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

Anthropological evaluation of the influence of socio-economic factors on the development and physical fitness...related mostly with the somatic characteristics of olderboys (aged 11–15 years).The socioeconomic situation of a family influencesthe manner of spending leisure time, including theamount of time spent on physical activity. Charzewski[22] observed that the differences in the levels ofphysical activity in children resulted from belongingto a given social class, but occurred irrespectively ofthe degree of urbanization of the place of residence.Children from families belonging to higher socialclasses participated in additional sport activities,including sport clubs at school and other organizedforms of sport activities, more frequently than thosefrom lower social classes. Also, research of Blanksbyet al. [23], Brodersen et al. [24], and McVeigh et al.[25] confirmed this aforementioned relationship, while,in contrast, it has not been observed by Białokoz-Kalinowska et al. [26].Furthermore, the studies of physical fitness in childrenand adolescents representing groups with high,moderate, and low SES documented variability in theresults. Gołąb [27] analyzed children and adolescentsbetween 8 and 18 years of age living in Nowa Hutaand observed that the best results of standing broadjump and envelope agility run were obtained by boyswith high SES and girls with moderate SES. In mostage categories, the best levels of relative strengthwere documented in boys and girls characterized bymoderate socioeconomic conditions. In a study byMynarski et al. [28], conducted in the Upper Silesiaregion, significant differences between girls andwomen qualified to groups with moderate and highsocioeconomic status were documented only in thecase of Flamingo balance test and maximal oxygenuptake. In boys and men, significant socioeconomicstatus-related differences pertained to the results ofhandgrip, strength endurance, shuttle run, and balancedwalk tests. Based on the results of their studyof adolescents from Cracow, Mleczko and Ozimek [10]revealed that the groups of participants from familieswith poorer economic status showed higher levels ofmotor capacity (with the exception of some coordinationskills) in most age categories. Also, our studydocumented a similar tendency in categories of those10–11 and 17–18 years of age. Participants from thegroup with lower SES had better results of most motortests. This phenomenon may result from the fact thatcurrently children from families with higher socioeconomicstatus spend higher amounts of time learning,more frequently participate in extra-school classesand, thus, have less time for physical activity. Bothin 1998 and in 2007, a higher level of motor capacitywas documented in boys originating from families withhigh SES. This may be the result of earlier maturationof boys from parents with higher education levels, assuggested by the results of Wilczewski’s study [29],which was examined a rural setting.Conclusions1. Similar tendencies with regards to the influenceof socioeconomic variables on the somatic developmentand motor abilities of boys from theLubelszczyzna region were observed in 1998 andin 2007.2. High socioeconomic status of families from rural areascorrelated with high values of somatic developmentparameters in examined boys.3. Low level of social stratification was most commonlyassociated with higher values of analyzed motorabilities and flexibility.LITERATURE • PIŚMIENNICTWO[1] Bielicki T, Szklarska A: Secular trends in stature in Polandnational and social class specific. Ann Hum Biol, 1999; 3:251–258.[2] Bodzsár É: Socio-economic factors and body composition.Int J Anthropol, 1999; 1–2: 171–180.[3] Eiben O, Mascie-Taylor C: Children’s growth and socioeconomicstatus in Hungary. Econ Hum Biol, 2004; 2:295–320.[4] Sławińska T: Environmental factors in the developmentof motor skills of rural children [in Polish]. Wrocław, AWF,2000.[5] Lindgren G: Height, weight and menarche in Swedishschoolchildren in relation to socioeconomic factors. AnnHum Biol, 1976; 6: 501–528.[6] Brundtland G, Liestol K, Walloe L: Height, weight andmenarcheal age of Oslo schoolchildren during the last60 years. Ann Hum Biol, 1980; 7: 307–322.[7] Ignasiak Z, Sławińska T, Domaradzki J: The influence ofsocial-economical factors on the morphofunctional growthof children considering the urbanisation factor aspect.Gymnica, 2002; 32(2): 29–34.[8] Kozieł S, Szklarska A, Bielicki T, Malina R: Changes in the– 111 –