Antropomotoryka nr 57 [2012]. - Akademia Wychowania Fizycznego ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Anthropological evaluation of the influence of socio-economic factors on the development and physical fitness...56normalised values545250484644body height body mass BMIhigh SES 1998 50,2 49,1 48,9low SES 1998 49,3 48,2 48,5high SES 2007 50,4 50,5 49,9low SES 2007 54,8 53,4 48,8Figure 3. Normalized values of somatic features of boys aged 17–18 (T scale)of socioeconomic variables were observed to influencethe development of motor abilities. Based on the resultsof regression analysis, trunk strength, explosive powerand agility proved most “sensitive” to the effects of socioeconomicsituation. The following relationship wasdocumented in all age categories analyzed in 2007: thesmaller the number of children per family, the worsethe results of trunk strength development. Additionally,paternal and maternal education had a considerableimpact on the development of trunk strength. In particular,in the case of the category of the 10–11-year-olds,higher levels of paternal education were associatedwith poorer results of the trunk strength test, while a reversecorrelation was observed with regards to maternaleducation. In total, the analyzed variables explainedbetween approximately 5% and 20% of the variabilityin the strength of the trunk. Socioeconomic status variablesexplained variability in the explosive leg power toa lesser extent (up to 4% at the most). Level of paternaleducation had a significant impact on this parameter,but the direction of this relationship was different dependingon the parent’s gender. Similar phenomenonwas also observed in the case of agility of participantsaged 17–18 years examined in 1998, in which casenormalised values605550454035* *30flexibilityexplosivepow ertrunk strengthagilityspeed of upp.limb movementhigh SES 1998 47,2 49,2 45,5 47,4 51,0low SES 1998 50,8 50,5 51,3 51,6 49,6high SES 2007 46,8 49,6 44,7 49,6 48,0low SES 2007 47,8 47,6 52,9 52,7 54,1Figure 4. Normalized values of the analyzed motor abilities and flexibility of boys aged 10–11 (T scale)– 107 –
Helena Popławska, Krystyna Buchta, Agnieszka Dmitriuk6560* *normalised values555045403530flexibilityexplosivepow ertrunk strengthagilityspeed of upp.limb movementhigh SES 1998 54,8 50,7 48,3 54,8 53,4low SES 1998 51,5 49,9 49,6 49,7 49,7high SES 2007 49,7 48,8 46,3 49,2 49,5low SES 2007 59,1 47,2 58,8 47,9 46,8Figure 5. Normalized values of the analyzed motor abilities and flexibility of boys aged 14–15 (T scale)the socioeconomic variables explained approximately9% of variability in the results of 10 x 5m shuttle run.The number of children per family was the only variablewhich significantly affected the speed of upperlimb movement; this association proved significant inthe category of 14–15-year-olds examined in 2007. Incontrast, no significant effects of environmental variableswere observed in the case of the results of theflexibility trials.Normalized arithmetic means of somatic indicesand motor tests (in T scale) in boys from extremesocioeconomic groups studied in 1998 and in 2007are presented in Figures 1–6. When the variability ofsomatic development was considered, higher normalizedvalues of body height, body weight, and BMI weredocumented in individuals with high SES belonging tocategories of boys aged 10–11 and 14–15 years. Thisaforementioned relationship was observed both in 1998normalised values65605550454035** **30flexibilityexplosivepow ertrunk strengthagilityspeed of upp.limb movementhigh SES 1998 47,1 48,0 47,9 46,7 50,4low SES 1998 51,7 50,5 49,0 50,9 49,1high SES 2007 47,9 46,7 46,5 54,5 50,7low SES 2007 54,5 59,5 60,6 52,2 52,0Figure 6. Normalized values of the analyzed motor abilities and flexibility of boys aged 17–18 (T scale)– 108 –
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:
Page 14 and 15:
Page 16:
ORIGINAL PAPERSPRACE ORYGINALNE
Page 19 and 20:
Kazimierz Mikołajec, Adam Maszczyk
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 28 and 29:
NR 57 2012ANTROPOMOTORY
Page 30 and 31:
The impact of rapid weight loss on
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
NR 57 2012ANTROPOMOTORY
Page 38 and 39:
Body response of hurdle runners to
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44:
Page 47 and 48:
Ewa Dybińska, Marcin Kaca, Magdale
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
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 66 and 67: Walking as a tool of physical fitne
Page 76 and 77: Functional and dynamic asymmetry in
Page 82: Functional and dynamic asymmetry in
Page 85 and 86: 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 101 and 102: Jerzy Januszewski, Edward Mleczkoof
Page 106 and 107: Anthropological evaluation of the i
Page 114: REVIEW PAPERSPRACE PRZEGLĄDOWE
Page 117 and 118: Emilia Mikołajewska, Dariusz Miko
show all

Antropomotoryka nr 57 [2012]. - Akademia Wychowania Fizycznego ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?