOTORY
- Page 66 and 67: Walking as a tool of physical fitne
- Page 68 and 69: Walking as a tool of physical fitne
- Page 70 and 71: Walking as a tool of physical fitne
- Page 72 and 73: Walking as a tool of physical fitne
- Page 74 and 75: NR 57 2012ANTROPOMOTORY
- Page 76 and 77: Functional and dynamic asymmetry in
- Page 78 and 79: Functional and dynamic asymmetry in
- Page 80 and 81: Functional and dynamic asymmetry in
- Page 82: Functional and dynamic asymmetry in
- Page 85 and 86: Beata Wojtyczek, Małgorzata Pasła
- Page 87 and 88: Beata Wojtyczek, Małgorzata Pasła
- Page 89 and 90: Beata Wojtyczek, Małgorzata Pasła
- Page 91 and 92: Jerzy Januszewski, Edward MleczkoCe
- Page 93 and 94: Jerzy Januszewski, Edward MleczkoD.
- Page 95 and 96: Jerzy Januszewski, Edward MleczkoTa
- Page 97 and 98: Jerzy Januszewski, Edward MleczkoTa
- Page 99 and 100: Jerzy Januszewski, Edward MleczkoTa
- Page 101 and 102: Jerzy Januszewski, Edward Mleczkoof
- Page 106 and 107: Anthropological evaluation of the i
- Page 108 and 109: Anthropological evaluation of the i
- Page 110 and 111: Anthropological evaluation of the i
- Page 112 and 113: Anthropological evaluation of the i
- Page 114: REVIEW PAPERSPRACE PRZEGLĄDOWE
- Page 117 and 118: Emilia Mikołajewska, Dariusz Miko
- Page 119 and 120: Emilia Mikołajewska, Dariusz Miko
- Page 121 and 122: Emilia Mikołajewska, Dariusz Miko