Tekst

Transkrypt

Tekst

HEALTH AND WELLNESS 1/2014
WELLNESS AND TEAM
CHAPTER VI
1
Department of Normal Anatomy, Wroclaw Medical University
Katedra i Zakład Anatomii Prawidłowej Uniwersytetu Medycznego
im. Piastów Śląskich we Wrocławiu
2
Department of Dental Anatomy, Wroclaw Medical University
Zakład Anatomii Stomatologicznej Uniwersytetu Medycznego
3
Department of Pathophysiology, Wroclaw Medical University
Katedra i Zakład Patofizjologii Uniwersytetu Medycznego
4
Nonpublic Medical College in Wrocław
Niepubliczna Wyższa Szkoła Medyczna we Wrocławiu
5
Public Medical Training College in Opole
Państwowa Medyczna Wyższa Szkoła Zawodowa w Opolu
6
Katedra Technologii Surowców Zwierzęcych i Zarządzania Jakością,
Uniwersytet Przyrodniczy we Wrocławiu
Department of Animal Products Technology and Quality Management,
Wroclaw University of Environmental and Life Sciences
MICHAŁ PORWOLIK1,4, KRYSTIAN PORWOLIK1,5,
ZYGMUNT DOMAGAŁA1, SŁAWOMIR WOŹNIAK1,
PAWEŁ DĄBROWSKI1, ALEKSANDRA KOTYLAK1,
WIESŁAW KURLEJ2, DARIUSZ KAŁKA3, MACIEJ OZIEMBŁOWSKI6,
MIROSŁAW TRZASKA1, KATARZYNA STASZAK2,
BOŻENA KURC-DARAK2, JACEK ZBOROWSKI2,
BOHDAN GWORYS1
Ontogenetic development of children and adolescents from
a care and educational centre in Bierutów – preliminary study
Zaawansowanie w ontogenezie dzieci wychowywanych
w placówce szkolno-wychowawczej w Bierutowie - badania wstępne
Key words: ontogenesis in childhood, anthropometric studies in children and adolescents
Słowa kluczowe: okres dziecięcy w ontogenezie, badania antropometryczne dzieci
Wellness and team
INTRODUCTION
Normal somatic development during childhood has an impact on the health of
adult humans. Therefore, periodic and check up examinations, as well as general
preventive health-promoting measures play an important role in the assessment of
ontogenesis [15]. For many centuries a temporal variability of standards for somatic
growth has been observed in children and adolescents, leading to anatomical changes in adult humans. This dynamic process affecting differences in human biological
traits between generations has been defined as a secular trend [26]. The first documented reports on human development and growth were published in 1753 by
Roederen J. G., and in 1778 by Georges-Louis Leclerc Comte de Buffon. In Poland,
the first reports related to this subject were published by F. Suligowski (1887) and
W. Kosmowski (1887) [after 17]. The greatest contribution to the development and
understanding of auxology in the post-war period was made by Wolański N., Malinowski A., Hulanicka B., and Jopkiewicz A. Human ontogenesis is determined by
genetic (intrinsic) and environmental (extrinsic) factors [29]. The manifestation of
genetic factors inherited from ancestors, i.e. phenotype, is strongly associated with
multiple environmental determinants. The strong influence of various factors on the
somatic traits was demonstrated by A. Malinowski [21], who analysed the values of
body height, recorded between 1886 and 1999. He indicated that in Poland, over 113
years, the later generations were over 16 cm taller than those born in earlier years.
The adverse effect on the body height of people living in earlier times is attributed to
the frequent national independence uprisings and wars that took place in the past
two centuries in Europe, which eliminated individuals with the best biological traits.
Other important factors included the ubiquitous hunger at that time, the intake of
monotonous food of low nutritional value, and the impoverishment of the society,
leading to a dramatic deterioration in socio-economic conditions. Recent years have
brought the elimination or reduction of negative factors, such as zoonoses, global
wars, improper diet, nicotine addiction and alcoholism, and an improvement in hygiene and living standards, accelerating many positive biological traits. Puberty is
observed at a younger age, life expectancy and professional activity are longer, and
body proportions have changed. At this moment it is difficult to unequivocally assess the potential impact of new risk factors, such as global warming, climate
change, environmental pollution, food additives, genetically modified food, a gradual decline in fertility, increase in the frequency of late motherhood, or the proclaimed end of the era of antibiotics and increased incidence of cancer. Many reports
analysing the correlation between biological traits and a number of factors influencing them have been published, but this problem continues to be valid. The authors of
this study carried out preventive and health-promoting measures in a group of children and adolescents from the care and educational centre in Bierutów, near
Wrocław. The aim of the study was to evaluate selected anthropometric parameters
in children and adolescents staying at the care and educational centre under specific
conditions, and in many cases coming from poor families with many children, and
facing difficult social and economic conditions. The influence of the mother, father
and other relatives was eliminated during the educational, care and growth process66
Michał Porwolik, Krystian Porwolik, Zygmunt Domagała, Sławomir Woźniak,
Paweł Dąbrowski, Aleksandra Kotylak, Wiesław Kurlej, Dariusz Kałka,
Maciej Oziembłowski, Mirosław Trzaska, Katarzyna Staszak,
Bożena Kurc-Darak, Jacek Zborowski, Bohdan Gworys
Ontogenetic development of children and adolescents from a care and educational
centre in Bierutów – preliminary study
es. This preliminary study is a starting point for further research, and in time will
become a reference for future research.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The preliminary anthropometric study was conducted in 27 children (13 girls and
14 boys) aged 8 to 18 years. Measurements were taken on 16.11.2013 at the care and
educational centre in Bierutów. For each child or adolescent we recorded: age, body
height (B-v) and body weight, trunk length (sst-sy), upper extremity length (BdaIII), lower extremity length (B-sy), biacromial diameter (a-a), bi-iliocristal diameter (ic-ic), chest diameter (tl-tl) and chest depth (xi-ts). We also measured the girth
of chest, abdomen and hips, and the thickness of biceps, and subscapular and abdominal skinfolds. Anthropometric measurements were taken according to the technique by Martin and Saller [22]. The statistical analysis of the measured parameters
was carried out using an Excel spreadsheet.
Each value of the analysed traits was compared to body growth standards for the
relevant age group of healthy children (centile chart). Obtained values were used to
calculate three indices describing body length, body width and body fatness. The
index of body length was the mean obtained for centiles of body height, trunk length
and lower extremity length. The index of body width was the mean of biacromial,
chest and bi-iliocristal diameters and chest depth. The mean calculated for chest
girth, body weight and the three skinfolds (biceps, subscapular and abdominal) was
the index of body fatness. Children were divided into three groups depending on the
value of individual indices:
1) children with somatic growth described by high centile values;
2) children with somatic growth described by diversified centile values;
3) children with somatic growth described by low centile values.
RESULTS
Centile values for individual somatic parameters analysed separately for boys
and girls, divided into three groups, are presented in tables 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. The
summary of mean centile values for each of the three analysed indices in boys and
girls, in the three groups, is presented in tables 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12. The distribution of analysed traits is presented in a diagrammatic format separately for each
studied boy and girl, in individual groups, in figures 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
67
Wellness and team
Table 1. Summary of somatic traits for the group of boys with high centile values
Age
12
12
10
14
15
Sex
M
M
M
M
M
no. of studied child
2
17
25
29
32
B-v
52
75
80
69
75
sst-sy
14
59
82
85
78
B-sy
67
72
69
50
60
a-a
17
51
40
18
48
tl-tl
77
77
93
29
78
xi-ts
23
98
98
60
51
ic-ic
6
39
87
61
27
Chest girth
37
98
85
75
60
Body weight
44
98
86
66
49
Biceps skinfold
50
98
96
33
20
Subscapular skinfold
5
98
92
50
35
Abdominal skinfold
9
98
98
60
49
Table 2. Summary of somatic traits for the group of boys
values
Age
14
16
Sex
M
M
12
18
B-v
5
25
sst-sy
30
37
B-sy
5
25
a-a
5
2
tl-tl
8
2
xi-ts
15
17
ic-ic
25
6
Chest girth
56
2
Body weight
28
38
Biceps skinfold
94
39
50
40
Abdominal skinfold
69
56
with diversified centile
17
M
31
75
59
72
51
77
98
39
98
98
98
98
98
Table 3. Summary of somatic traits for the group of boys with low centile values
Age
12
10
8
17
9
15
Sex
M
M
M
M
M
M
13
14
16
21
26
27
B-v
5
15
25
3
3
10
sst-sy
30
38
37
30
7
70
68
Age
Sex
B-sy
a-a
tl-tl
xi-ts
ic-ic
Chest girth
Body weight
Biceps skinfold
Abdominal skinfold
12
M
5
5
8
15
25
56
28
94
50
69
10
M
10
3
50
49
39
19
2
52
66
53
8
M
25
2
2
17
6
2
38
39
40
56
17
M
3
2
27
33
38
25
7
50
12
41
9
M
5
2
10
31
2
6
47
8
2
3
15
M
4
10
24
8
21
50
29
31
61
59
Table 4. Summary of somatic traits for the group of girls with high centile values
Age
10
14
18
16
14
15
Sex
F
F
F
F
F
F
5
8
10
11
19
22
B-v
45
62
21
57
50
48
sst-sy
82
69
43
36
25
83
B-sy
25
47
8
57
56
41
a-a
38
49
2
8
3
38
tl-tl
75
90
23
95
5
80
xi-ts
59
25
69
92
56
50
ic-ic
45
77
62
82
73
45
Chest girth
87
94
50
98
93
98
Body weight
38
82
25
80
40
54
Biceps skinfold
14
74
35
77
61
25
39
57
82
91
54
50
Abdominal skinfold
50
98
89
98
65
86
Table 5. Summary of somatic traits for the group of girls
values
Age
13
8
16
Sex
F
F
F
6
15
20
B-v
21
62
77
sst-sy
23
69
77
B-sy
35
47
50
a-a
5
49
13
with diversified centile
15
F
23
47
35
29
2
11
F
24
23
22
28
2
69
Wellness and team
Age
Sex
tl-tl
xi-ts
ic-ic
Chest girth
Body weight
Biceps skinfold
Abdominal skinfold
13
F
77
69
71
90
46
94
41
94
8
F
90
25
77
94
82
74
57
98
16
F
55
60
29
97
24
40
9
45
15
F
19
55
59
65
37
63
82
98
11
F
2
98
23
93
21
83
50
60
Table 6. Summary of somatic traits for the group of girls with low centile values
Age
10
14
Sex
F
F
3
7
B-v
21
14
sst-sy
79
30
B-sy
8
13
a-a
2
22
tl-tl
44
7
xi-ts
10
33
ic-ic
4
50
Chest girth
10
67
Body weight
6
8
Biceps skinfold
25
24
15
25
Abdominal skinfold
20
25
Table 7. Parameters of analysed indices for the group of boys with high centile values
Age
12
12
10
14
15
Sex
M
M
M
M
M
2
17
25
29
32
Index of body length
44.3 68.6 77
68
71
Index of body width
30.7 66.2 79.5 42
51
Index of body fatness
29
98 91.4 56.8 42.6
70
Table 8. Parameters of analysed indices for the group of boys with diversified centile values
Age
14
16
17
Sex
M
M
M
12
18
31
13.3 17.3 13.6
Index of body width
13.2 48 52.7
59.7 73 92.3
Table 9. Parameters of analysed indices for the group of
ues
Age
12
10
8
Sex
M
M
M
13
14
16
16
21
29
Index of body width
15.7 35.2 6.7
15.6 38.4 35
boys with low centile val17
M
21
12
25
27
9
M
26
5
11.2
13.2
Table 10. Parameters of analysed indices for the group of girls with
values
Age
10
14
18
16
14
Sex
F
F
F
F
F
5
6
10
11
19
50.6 59.3 24
50 43.6
Index of body width
54.2 60.2 39 69.2 34.2
45.6 81 56.2 88.8 62.6
15
M
27
28
15.7
46
high centile
15
F
22
57.3
53.2
62.6
Table 11. Parameters of analysed indices for the group of girls with diversified centile values
Age
13
8
16
15
11
Sex
F
F
F
F
F
6
15
20
23
24
26.3 30
68
37 24.3
Index of body width
55.5 35.5 39.2 33.7 31.2
73 54.4 43
69 61.4
71
Wellness and team
Table 12. Parameters of analysed indices for the group of girls with low centile
values
Age
Sex
Index of body width
10
F
3
36
15
15.2
14
F
7
19
28
29.8
100
90
80
70
Centile
60
50
40
30
20
No 2
10
No 17
No 25
No 29
No 32
0
1
2
Indices
3
Fig. 1. Distribution of analysed indices for the group of boys with high centile values
72
100
90
No 12
No 18
No 31
80
70
Centile
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1
2
3
Indices
Fig. 2. Distribution of analysed indices for the group of boys with diversified centile
values
100
90
80
No 13
70
No 14
No 16
No 21
No 26
No 27
Centile
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1
2
3
Indices
Fig. 3. Distribution of analysed indices for the group of boys with low centile values
73
Wellness and team
100
90
80
70
Centile
60
50
40
30
20
No 5
No 8
No 10
No 11
No 19
No 22
10
0
1
2
3
Indices
Fig. 4. Distribution of analysed indices for the group of girls with high centile values.
100
90
No 6
No 15
No 20
No 23
No 24
80
70
Centile
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1
2
3
Indices
Fig. 5. Distribution of analysed indices for the group of girls with diversified centile
values.
74
100
90
80
No 3
70
No 7
Centile
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1
2
3
Indices
.
Fig. 6. Distribution of analysed indices for the group of girls with low centile values
DISCUSSION
It is now believed that the growth of healthy children in early childhood, i.e.
from birth to age five years, whose basic biological needs are satisfied, are breastfed, and provided with proper health care and hygiene, is similar regardless of ethnic
or socio-economic differences [9 after 30]. This view relies on the results from longterm cross-sectional studies on somatic growth initiated by WHO and carried out on
all continents except for Australia. Since 2009 the use of centile charts recommended by WHO is also advised as a part of the standard approach to child growth assessment in Poland, because their comparison with Warsaw reference standards
shows minor or no differences, making them useful for the assessment of somatic
growth [25,14]. WHO data and analyses of numerous auxology reports indicated
that body height and weight are good biological parameters responding to socioeconomic inequalities experienced after the fifth year of age in older age groups.
These parameters are highly sensitive to changing environmental factors and are
able to react to the slightest differences in living conditions. Authors of numerous
studies pointed out the particularly strong influence of factors such as parents' educational level, number of children in the family, income level, birth order, place of
residence, or housing conditions [31,13,10,24,16,21,8,23]. Higher rate of body
growth is also associated with higher socio-economic status [3,11]. Some reports
75
Wellness and team
indicated the number of children in a family as the variable with the strongest modifying effect on body height in boys and girls aged 6 to 18 years [2,31,32,10,19,11].
There are also reports suggesting that parents' educational level is the strongest environmental factor determining growth [1,6,27,28]. As with body weight, and with
body height, some reports indicate the impact of the number of children per family
and parents’ educational level [31,13,7] or place of residence [23,8,16,20]. Other
reports emphasize the fact that this trait is less susceptible to socio-economic factors
than to genetic determinants [18,5], but it also correlates with lifestyle and physical
activity [4]. The results of a further series of studies will show how strong the correlations are between somatic traits in the analysed children and environmental and
genetic factors. A single study can only help to assess the child's somatic growth on
the day of examination and indicate abnormalities in a certain age group. The results
of these examinations will allow for predicting the growth rate of the analysed traits,
identify the developmental trend in each of the examined children and the risk of
growth abnormalities, and the efficiency of potential treatment. Findings from our
preliminary study confirm the observations made by other researchers [1,23,10,12,]
on the greater ecosensitivity of growth in boys, as well as on the correlation between
poorer somatic growth and the number of children in a family [10,1], with the best
growth parameters found in boys being the only child. The study demonstrated that
there was a higher number of boys with low body growth parameters when compared to girls. Moreover, growth should be monitored in the group of boys and girls
who had much higher values of the body fatness index when compared to the two
other indices.
CONCLUSIONS
1. Four children (two girls and two boys) were referred for further thorough medical examination due to the low values of the analysed traits.
2. The group of boys with low values of traits that require further monitoring is
more numerous than the group of girls.
3. Four girls and three boys had low values of body length and width, but at the
same time high values of body fatness.
REFERENCES
1. Asienkiewicz R.: Rozwój populacji dzieci Zielonej Góry w świetle wybranych
zmiennych społecznych. Prace Naukowe Akademii im Jana Długosza w Częstochowie, 2005, VI: 109-118.
2. Asienkiewicz R.: Stratyfikacja społeczna rodziców a poziom rozwoju fizycznego
i motorycznego ich dzieci. Słupskie prace biologiczne, 2005, 1: 11-18.
3. Bielecki T.: Nierówności społeczne w oczach antropologa. Nauka Polska, 1989,
1: 13-29.
76
4. Bogin B., Sullivan T.: Socioeconomic status, sex, age, and ethnicity as determinants of body fat distribution for Guatemalan children. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol.,
1986, 69: 527-535.
5. Bouchard C.: Genetic determinants of regional FAT distribution, Hum. Reprod.,
1997, 12: 1-5.
6. Charzewski J., Piechaczek H.: Differences in the somatic development of Warsaw children in relation to Barents social status. Phys. Educ. Sport, 2001, 45, 4:
433.
7. Chrzanowska M.: Biologiczne i społeczno-ekonomiczne determinanty rozwoju
podskórnej tkanki tłuszczowej u dzieci i młodzieży, AWF, Wydawnictwo
Monografie, Kraków, 1992, 49.
8. Cymek J. et al.: Stan rozwoju biologicznego dzieci wiejskich z Kociewa na tle
warunków społeczno-ekonomicznych. Prz. Nauk Kult. Fiz., 2003, 3-4: 274-290.
9. De Onis M. et al.: Standardy WHO rozwoju fizycznego dzieci w wieku 0-5 lat i
możliwości ich wykorzystania w Polsce. Medycyna Wieku Rozwojowego, 2010,
14, 2: 87-94
10. Dziewięcki Cz. et al.: Monitoring rozwoju biologicznego dzieci warszawskich,
in: Auksologia a promocja zdrowia, Jopkiewicz A., Ed. Wyd. Kieleckie Towarzysto Naukowe, Kielce, 2000, 2: 21.
11. Hulanicka B.: Stan biologiczny populacji Polskiej. Punkt widzenia antropologa.
In: Stan zdrowia Polaków eds. Zatoński W., Hulanicka B., Tyczyński J. Zakład
Antropologii PAN, Wrocław, 1996, 15: 43-65.
12. Jedlińska W.: Wpływ niektórych czynników środowiska społecznego na
wysokość ciała dzieci szkolnych w Polsce. Przegląd Antropologiczny, 1985, 51:
15-37.
13. Jobkiewicz A.: Różnice społeczne w wysokości i masie ciała dzieci i młodzieży
szkolnej na kielecczyźnie, In: Auksologia a promocja zdrowia, Jopkiewicz A.,
Publ. Kieleckie Towarzystwo Naukowe, Kielce, 2000, 2: 31-45.
14. Komitet Rozwoju Człowieka Polskiej Akademii Nauk, Komitet Antropologii
Polskiej Akademii Nauk, Zarząd Główny Polskiego Towarzystwa Antropologicznego, Instytut Matki i Dziecka oraz Instytut żywności i żywienia: Rekomendacje dotyczące wykorzystania w Polsce standardów WHO rozwoju
fizycznego dzieci 0 – 5 lat. Pediatria po Dyplomie, 2010, 15, 3: 81-82.
15. Krawczyński M.: Metody oceny rozwoju fizycznego wykorzystywane w praktyce poradnianej. Przew Lek, 2001, 4: 92-96.
77
Wellness and team
16. Król H.: Różnice środowiskowe w rozwoju cech somatycznych u chłopców i
dziewcząt w okresie dojrzewania, In: Nowak S. ed. Studia Medyczne Akademii
Świętokrzyskiej, Publ. Akademii Świętokrzyskiej, Kielce, 2004, 2: 263-270.
17. Kułaga Z. et al.: Siatki centylowe wysokości, masy ciała i wskaźnika masy ciała
dzieci i młodzieży w Polsce – wyniki badania OLAF standardy medyczne. Pediatria, 2010, 7: 690-700.
18. Malina R. et al.: Fatness and fat patterning among athletes at the Montreal
Olympic games, Med. Sci Sport Exerc., 1982, 14: 445-452.
19. Malinowski A. et al.: Rozwój biologiczny dzieci i młodzieży szkolnej Włocławka – standardy, warunki bytowe i uwarunkowania środowiskowe. Acta Univerisitatis Lodziensis, Folia Antropologica, 1993, 1.
20. Malinowski A.: Porównanie rozwoju fizycznego młodzieży wsi wielkopolskiej i
Poznania z 2000 r. in: Zagórski J. et al. eds. Uwarunkowania rozwoju dzieci i
młodzieży wiejskiej, Monografie JMW, Lublin, 2004, 13-19.
21. Malinowski A.: Wzrost niedostosowań społecznych młodzieży w kontekście
przemian międzypokoleniowych rozwoju biologicznego. Zeszyty Naukowe
Wyższej Szkoły Pedagogiki i Administracji w Poznaniu, 2006, 2: 42-46.
22. Martin R., Saller K.: Lerbuch der Anthropologii. G. Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart,
1968.
23. Nowak M.: Rozwój somatyczny chłopców i dziewcząt wiejskich w wieku 6 – 19
lat z województwa podkarpackiego na tle serii miejskiej. Publ. UR Przegląd
Medyczny Uniwersytetu Rzeszowskiego i Narodowego Instytutu Leków w Warszawie, Rzeszów, 2012, 3: 288-310.
24. Nowicki G.: Rozwój fizyczny dzieci i młodzieży w rodzinach wiejskich. Monografia, Publ. KPSW, Bydgoszcz, 2004.
25. Oblacińska A. et al.: Ocena rozwoju fizycznego dzieci i młodzieży. Część I niemowlęta i dzieci do 5 lat – normy krajowe czy standardy WHO? Medycyna
Wieku Rozwojowego, 2010, 14, 2: 95-10.
26. Radochańska A. et al.: Trend sekularny w rozwoju fizycznym dzieci z Rzeszowa
w wieku 7 – 14 lat. Prz. Med. Uniw. Rzesz., 2005, 2: 113-120.
27. Roślak M.: Oddziaływanie wybranych czynników środowiskowych na rozwój
fizyczny łodzian w wieku 7 – 19 lat, in: Auksologia a promocja zdrowia, Jopkiewicz A. Wydawnictwo Kieleckie Towarzystwo Naukowe, Kielce 2000, 2:
141.
28. Stolarczyk H.: Społeczne uwarunkowania rozwoju fizycznego dzieci i młodzieży
szkolnej Łodzi. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, 1995.
78
29. Towne B., et al.: The genetic epidemiology of growth and development. In:
Cameron N. Human Growth and development. San Diego, Academic Press,
2006, 115.
30. Woynarowska B. et al.: Standardy WHO Rozwoju fizycznego dzieci w wieku 05 lat. Siatki centylowe długości/wysokości i masy ciała, wskaźnika masy ciała
BMI i obwodu głowy. Medycyna Wieku Rozwojowego, 2012, XVI, 3: 232-239.
31. Zadarko-Domaradzka M. et al.: Wpływ czynników społeczno-ekonomicznych
na zmienność wysokości i masy ciała dzieci. Przegląd Medyczny Uniwersytetu
Rzeszowskiego, 2007, 1: 24-29.
32. Zaworski B.: Kształtowanie się wybranych cech somatycznych dzieci kaszubskich na tle wpływu warunków społeczno-ekonomicznych ich rodzin. Słupskie
prace biologiczne. 2005, 1: 191-206.
ABSTRACT
The study was conducted in 27 children (13 girls and 14 boys) aged 8 to 18
years. Measurements were taken on 16.11.2013 at the care and educational centre in
Bierutów. It was a preliminary study beginning a long-term periodic monitoring of
the development of children and adolescents. A number of data on somatic traits
were gathered and compared to centile charts. For each child or adolescent we calculated a mean centile for length, width and body fatness and presented them in a diagrammatic format. Based on the obtained data children of each sex were divided into
3 groups: with high, low and diversified centile values. The analysis showed alarmingly low values for the traits, which resulted in the immediate referral of two girls
and two boys for paediatric check up. The study demonstrated that there was a higher number of boys with low values of the analysed traits when compared to girls.
Children and adolescents characterised by low values of length and width, and relatively high body fatness will be carefully monitored during further studies.
STRESZCZENIE
Badania przeprowadzono u 27 dzieci, w tym 13 dziewcząt i 14 chłopców w wieku od 8 do 18 lat. Pomiary wykonano 16.11.2013. na terenie placówki szkolnowychowawczej w Bierutowie. Były to badania wstępne rozpoczynające wieloletnią
cykliczną kontrolę nad rozwojem badanych dzieci. Zebrano szereg cech somatycznych, które odniesiono do siatek centylowych. Dla każdego dziecka obliczono średni centyl dla cech długościowych, szerokościowych i otłuszczeniowych, oraz przedstawiono je graficznie. W oparciu o uzyskane dane dzieci podzielono w obrębie
każdej płci na 3 grupy: o wysokich wartościach centyli, niskich i wartościach zróżnicowanych. Przeprowadzona analiza wykazała niepokojąco niskie wartości cech co
skutkowało natychmiastowym skierowaniu dwóch dziewczynek i dwóch chłopców
79
Wellness and team
do kontroli pediatrycznej. Wykazano, że chłopcy charakteryzujący się niskimi wartościami badanych cech stanowią liczniejszą grupę w stosunku do dziewcząt. Dzieci
charakteryzujące się niskimi wartościami długościowych cech i szerokościowych
przy stosunkowo wysokich wartościach wskaźników otłuszczeniowych zostaną
poddane wnikliwej obserwacji podczas kolejnych badań.
Artykuł zawiera 23055 znaków ze spacjami + grafika
80

Tekst

Transkrypt

Podobne dokumenty

Zapisz do PDF - MissZmyslow.pl

body painting....cdr - Miejski Ośrodek Kultury w Radlinie

Tube Body Cream Caddis Larva

Forever Young? Forever Fit? Body in Consumer Culture