Physical and motor profile of children between 6 and 10 years old according to levels of cardiorespiratory fitness

Perfil físico e motor de crianças entre os 6 e os 10 anos de idade em função dos níveis de aptidão cardiorrespiratória

Abstracts

Abstract

This study aimed to compare the physical profile and motor profile of children from 6 to 10 years old, according to their level of cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF). Participated 2036 children from 6 to 10 years old from São José dos Pinhais - PR. Assessed variables were stature, corporal mass, Body mass index (BMI), physical fitness (PF), and gross motor coordination (GMC). The CRF was assessed by the total distance during the 6 minutes walking test. A battery of tests KTK evaluated the GCM. The children were classified according to their levels of CRF (low-moderate-elevated). Differences between groups were tested using ANOVA one way. Data analysis was made in the SPSS software, with a meaningfulness of 5%. Children with low levels of CRF showed higher values of adiposity. On the PF tests, children with low levels of CRF showed higher values of prehension and worse performance in the other tests. Regarding GMC, children with low levels of CRF had lower coordinative performance. Meaningful differences were found in the comparisons between different groups (low-moderate, low-elevated) with an advantage in the results in moderate levels of CRF. Obtaining average levels of CRF can bring protective benefits in other variables in children's growth process and development during infancy. Evaluating the CRF doesn't only get a momentary evaluation. Still, it can also do the monitoring of an essential variable of health, as well as indicate a predisposition about other physical-motor variables.

Key words:
Cardiorespiratory fitness; Physical fitness; Motor coordination

Resumo

Comparar o perfil físico e motor de crianças dos 6 aos 10 anos, conforme os seus níveis de aptidão cardiorrespiratória (AptC). Participaram do estudo 2036 crianças de seis a 10 anos de idade de São José dos Pinhais-PR. Foram avaliados estatura, massa corporal, índice de massa corporal (IMC), aptidão física (AptF) e coordenação motora (CMG). A AptC foi avaliada pela distância total percorrida no teste de seis minutos. A CMG foi avaliada por meio da bateria de testes KTK. As crianças foram classificadas em função dos níveis de AptC (baixo-moderado-elevado). Diferenças entre grupos foram testadas utilizando da ANOVA one way. As análises dos dados foram realizadas no software SPSS, com nível de significância em 5%. Crianças com menor nível de AptC apresentam maiores valores médios adiposidade. Nos testes de AptF, crianças com níveis baixos de AptC apresentaram maiores valores de preensão e pior desempenho nos demais testes. Relativamente à CMG, crianças com baixos níveis de AptC apresentaram piores desempenho coordenativo. Diferenças significativas foram encontradas para as comparações entre os outros grupos (baixo-moderado; baixo-elevado) com vantagem nos resultados nos níveis moderados a elevados de AptC. Obter níveis moderados de AptC pode trazer benefícios protetores em diferentes variáveis do processo de crescimento e desenvolvimento de crianças durante a segunda infância. Avaliar a AptC não traz somente uma avaliação momentânea, como pode ser feito o monitoramento de uma importante variável de saúde bem como indicar uma predisposição sobre outras variáveis físico-motoras.

Palavras-chave:
Aptidão cardiorrespiratória; Aptidão física; Coordenação motora

INTRODUCTION

The physical fitness (PF) refers to a group of physical-motor characteristics that are related to the capacity of a person accomplishing a physical activity, being cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) one of the main components¹,². The CRF is the capacity of accomplishing dynamic exercise of moderate to vigorous intensity, with large muscular groups, for long periods. The CRF an important health marker in the pediatric context³,⁴.

The infancy period is characterized by expressive changes due to essential alterations in bodily structures and physical conditioning⁵,⁶. The levels of CRF are crucial mediators in a healthy lifestyle since infancy. Children and teenagers with high levels of cardiorespiratory markers tend to be more protected from risk factors of cardiovascular diseases (obesity, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and insulin resistance)¹,³,⁷,⁸. Prospective studies showed that high values of CRF in children and teenagers are associated with a healthier cardiovascular state in adulthood³.

Among the factors associated with levels of CRF in children in their school phase are biological and behavioral factors, which stand out factors like genetics¹, gender, age⁹, and weight status¹⁰. Studies report the difference between genders, suggesting that boys are fitter in PF tests than girls⁹.

Concerning weight, studies point out that in CRF tests, children with adequate weight obtain meaningly better punctuation than their pairs with overweight or obesity¹,⁹,¹¹. Other measures related to adiposity, including larger waist circumference and body fat percentual, are negatively correlated to CRF⁹,¹².

Stodden et al.¹³ suggest a model framework that illustrates synergistic and reciprocal relations between physical activity, PF, and motor coordination, among other factors. In the last decades, articles leaned over the comprehension of these associations and corroborated this proposal¹⁴-¹⁷, evidencing that CRF is positively associated with motor competence during infancy. And this can have an important impact on positive engagement in children's health posteriorly.

A significant part of the available information about the growth and development of children in second infancy analyses these interrelations in isolation. The assessment of the physical and motor profile of children in different subgroups of CRF can enhance the comprehension about deleterious or potential benefit relations of satisfactory levels of CRF during second infancy. Besides that, results would assist professionals to intervene in the school context, as well as those seeking to obtain more information about CRF evaluation.

METHOD

This is a school-based cross-sectional study that uses partial data of project called “Growth, Development, Physical Education and Health: A Study with the Scholars of São José dos Pinhais PR”. This project was held as part of the “Active City, Healthy City Program of the secretary of Sports and Leisure of São José dos Pinhais, implemented by the Research Group of Environment, Physical Activity and Health of Universidade Tecnológica Federal do Paraná (UTFPR). Informed consent was obtained from parents or legal guardians and the participants themselves before the beginning of assessments (Ethical board registration number 3.365.489).

Participation selection was held using as a primary unit of sampling the schools. Twenty out of 50 schools were selected using as criteria the proximity to Center of Sports and Leisure (NEL). The NEL's are facilities administered by the Municipal Secretary of Sports and Leisure with structures for physical activities. In rural areas, were selected 5 out of 7 schools. Each selected school, a class of each year (1st - 5th grade) was invited to participate, totaling five classes per school.

The sample was 2036 children (1046 girls, 990 boys) between 6 and 10 years old. The losses occurred by the non-acceptance or non-devolution of the signed informed consent. The exclusions were carried out by non-participation in one or more tests. Assessments were performed between April and August of 2019 by a group of trained researchers constituted by academics and professionals of physical education members of the Research Group of Environment, Physical Activity and Health of UTFPR.

Anthropometry

Were evaluated the anthropometric variables of stature (cm), corporal mass (kg), and waist circumference (cm). The BMI was calculated from the equation BMI=weight(kg)/height(m²)). All the measurements were made following the protocols of the International Society for the Advancement of Kinanthropometry¹⁸.

Physical fitness

The children performed a set of tests from the AAHPER Youth Fitness Test battery¹⁹, adapted following orientations from PROESP-BR to evaluate the PF. PF assessed variables were: speed evaluated by 20 meters run (R20m); horizontal jump evaluated by standing long jump test (SLJ); hand grip strength (HG) assessed with a dynamometer on favorite hand; agility evaluated by shuttle-run test of 9 meters course (SHR). These tests were used to assess the levels of PF in pediatric populations.

The CRF was evaluated using 6 minutes walking test on a course marked at every 3 meters without obstacles, children were oriented to walk or run in their rhythm for 6 minutes and recorded the distance traveled during the 6 minutes. For data treatment, the absolute values were adjusted by each age and gender, and results were grouped in tertials (low <33; moderate 33 to <66; elevated≥66).

Motor coordination

Gross motor coordination (GMC) was assessed by the Köperkoordinationtest für Kinder (KTK) battery. The KTK has four tests: walking backwards on balance beams (WB); hopping for height on one leg (HH); jumping sideways (JS) and moving sideways (MS). The present study obtained the non-weighted sum of scores of the four tests as one global measurement of GMC, according to Schilling²⁰.

For data analysis exploratory statistics were performed to verify entrance’s mistakes and the occurrence of outliers, as well as test the normality of the data. Descriptive statistic was used to characterize the sample, and the test for independent samples was used to compare variables between genders. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to accomplish variables between the groups of CRF, according to gender and age. Bonferrroni Post Hoc was used to test differences between groups. Charts of score-z were used to point the physical and motor profile of subgroups of CRF subdivided in gender and adjusted for age. All analyses were accomplished in SPSS software, and the level of meaningfulness was assumed to be 5%.

RESULTS

The statistics of physical and motor profiles are presented in Table 1. In general, with the advance of age, both girls and boys increase mean-values of stature measurements, corporal mass, BMI, waist circumference, and variables referring to PF and GMC. The result presents meaningful differences between genders for the tests of PF, where boys present a better performance in all tests of PF, including CRF, along all second infancy. In motor coordination tests, all girls showed better values only in WB test between six and eight years old. In general, boys obtained higher values in tests of HH, JS, MS, and the total sum.

Table 1
Descriptive measurements in function of age and gender.

		6 years		7 years		8 years		9 years		10 years
		Mean ± SD	Min / Max	Mean ± SD	Min / Max	Mean ± SD	Min / Max	Mean ± SD	Min / Max	Mean ± SD	Min / Max
Stature (cm)	♀	118.9±4.9	103.0/137.4	125.5±5.6	109.0/146.0	130.4±6.1	111.8/146.1	136.4±5.8	122.2/151.1	142.8±6.5	127.3/159.4
	♂	120.2±5.3	107.0/134.0	126.2±6.1	108.2/143.3	132.0±6.03	115.0/151.0	136.6±5.9	121.3/151.0	141.7±6.7	121.6/163.5
Weight (kg)	♀	23.2±4.6	15.3/41.1	26.6±5.5	15.5/44.9	29.2±6.1	17.3/49.4	34.3±7.7	22/61.1	40.2±11.0	23.9/87.7
	♂	24.0±4.1	16.5/38.4	26.5±4.9	17.7/41.5	31.5±8.0*	15.0/64.9	34.6±7.8	22.5/70.7	39.0±11.2	22.8/98.9
BMI (kg/m2)	♀	16.4±2.5	11.8/25.7	16.9±2.7	10.5/27.1	17.0±2.7	11.8/28.5	18.2±3.3	13.8/30.8	19.5±4.2	14.2/35.6
	♂	16.5±2.0	12.6/24.4	16.7±2.2	13.1/25.5	17.9±3.6*	10.5/31.7	18.3±3.3	13.0/35.4	19.1±4.0	12.5/37.0
WC (cm)	♀	54.1±5.5	45.5/74.0	56.5±6.4	45.9/77.0	57.2±5.9	46.8/80.0	60.1±7.9	48.1/89.1	63.5±8.9	49.4/96.9
	♂	55.7±5.4 *	41.9/79.0	57.6±6.3	48.1/90.1	60.8±8.5*	49.9/99.1	62.3±8.2*	33.5/94.3	64.7±9.7	50.0/102.0
HG (kg/F)	♀	9.0±1.9	3.9/14.8	11.0±2.6	5.8/20.8	12.5±2.9	5.7/20.0	14.3±3.3	7.0/26.0	16.7±3.4	9.9/27.5
	♂	9.7±1.9*	5.0/14.6	11.8±2.6*	5.0/20.5	13.4±2.8*	7.1/22.8	15.7±3.4*	7.1/23.8	17.8±3.8*	9.5/28.8
SLJ (cm)	♀	83.4±17.9	37.9/144.1	91.0±18.9	52.0/138.2	100.6±18.9	45.7/167.0	103.9±21.2	56.8/165.0	109.1±19.3	58.5/160.0
	♂	93.0±22.2*	26.8/150.0	101.0±18.4*	48.6/160.0	109.5±20.7*	42.0/177.5	117.1±23*	60.9/175.0	122.7±25.2*	45.0/178.0
SHR (sec)	♀	16.2±1.6	12.2/20.1	15.1±1.5	11.7/19.2	14.6±1.4	10.8/19.7	14.3±1.3	11.2/18.3	13.7±1.3	10.7/20.8
	♂	15.6±1.6*	11.6/20.3	14.6±1.6*	9.7/20.7	14.2±1.5*	10.2/18.7	13.6±1.5*	10.7/18.5	13.3±1.5*	10.1/19.9
R20m (sec)	♀	5.4±0.7	3.9/8.7	5.0±0.5	3.3/6.9	4.8±0.5	3.5/6.4	4.7±0.4	3.6/6.5	4.6±0.5	3.3/6.7
	♂	5.1±0.6*	3.7/7.4	4.8±0.5*	3.7/6.3	4.7±0.5*	3.3/6.4	4.8±0.5*	3.3/6.7	4.3±0.5*	3.1/6.6
R6min (m)	♀	708.2±100.5	450.0/983.6	730.8±11.2	411.6/1034.0	747.5±101.1	439.5/1070.8	752.7±114.5	402.9/1056.6	780.9±116.1	390.0/1060.2
	♂	757.4±107.3*	450.0/1084.0	777.4±120.9*	440.0/1151.0	784.1±132.6*	415.1/1090.4	830.1±129.6*	477.1/1173.0	839.2±147.2*	367.9/1203.9
WB (points)	♀	24.0±12.5*	1/61	30.2±13.9*	3/72	34.5±14.0*	5/69	37.6±14.2	7/72	40.5±14.6	3/72
	♂	20.1±12.5*	1/54	26.6±13.1	1/60	30.6±15.0*	2/72	36.8±15.0	3/72	39.6±16.0	7/72
HH (points)	♀	22.1±10.5	3/51	28.6±12.8	5/66	33.6±12.6	6/67	38.0±14.1	3/75	43.5±15.2	4/72
	♂	24.8±11.9*	4/63	31.1±12.1*	3/60	35.5±16.1	4/78	44.3±15.3*	7/78	50.6±15.6*	7/78
JS (points)	♀	31.1±9.5	9.67	38.2±10.0	19/69	42.9±11.4	18/81	46.9±12.6	16/84	52.1±10.8	7/75
	♂	33.6±9.2*	14/59	37.7±9.9	13/65	42.5±12.2	15/72	49.6±13.8*	14/86	52±13.3	12/85
MS (points)	♀	28.7±5.7	11/47	30.9±5.4	15/48	32.9±6.8	11/62	34.6±7.0	17/58	36.4±6.7	16/54
	♂	28.8±5.9	9/46	31.3±6.2	11/52	32.9±6.7	12/52	36.1±7.7*	14/69	38.1±7.5*	14/59
GMC (points)	♀	105.2±28.1	46/189	127.4±31.6	51/207	142.2±35.9	11/226	156.8±37.0	63/239	170.5±39.7	25/239
	♂	106.9±28.9	37/169	126.7±31.2	49/198	140.4±40.7	8/242	166.6±40.8*	51/260	178.5±43.7	29/257

• ^*
  Meaningful difference between genders (p<0.05); SD: standard deviation; Min: minimum; Max: maximum; ♀ girls; ♂ boys; BMI: body mass index; WC: waist circumference; HG: hand grip strengh; SLJ: long jump; SHR: shuttle-run; R20m: 20 meters run; R6min: run of 6 minutes; WB: walking backwards; HH: hoping for height; JS: jumping sideways; MS: moving sideways; GMC: gross motor coordination.

Table 2 presents the characteristics of girls and boys from 6 to 10 years old according to different levels of CRF. It is possible to observe that children with an elevated level of CRF were smaller, with significant differences for the stature of boys between 6, 8, and 10 years old. It is noted that boys and girls classified with low levels of CRF presented higher values for weight, BMI, and waist circumference. Comparisons regarding levels of CRF show meaningful differences, mainly between low-moderate and low-elevated groups (p<0.05).

Table 2
Comparisons of differences on anthropometrical variables by age between groups of CRF.

Sex		6 years			7 years			8 years
		Low	Moderate	Elevated	Low	Moderate	Elevated	Low	Moderate	Elevated
		Mean ± SD	Mean ± SD	Mean ± SD	Mean ± SD	Mean ± SD	Mean ± SD	Mean ± SD	Mean ± SD	Mean ± SD
Stature (cm)	♀	119.6±5.3	119.2±4.4	118.9±4.9	126.4±5.6	125.3±5.2	124.6±5.9	131.3±6.0	129.4±5.5	130.6±6.7
	♂	121.7±5.5c	119.8±5.6	119.2±4.4	127.7±5.7c	126.3±6.4	124.6±6.0	134.0±6.5bc	130.8±5.7	131.2±5.2
Weight (kg)	♀	24.9±5.9bc	22.87±3.48	22.0±3.3	28.8±6.5bc	26.4±4.9	24.7±4.2	31.4±6.8bc	28.3±5.6	27.9±5.2
	♂	25.1±4.3c	24.13±4.26	22.8±3.4	28.5±5.4c	26.8±5.1c	24.5±3.2	36.9±9.8bc	29.4±5.9	28.6±5.1
BMI (kg/m2)	♀	17.4±3.3bc	16.0±2.0	15.7±1.7	18.3±3.2bc	16.7±2.4	15.9±2.0	18.0±3.1bc	16.8±2.5	16.2±2.0
	♂	17.0±2.3c	16.6±1.9	16.0±1.6	17.6±2.6c	16.8±2.1c	15.7±1.2	20.4±4.3bc	17.0±2.4	16.5±2.4
WC (cm)	♀	56.3±7.2bc	53.5±4.6	52.4±3.2	59.3±7.0bc	55.7±5.6	54.5±5.4	59.5±6.9bc	56.3±5.4	55.8±4.5
	♂	57.6±6.4c	55.4±4.9	54.2±4.0	59.6±7.3c	58.6±6.9c	54.6±2.9	66.8±10.6bc	58.5±5.3	57.1±4.9

Table 2
[continued]

Sex		9 years			10 years
		Low	Moderate	Elevated	Low	Moderate	Elevated
		Mean ± SD	Mean ± SD	Mean ± SD	Mean ± SD	Mean ± SD	Mean ± SD
Stature (cm)	♀	136.9±6.1	135.7±5.7	136.6±5.7	143.9±6.8	143.0±6.1	141.6±6.6
	♂	136.9±6.0	136.9±5.9	136.0±5.6	144.3±7.7bc	140.4±6.4	140.6±5.0
Weight (kg)	♀	38.2±8.6bc	33.2±7.6	31.6±5.0	45.7±13.5bc	39.2±9.1	35.8±7.3
	♂	37.9±9.4bc	34.4±7.0	31.7±5.2	45.3±14.9bc	38.2±7.8	33.6±5.4
BMI (kg/m2)	♀	20.2±3.9bc	17.6±2.6	16.8±2.0	21.8±5.2bc	19.0±3.5	17.7±2.4
	♂	19.8±4.0bc	18.2±3.0ac	17.0±1.9	21.3±5.2bc	19.2±3.1ac	16.9±2.0
WC (cm)	♀	64.3±9.4bc	58.9±7.0	57.2±4.8	68.4±10.7bc	62.4±7.8	59.9±5.4
	♂	66.2±9.3bc	61.8±8.1	59.1±5.1	69.6±12.2bc	64.7±8.1ac	59.8±4.7

• SD: standard deviation; ♀ girls; ♂ boys; BMI: body mass index; WC: waist circumference; a: p<0.05 for low level of CRF; b: p<0.05 for moderate level of CRF (p<0.05); c: p<0.05 for elevated level of CRF.

Table 3 compares the motor coordination profile of girls and boys from 6 to 10 years old according to the different levels of CRF. Children with elevated levels of CRF, above all moderate and elevated, present lower prehension values, higher distance in SLJ, and better performance in SHR and R20m tests.

Table 3
Comparisons of differences on physical-motor variables by age between groups of CRF.

	Sex	6 years			7 years			8 years
		Low	Moderate	Elevated	Low	Moderate	Elevated	Low	Moderate	Elevated
		Mean ± SD	Mean ± SD	Mean ± SD	Mean ± SD	Mean ± SD	Mean ± SD	Mean ± SD	Mean ± SD	Mean ± SD
HG (kg/F)	♀	9.1±1.8	9.2±1.9	8.8±2.0	11.3±2.8	11.1±2.7	10.7±2.3	12.3±3.1	12.5±2.7	12.5±2.7
	♂	9.6±1.9	9.9±2.2	9.7±1.5	12.2±2.9	11.6±2.5	11.5±2.3	13.7±3.0	12.9±3.0	13.7±2.6
SLJ (cm)	♀	78.1±16.2c	84.9±17.7	87.5±18.7	82.4±16.0bc	94.8±17.6	95.5±20.0	92.5±14.4bc	103.1±17.8	105.8±21.3
	♂	84.0±21.0bc	97.6±20.8	97.3±22.4	98.7±20.8	98.9±18.2	105.3±15.6	101.1±19.5bc	112.2±16.6	114.9±23.2
SHR (sec.)	♀	16.6±1.5b	15.9±1.7	16.0±1.6	15.5±1.7	15.1±1.4	14.9±1.4	15.2±1.2bc	14.3±1.4	14.2±1.4
	♂	16.4±1.6bc	15.4±1.7	15.1±1.3	15.2±2.0c	14.5±1.4	14.2±1.3	14.6±1.5c	14.1±1.5	13.8±1.3
R20m (sec.)	♀	5.6±0.8bc	5.2±0.7	5.3±0.5	5.1±0.5c	4.9±0.6	4.9±0.4	5.0±0.5bc	4.8±0.4	4.7±0.4
	♂	5.3±0.6bc	5.0±0.5	4.9±0.5	4.9±0.4c	4.8±0.4c	4.6±0.4	5.0±0.5bc	4.7±0.4	4.5±0.4
WB (points)	♀	20.7±12.5c	23.8±12.4	27.5±12.0	27.2±14.7c	29.3±13.4	33.9±12.9	30.0±13.6c	34.5±12.4	38.9±14.6
	♂	15.3±11.1c	20.2±13.1	24.7±11.7	23.0±13.1c	26.1±13.2	30.4±12.2	22.6±11.8bc	31.0±12.6ac	37.7±16.2
HH (points)	♀	19.7±9.3	22.8±10.0	23.8±11.7	25.2±11.6c	26.5±12.1c	33.9±12.9	27.2±10.2bc	34.9±13.5	38.2±11.29
	♂	17.7±11.4bc	25.6±10.8ac	30.8±10.0	26.4±12.5bc	32.4±10.8	34.3±11.6	27.6±13.3bc	35.8±16.3ac	42.6±15.0
JS (points)	♀	29.1±9.9c	31.2±7.6	33.0±10.3	35.7±9.1c	37.7±9.9	41.0±10.4	37.8±10.2bc	44.5±10.5	46.1±11.8
	♂	28.5±8.5bc	35.9±8.7	36.2±8.3	34.2±9.0c	37.5±9.4	41.4±10.1	37.6±10.9c	42.2±12.2c	47.4±11.5
MS (points)	♀	27.4±4.5c	28.8±5.7	29.8±6.4	30.0±4.9c	30.9±5.9	31.8±5.1	30.3±6.7bc	33.4±7.2	34.9±5.5
	♂	26.6±6.2c	28.2±5.3c	31.5±5.2	29.8±5.6	30.9±6.2	33.3±6.3	30.3±6.6bc	33.2±6.7	35.0±6.2
GMC (points)	♀	96.3±25.6c	106.1±26.2	113.5±29.9	116.6±31.5c	124.6±30.7c	140.7±28.2ab	122.0±34.2bc	147.6±30.0	156.6±34.4
	♂	87.3±28.2bc	109.8±24.9ac	123.4±20.9	113.6±31.6bc	126.5±29.7ac	139.5±27.1	116.4±35.7bc	140.6±36.7ac	162.8±36.2

Table 3
[continued]

	Sex	9 years			10 years
		Low	Moderate	Elevated	Low	Moderate	Elevated
		Mean ± SD	Mean ± SD	Mean ± SD	Mean ± SD	Mean ± SD	Mean ± SD
HG (kg/F)	♀	14.5±3.6	13.6±2.8	14.9±3.5	17.2±3.2	16.6±3.8	16.1±3.0
	♂	15.7±3.4	16.0±3.4	15.6±3.3	17.3±3.8	17.5±3.7	18.4±3.9
SLJ (cm)	♀	96.3±18.4c	103.6±20.9	111.3±21.6	104.4±19.8c	108.3±17.7	114.4±19.2
	♂	108.8±22.3bc	117.8±22.5	124.4±21.8	115.4±28.6c	121.1±21.3	131.4±23.0
SHR (sec.)	♀	14.9±1.4bc	14.3±1.2ac	13.7±1.1	14.0±1.6	13.5±1.0	13.6±1.3
	♂	14.3±1.6bc	13.4±1.2	13.1±1.4	13.9±1.7bc	13.2±1.4	12.7±1.0
R20m (sec.)	♀	4.9±0.5bc	4.7±0.3ac	4.5±0.3	4.8±0.7	4.5±0.4	4.5±0.4
	♂	4.7±0.6bc	4.5±0.5	4.4±0.4	4.6±0.6bc	4.3±0.5	4.0±0.4
WB (points)	♀	33.4±12.9c	37.0±15.3ac	42.1±12.9	36.5±15.1c	39.1±13.1c	45.7±14.3
	♂	30.7±13.0bc	36.2±14.4ac	43.3±14.9	32.9±15.8c	39.4±15.0	46.3±14.5
HH (points)	♀	29.2±12.2bc	39.5±12.9ac	44.9±12.5	35.9±14.6bc	44.4±13.5	49.4±14.7
	♂	36.4±13.3ab	44.5±15.5ac	51.6±12.2	42.0±16.5bc	49.1±14.8ac	59.9±9.6
JS (points)	♀	41.7±12.3bc	47.8±12.2	50.9±11.7	49.1±12.9c	53.0±10.0	54.0±9.0
	♂	44.1±14.0ab	49.2±12.3ac	55.3±12.9	47.4±14.3c	51.4±11.7	57.2±12.1
MS (points)	♀	32.2±7.0c	34.0±6.3c	37.5±6.6	34.8±7.0c	35.5±5.6c	38.9±6.9
	♂	33.0±6.9c	35.8±7.6c	39.4±4.4	33.5±7.5bc	38.7±6.9ac	42.2±5.6
GMC (points)	♀	135.8±34.5bc	158.4±35.2ac	175.5±30.3	150.1±47.3bc	172.1±28.9	188.2±31.4
	♂	143.5±36.4bc	165.7±38.3ac	189.8±34.1	151.3±47.2bc	178.8±36.4ac	204.8±28.2

• SD: standard deviation; ♀ girls; ♂ boys; HG: hand grip strength; SLJ: long jump; SHR: shuttle-run; R20m: run of 20 meters; WB: walking backwards; HH: hoping for height; JS: jumping sideways; MS: moving sideways; GMC: Gross motor coordination; a: p<0.05 for low level of CRF; b: p<0.05 for moderate level of CRF (p<0.05); c: p<0.05 for elevated level of CRF.

Regarding to GMC, children with highest levels of CRF presented a better performance in tests of WB, JS, MS, as well as in the total sum of global GMC. Meaningful differences also were found in comparisons between other groups, always with an advantage for the motor performance of children with moderate levels of CRF. The Figure 1 presents Z-score of data of physical-motor variables rate between groups of CRF.

Figure 1
Z-score of data of physical-motor variables rate between groups of CRF.◄: elevated level of CRF; ●: moderate level of CRF; ◆: low kever of CRF; BMI: body mass index; WC: waist circumference; HG: hand grip strenght; SLJ: long jump; SHR: shuttle-run; R20m: 20 meters run; R6min: 6 minutes run; WB: walking backwards; HH: hoping for height; JS: jumping sideways; MS: moving sideways; GMC: gross motor coordination.

DISCUSSION

The goal of this study was to describe and compare the physical and motor profile of children from 6 to 10 years old, according to their level of CRF. Over all, girls and boys increase mean values of stature, corporal mass, BMI, and waist circumference, as well as variables referring to PF and GMC over the years. These changes are expected, and well consolidated in literature⁵.

Boys usually shows small advantages in their mean values for physical-motor variables, in each matter of age, relative to girls. The girls had advantages only in mean values of WB. These data corroborate the evidence of literature⁵,²¹-²³. The gender dimorphism in anthropometric variables and physical motor can be explained by the differences in corporal size, in development of muscular mass, and behavioral aspects related to the opportunity of the practice of physical activity⁵,²⁴.

Concerning to the groups of CRF and comparison of anthropometrical variables, children with a low level of CRF present higher values for weight, BMI, and waist circumference. Literature reports a strong association between low aerobic fitness and excess corporal adiposity¹¹,¹⁵,²⁵, whose explanation suggests that individuals with excess of weight due to excess of corporal fat tend to present difficulties of locomotion, decrease in the frequency walking strides, less stability during a walk or run and reduction of aerobic capacity²⁶. Low levels of CRF associated with excess of corporal adiposity during infancy can potentially form a “cluster” of risk factors that enhances the child's exposure to a negative spiral of development and deleterious health conditions. Once levels of CRF and adiposity present a tendency of stability overall after the second infancy, these results are alarming and require a more careful look from professionals of health and education, as well as from parents or legal guardians of the children²⁵,²⁶.

Regarding profile of PF, children with low levels of CRF presented higher values of HG, more downward distance in SLJ, and higher times for accomplishment of runs SHR and R20m. Besides that, children presented high values of corporal adiposity, which can damage the performance in tasks of fast displacements²⁵. Similar results were found in other studies²⁷,²⁸. Souza et al.²⁸ evidenced the importance of stability and maintenance of healthy behavior during second infancy. They showed that children classified with elevated CRF and more active at 10 years old, already presented better development of PF in their 6 years old when compared to their pairs less physically fit. In this sense, children with low levels in tests that mark different components of physical fitness are more susceptible to the maintenance of this condition along their process of growth and development, because of minor encouragement, motivation, and effective participation in more intense physical activities or sporty character²³. It is essential to highlight that components of PF relate during growth, representing an essential construct of life quality already during infancy¹.

Regarding motor coordination, children with moderate and high levels of CRF present better performances in different tests of coordination, as well as a global measurement of GMC, except in balance. Previous studies indicate that CRF is positively associated with aspects of GMC¹³-¹⁵,²⁴. The advantage in higher levels of CRF and GMC tests can be explained by biological factors and by more extensive refinement of motor habilities¹⁴,²⁹,³⁰. In addition, the tasks accomplished in GMC tests demand strength, agility, speed, a high degree of coordination, and intramuscular control, emphasizing the idea of a dynamic relation between GMC and PF¹⁴. In this sense, children with higher levels of CRF and GMC are predisposed to a more positive development trajectory, marked by a more extensive engagement in physical activities and sports inside and outside the school environment¹³,¹⁴.

From a general analysis of results, the found suggest a critical point: in a larger share of the data, differences were found for comparisons between low-moderate and low-elevated groups, always evidencing an advantage on the physical and motor profile of children with moderate levels and, above all elevated levels of CRF. In this sense, moderate to high levels of CRF are more associated with a physical and motor profile that is healthier. This emphasizes the relevance of obtaining good levels of CRF for a development cycle more favorable in the second infancy with possible maintenance in the following phases.

This study presents some limitations: (i) its design doesn't allow inferences over the causality of CRF, physical and motor profile; however, the study deals with phenomenon of development and could demonstrate a relation that keeps through time, according to the proposed by Stodden et al.¹³; (ii) an indirect measurement evaluated the CRF; therefore, literature reports that the 6-minute run is validated and widely used in school-based studies; (iii) all evaluated schools were public and from one city; however, there was concern from the researchers in accomplishing the study in urban and rural regions.

Although there are limitations, the present study strengths as (i) it is about a large sample of children in an extended school area (25 schools); (ii) it shows variables that mark aspects of growth and development, as well as point out a larger landscape of the possible factors correlated to levels of CRF in children; (iii) the tests and protocols used in this research are widely used and validated worldwide; (iv) the subgroups present an essential source of information referring to levels of CRF that can help teachers and health professionals to understand the physical-motor profile in second infancy.

CONCLUSION

Children with higher levels of CRF shows better values in the assessed physical-motor variables. The differences found in comparisons between the groups of low/moderate and low/elevated CRF, showed it is always evident the advantage in the physical and motor profile of children with moderate and high levels of CRF. Obtaining, at least, average levels of CRF can bring protective benefits in different variables of growth and development of children during second infancy. In this sense, it is essential to encourage active playing, replacing sedentary activities with more intense and active dynamic physical activities whenever possible. This way, children will have the opportunity to improve their motor proficiency, and, consequently, increase their level of CRF.

On the other hand, as expected, children classified in the low level of CRF presented higher values of body weight and adiposity, in addition to worse performances in the tests of CRF and GMC. In short, it presents a signal of alert for exposure to harmful conditions to the health of children with low CRF and a tendency of stability through the lifespan. It is essential to guide parents and health education professionals to provide experiences of learning through sports in an appropriate development environment for children that also guide the promotion of a healthy weight during infancy.

The evidence can bring practical implications in the school context, in which evaluating CRF inside schools doesn't only get a momentary evaluation, as it can be done the monitoring of an essential variable of health, as well as indicate a predisposition about other physical-motor variables.

• How to cite this articleNascimento ÉM, Chaves RN, Rodriguez-Añez CR, Ribas MCS. Physical and motor profile of children between 6 and 10 years old according to levels of cardiorespiratory fitness. Rev Bras Cineantropom Desempenho Hum 2023, 25:e94396. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/1980-0037.2023v25e94396

• Funding

  This research received no specific grants from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The authors funded this study.

REFERENCES

• ¹
  Ortega FB, Ruiz JR, Castillo MJ, Sjostrom M. Physical fitness in childhood and adolescence: a powerful marker of health. Int J Obes 2008;32(1):1-11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.ijo.0803774 PMid:18043605.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.ijo.0803774
• ²
  Shephard RJ, Bouchard C. Population evaluations of health related fitness from perceptions of physical activity and fitness. Can J Appl Physiol 1994;19(2):151-73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/h94-012 PMid:8081320.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/h94-012
• ³
  American College of Sports Medicine. ACSM’s guidelines for exercise testing and prescription. Indianapolis: Williams & Wilkins; 1991.
• ⁴
  Ruiz JR, Cavero-Redondo I, Ortega FB, Welk GJ, Andersen LB, Martinez-Vizcaino V. Cardiorespiratory fitness cut points to avoid cardiovascular disease risk in children and adolescents; what level of fitness should raise a red flag? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med 2016;50(23):1451-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2015-095903 PMid:27670254.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2015-095903
• ⁵
  Malina RM, Bouchard C, Bar-Or O. Growth, maturation, and physical activity. Champaign: Human Kinetics; 2004. http://dx.doi.org/10.5040/9781492596837
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.5040/9781492596837
• ⁶
  Papalia DE, Feldman RD. Human development. 12th ed. New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.; 2013.
• ⁷
  Kasa-Vubu JZ, Lee CC, Rosenthal A, Singer K, Halter JB. Cardiovascular fitness and exercise as determinants of insulin resistance in postpubertal adolescent females. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2005;90(2):849-54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1210/jc.2004-0455 PMid:15572432.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1210/jc.2004-0455
• ⁸
  Anderssen SA, Cooper AR, Riddoch C, Sardinha LB, Harro M, Brage S, et al. Low cardiorespiratory fitness is a strong predictor for clustering of cardiovascular disease risk factors in children independent of country, age and sex. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil 2007;14(4):526-31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/HJR.0b013e328011efc1 PMid:17667643.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/HJR.0b013e328011efc1
• ⁹
  Zaqout M, Vyncke K, Moreno L, Miguel-Etayo P, Lauria F, Molnar D, et al. Determinant factors of physical fitness in European children. Int J Public Health 2016;61(5):573-82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00038-016-0811-2 PMid:27042830.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00038-016-0811-2
• ¹⁰
  Petroski EL, Silva AF, Rodrigues AB, Pelegrini A. Association between low levels of physical fitness and sociodemographic factors in adolescents from rural and urban areas. Motricidade 2012;8(1):5-13.
• ¹¹
  Ribeiro RQ, Lotufo PA, Lamounier JA, Oliveira RG, Soares JF, Botter DA. Additional cardiovascular risk factors associated with excess weight in children and adolescents: the Belo Horizonte heart study. Arq Bras Cardiol 2006;86(6):408-18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0066-782X2006000600002 PMid:16810414.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0066-782X2006000600002
• ¹²
  Ruiz JR, Rizzo NS, Hurtig-Wennlöf A, Ortega FB, Wärnberg J, Sjöström M. Relations of total physical activity and intensity to fitness and fatness in children: the European Youth Heart Study. Am J Clin Nutr 2006;84(2):299-303. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/84.2.299 PMid:16895875.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/84.2.299
• ¹³
  Stodden DF, Goodway JD, Langendorfer SJ, Roberton MA, Rudisill ME, Garcia C, et al. A developmental perspective on the role of motor skill competence in physical activity: an emergent relationship. Quest 2008;60(2):290-306. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2008.10483582
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2008.10483582
• ¹⁴
  Cattuzzo MT, Henrique RS, Ré AHN, Oliveira SS, Melo BM, Moura MS, et al. Motor competence and health related physical fitness in youth: a systematic review. J Sci Med Sport 2016;19(2):123-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2014.12.004 PMid:25554655.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2014.12.004
• ¹⁵
  Robinson LE, Stodden DF, Barnett LM, Lopes VP, Logan SW, Rodrigues LP, et al. Motor competence and its effect on positive developmental trajectories of health. Sports Med 2015;45(9):1273-84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40279-015-0351-6 PMid:26201678.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40279-015-0351-6
• ¹⁶
  Lima RA, Bugge A, Ersboll AK, Stodden DF, Andersen LB. The longitudinal relationship between motor competence and measures of fatness and fitness from childhood into adolescence. J Pediatr 2019;95(4):482-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jped.2018.02.010 PMid:29782811.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jped.2018.02.010
• ¹⁷
  Lubans DR, Morgan PJ, Cliff DP, Barnett LM, Okely AD. Fundamental movement skills in children and adolescents: review of associated health benefits. Sports Med 2010;40(12):1019-35. http://dx.doi.org/10.2165/11536850-000000000-00000 PMid:21058749.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.2165/11536850-000000000-00000
• ¹⁸
  ISAK: International Society for the Advancement of Kinanthropometry. International standards for anthropometric assessment. Underdale: ISAK; 2001.
• ¹⁹
  American Alliance for Health, Physical Education and Recreation. Youth fitness test manual. Washington: AAHPER; 1976.
• ²⁰
  Schilling F. Sum of raw scores of each KTK test. Personal communication. Marburg: Philipps-Universität Marburg; 2015. In English.
• ²¹
  Barnett LM, Lai SK, Veldman SLC, Hardy LL, Cliff DP, Morgan PJ, et al. Correlates of gross motor competence in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med 2016;46(11):1663-88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40279-016-0495-z PMid:26894274.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40279-016-0495-z
• ²²
  Reyes AC, Chaves R, Baxter-Jones ADG, Vasconcelos O, Barnett LM, Tani G, et al. Modelling the dynamics of children’s gross motor coordination. J Sports Sci 2019;37(19):2243-52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2019.1626570 PMid:31170881.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2019.1626570
• ²³
  Lopes VIP, Maia JAR, Rodrigues LP, Malina R. Motor coordination, physical activity and fitness as predictors of longitudinal change in adiposity during childhood. Eur J Sport Sci 2012;12(4):384-91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2011.566368
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2011.566368
• ²⁴
  Vandendriessche JB, Vandorpe B, Coelho-e-Silva MJ, Vaeyens R, Lenoir M, Lefevre J, et al. Multivariate association among morphology, fitness, and motor coordination characteristics in boys age 7 to 11. Pediatr Exerc Sci 2011;23(4):504-20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/pes.23.4.504 PMid:22109777.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/pes.23.4.504
• ²⁵
  Artero EG, España-Romero V, Ortega FB, Jiménez-Pavón D, Ruiz JR, Vicente Rodríguez G, et al. Health related fitness in adolescents: underweight, and not only overweight, as an influencing factor. The AVENA study. Scand J Med Sci Sports 2010;20(3):418-27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0838.2009.00959.x PMid:19558383.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0838.2009.00959.x
• ²⁶
  Pate RR, Wang CY, Dowda M, Farrell SW, O’Neill JR. Cardiorespiratory fitness levels among US youth 12 to 19 years of age: findings from the 1999-2002 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2006;160(10):1005-12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.160.10.1005 PMid:17018458.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.160.10.1005
• ²⁷
  Xu Y, Mei M, Wang H, Yan Q, He G. Association between weight status and physical fitness in Chinese mainland children and adolescents: a cross-sectional study. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020;17(7):2468. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17072468 PMid:32260379.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17072468
• ²⁸
  Souza MC, Chaves RN, Santos FK, Gomes TNQF, Santos DV, Borges AS, et al. The Oporto mixed-longitudinal growth, health and performance study. Design, methods and baseline results. Ann Hum Biol 2017;44(1):11-20. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/03014460.2016.1165866 PMid:26972315.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/03014460.2016.1165866
• ²⁹
  Chaves R, Baxter-Jones A, Gomes T, Souza M, Pereira S, Maia J. Effects of individual and school-level characteristics on a child’s gross motor coordination development. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2015;12(8):8883-96. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph120808883 PMid:26264007.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph120808883
• ³⁰
  Ré AHN, Logan SW, Cattuzzo MT, Henrique RS, Tudela MC, Stodden DF. Comparison of motor competence levels on two assessments across childhood. J Sports Sci 2018;36(1):1-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2016.1276294 PMid:28054495.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2016.1276294

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  04 Sept 2023
• Date of issue
  2023

History

• Received
  18 May 2023
• Accepted
  26 June 2023