Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-d8cs5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-06T19:00:43.200Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Body structure, muscular strength and living conditions of primary school children in Warsaw

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 February 2020

Anna Siniarska
Affiliation:
Department of Human Biology, Institute of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Biology and Environmental Sciences, Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski University in Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
Joanna Nieczuja-Dwojacka*
Affiliation:
Department of Human Biology, Institute of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Biology and Environmental Sciences, Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski University in Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
Małgorzata Grochowska
Affiliation:
Department of Human Biology, Institute of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Biology and Environmental Sciences, Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski University in Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
Sławomir Kozieł
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, Ludwik Hirszfeld Institute of Immunology and Experimental Therapy, Polish Academy of Sciences, Wroclaw, Poland
*
*Corresponding author. Email: j.nieczuja@uksw.edu.pl
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The aim of this study was to determine whether the living conditions of school children affects their body structure and muscular strength. Data were taken from 400 girls and 341 boys aged 7–15 years attending nine primary schools in Warsaw in 1997. A questionnaire was completed, anthropological measurements made and two muscular strength tests conducted. The questionnaire asked questions on the children’s level of education, their parents’ professions and monthly incomes, the number of persons in the family and the number of rooms in the family’s apartment/home. Body height, body weight, chest and arm circumferences, grip strength and vertical jump height were measured and used to calculate body mass index, Marty’s Index and the Sargent Vertical Jump Index. Statistical tests included Student’s t-test, Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and multiple regression analysis. Body height, chest circumference, Sargent Vertical Jump Index and grip strength were significantly greater in the boys than the girls. Two factors, namely ‘socioeconomic status’ (F1) and ‘family size’ (F2), describing living conditions, were isolated after PCA. Boys from bigger families (F2) were shorter, with lower weights and BMIs, smaller chest and arm circumferences and greater grip strengths than those from smaller families, whereas girls from families of lower socioeconomic status (F1) weighed less and had greater BMIs and arm circumferences than those from higher socioeconomic status families. The results suggest that boys seem to be more ‘ecosensitive’ than girls.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Introduction

Among the factors that influence the somatic development of children, those related to living conditions have often been reported. The main component of living conditions is socioeconomic status (SES), which can be measured in various ways, but most often includes paternal education, profession and income, as well as family size, size of the apartment/house and place of residence (rural/urban) (Siniarska, Reference Siniarska1996; Bradley & Corwyn, Reference Bradley and Corwyn2002). Many researchers have attempted to determine whether and how SES influences the body build and proportions of children (Barriuso et al., Reference Barriuso, Miqueleiz, Albaladejo, Villanueva, Santos and Regidor2015; Meko et al., Reference Meko, Slabber-Stretch, Walsh, Kruger and Nel2015; Jones, Reference Jones2016). Family income, low level of parental education and a large family size might be associated with greater BMI in children, although not all data confirm this (O’Dea & Caputi, Reference O’Dea and Caputi2001; Alam, Reference Alam2008; Al-Agha et al., Reference Al-Agha, Tatwany, Aiash, Mandourah and Abukhalil2015). It has also been observed that children from poorer neighbourhoods are characterized by lower body heights, body mass indexes (BMIs) and mid-arm circumferences than their richer peers (Jansen & Hazebroek-Kampschreur, Reference Jansen and Hazebroek-Kampschreur1997; Bogin & MacVean, Reference Bogin and MacVean1981; Hakeem, Reference Hakeem2001; Kolekar & Sawant, Reference Kolekar and Sawant2013).

Living conditions have also been shown to be associated with muscular strength test results; however, there is no consensus on this in the literature. For example, Otero et al. (Reference Otero, Cohen, Herrera, Camacho, Bernal and López-Jaramillo2016), in their research in developing countries, found that greater grip strength might be related to lower socioeconomic status. On the other hand, Artaria (Reference Artaria2010) found no differences in grip strength between poor rural and rich urban children in East Java. Puciato et al. (Reference Puciato, Mynarski, Rozpara, Borysiuk and Szyguła2011) showed that, for standing vertical jump height, the influence of SES was unequivocal, and suggested that the better results for this test might be related to body height and adiposity.

The present study aimed to evaluate the relationship between the body structure and muscular strength of school children in Poland and their living conditions. The study data are of particular interest because they relate to a period when Poland was neither a member of NATO nor the European Union and was undergoing profound social and economic transformation (Grzega, Reference Grzega2015).

Methods

Study sample

The research was conducted in 1997. The study population included 400 girls and 341 boys between the ages of 7 and 15 years attending nine randomly selected primary schools in Warsaw. All the children were considered healthy by a paediatrician.

Data

A questionnaire was completed by the parents of the examined children. This asked for: age of the child, father’s education level (primary, vocational, secondary or higher), father’s and mother’s professions (unemployed, unskilled worker, skilled worker, technician or specialist), monthly income of the entire family, number of persons in the family and number of rooms in their apartment/house. Additionally, two indexes were calculated: family income per capita and number of persons per room. The descriptive statistics characterizing the socioeconomic status of the examined children are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics characterizing the living conditions of the examined children aged 7–15, Warsaw, 1997

The following measurements were taken from the children: body height (cm), body weight (kg), chest circumference (cm), arm circumference (cm), grip strengths of the right and left hands (static strength measured by a dynamometer, kg) and vertical jump height (explosive strength of lower extremities, cm). The measurements were performed using commonly used techniques (Martin & Saller, Reference Martin and Saller1957). These measurements were used to calculate BMI (weight (kg)/height (m2)), Marty’s Index ([chest circumference in cm/height in cm]×100) and the Sargent Vertical Jump Index. The centimetre scale was attached to the wall 1.0–2.5 m from the ground. The subject stood with their right or left side to the wall (depending on the dominance of the hand) in the extended upper extremity. Then the subject made the maximum jump to touch the hanging scale as high as possible. The reach of the arm at rest and in jump was noted. The Sargent Vertical Jump Index (explosive strength) was calculated using the following formula: [(hand reach in vertical jump in cm−hand reach when standing in cm)/hand reach when standing]×100.

Family characteristics were reduced to two independent factors using PCA with Varimax Rotation, which explained 54.47% of the total variance of all family characteristics. The Rotated Component Matrix extracted two factors, namely ‘socioeconomic status’ (F1), which included parental education and profession, and ‘family size’ (F2), which included the number of family members and the number of persons per room (Table 2).

Table 2. Rotated Component Matrix for selected family characteristics (independent variables)

Analysis

To eliminate the effects of age differences between the studied children (separately for sex), a z-score was calculated for each measurement, test result and index by normalizing the raw value for each individual to the mean and standard deviation of the variable for the entire study population, corresponding to the subject’s age.

Differences in body structure and muscular strength tests between boys and girls were evaluated using Student’s t-test (significance taken at p<0.05). To reduce the number of living condition characteristics and express their common variation in one or two factors, PCA was used. The relationship between body dimensions and muscular strength, and extracted factors, were evaluated using multiple regression analysis. Statistical analysis was performed using Statistica 13.1.

Results

Sex differences in body structure and muscular strength

The results of the t-test demonstrated differences between boys and girls in body structure and muscular strength. The variables body height, chest circumference, arm circumference, Sargent Vertical Jump Index and grip strength were found to be statistically significant between boys and girls, being greater for boys than girls (Table 3).

Table 3. Differences between sexes for somatic variables and muscular strength test results

Effects of family characteristics on body structure and muscular strength

The multiple regression analysis showed that in boys, most of the body structure and muscular strength traits had a statistically significant relationship with family size (F2). In bigger families, boys were, on average, shorter, weighed less and had smaller BMIs and chest and arm circumferences, but their grip strength was greater. For girls, a statistically significant relationship was found between weight, BMI, arm circumference and the socioeconomic factor F1. In families with higher levels of parental education and better professions, girls weighed less and had smaller BMIs and arm circumferences.

No statistically significant relationship was found between Marty’s index and Sargent Vertical Jump Index and the two extracted factors F1 and F2 (Table 4).

Table 4. Multiple regression analysis showing the association between somatic characteristics, muscular strength test results and studied factors

HGS: hand grip strength.

Italic type indicates significant effects.

Discussion

The study results showed that, in the sample boys, body structure and muscular strength were more sensitive to family size than in girls. It should also be noted that the study boys were on average taller with greater chest and arm circumferences, grip strengths, and higher vertical jump height than girls.

Sexual differences in most somatic measurements change with age. Differences in body structure and composition between the sexes have been shown to be small until the onset of puberty (Wells, Reference Wells2007; El Mouzan et al., Reference El Mouzan, Al Herbish, Al Salloum, Foster, Al Omar, Qurachi and Kecojevic2010; Silva et al., Reference Silva, Pelegrini, Petroski and Gaya2010; Thakur & Gautam, Reference Thakur and Gautam2017). Differences in body structure between boys and girls can be explained by the influence of sex hormones during puberty, and this particularly applies to testosterone, which is responsible for the marked growth in boys at puberty (Hurbo, Reference Hurbo2008; Derman, Reference Derman2013; Zhi et al., Reference Zhi, Xi, Gao, Huang, Yang, Dai, Deng and Zhang2015).

The boys and girls in this study also differed in their muscular strength (grip strength and lower extremity strength, as measured by the Sargent Vertical Jump Index). Previous research has concluded that there is no significant difference between the sexes in muscle strength before puberty, but that after puberty the muscle mass in boys is greater and their strength is greater than that of girls (Özdemir et al., Reference Özdemir, Utkualp and Palloş2016; Handelsman et al., Reference Handelsman, Hirschberg and Bermon2018). Two factors might affect motor skill: body build and individual predisposition (which includes age of maturation) and environmental conditions affecting the developmental period (Puciato et al., Reference Puciato, Mynarski, Rozpara, Borysiuk and Szyguła2011).

The relationship of body structure and muscular strength with living conditions presents quite an interesting picture. Monitoring the biological development of children and adolescents during economic and social transformations is extremely important. At the end of the 1990s, after the first decade of transformation, Poland was transformed from a communist state to a state based on a free market economy (Chrzanowska et al., Reference Chrzanowska, Koziel and Ulijaszek2007). Some researchers were convinced that the rapid socioeconomic development of Poland in the 1990s would reduce the differences in the body build (mainly height) of children between Polish cities (Suliga, Reference Suliga2009). The results of the present study indicate that body structure and grip strength in boys are strongly related to family size. In smaller families, boys were found to be taller with greater BMIs and chest and arm circumferences, but they achieved worse results in the grip strength tests. However, for girls, weight, BMI and arm circumferences were associated with the socioeconomic factor (F1), showing that lower weight and BMI, as well as smaller arm circumference, were observed in families with higher parental education and better professions. Of the two factors distinguished in this study, family size (F2) most diversified the boys’ body structure.

Good living conditions and a small family should positively correlate with psychomotor development, which is mainly related to income per family member. Children in smaller families have better access to proper nutrition, additional sports and recreational activities, and better hygiene conditions, and show a lower level of stress (Puciato, Reference Puciato2010). However, in the current study, boys in large families achieved better results in grip strength. Furthermore, the results of some studies indicated that in terms of muscular strength, children from worse living conditions could show better results (Otero et al., Reference Otero, Cohen, Herrera, Camacho, Bernal and López-Jaramillo2016). It has also been argued that children from families with higher SES, and therefore with better living conditions, tend to have more limited physical activity and be characterized by a passive lifestyle (Piko & Keresztes, Reference Piko and Keresztes2008). There is, however, no consensus on whether muscular strength can be modified by living conditions (Ignasiak et al., Reference Ignasiak, Sławińska and Domaradzki2002; Giagazoglou et al., Reference Giagazoglou, Kyparos, Fotiadou and Angelopoluou2007; Mészáros et al., Reference Mészáros, Mészáros, Szmodis, Pampakas, Osváth and Völgyi2008).

The results of studies on the somatic, physiological and psychomotor development of children and adolescents in the years 1976–1987 in different regions of Poland show similar but not identical results to those of the present study. In families with higher parental education, boys were taller with larger chest dimensions and girls had lower body weights, BMIs and chest dimensions (Siniarska Reference Siniarska1996). Both sexes showed better results in psychomotor tests. In families with higher income, both sexes had bigger physiques and worse results in fitness tests. Siniarska (Reference Siniarska1996) showed that children from large dwellings (probably from larger families) had, on average, bigger physiques and better results in static and explosive strength tests.

Reports on the relationship between body structure and family size are ambiguous. Children from small families in the US (mainly one child) have been shown to be more obese than their peers from families with two or more children (Chen & Escarce, Reference Chen and Escarce2014). This indicates that having a large family with several children could reduce the risk of obesity (Al-Agha et al., Reference Al-Agha, Tatwany, Aiash, Mandourah and Abukhalil2015). In 2000, approximately 20% of boys and 11% of girls were obese in Poland (Charzewska et al., Reference Charzewska, Chabros, Jajszczyk, Rogalska-Niedźwiedź, Chwojnowska, Kaczanowski, Bergman, Charzewska and Piechaczek2004). In recent years, a trend has been noted towards overweight and obesity in an increasing number of children and adolescents in the country (Grzelak et al., Reference Grzelak, Nieczuja-Dwojacka, Siniarska and Samul2015). This phenomenon had a similar origin as that observed in Western European countries; however, it occurred with some delay in Central and Eastern Europe (Chrzanowska et al., Reference Chrzanowska, Koziel and Ulijaszek2007).

Methods of assessing nutritional status (malnutrition/undernutrition/overnutrition) include the measurement of arm circumference (Jeyakumar et al., Reference Jeyakumar, Ghugre and Gadhave2013). The current opinion is that children living in families with better living conditions are characterized by greater arm circumferences. The results of the present study showed a relationship between larger arm circumference and smaller family size for boys, and this could be explained by better access to food (Akhtar et al., Reference Akhtar, Bhatty, Sattar and Javed2001).

The present results show that SES significantly differentiated body build. Girls from families with higher SES had smaller weights, BMIs and arm circumferences. These observations are similar to those of other studies conducted a range of countries (Vieweg et al., Reference Vieweg, Johnston, Lanier, Fernandez and Pandurangi2007; Puciato, Reference Puciato2010; Jo, Reference Jo2014; Kowalkowska et al., Reference Kowalkowska, Wadolowska, Wuenstel, Słowińska and Niedźwiedzka2014; Wronka, Reference Wronka2014; Jeannot et al., Reference Jeannot, Mahler, Elia, Cerruti and Chastonnay2015). This phenomenon can be explained in two ways. On the one hand, parents with higher education, profession and income are more aware of the conditions that affect biological development, provide food of better quality, and enable children to participate in non-school sporting activities. In addition, lower SES can lead to more frequent sedentary behaviours such as watching TV, while in families with higher SES, there are conditions that encourage children to be more physically active (Tandon et al. Reference Tandon, Zhou, Sallis, Cain, Frank and Saelens2012). On the other hand, it is worth noting that in the late 1990s, young girls in Poland were exposed to the influence of mass media, where a slim body is promoted (Suka et al., Reference Suka, Sugimori, Yoshida, Kanayama, Sekine, Yamagami and Kagamimori2005; Vigenerova et al., Reference Vigenerova, Humenikova, Brabec, Riedlova and Blaha2007). Perhaps access to cable television could be an additional factor that influences BMI. Uramowska-Zyto and Kozłowska-Wojciechowska (Reference Uramowska-Zyto and Kozłowska-Wojciechowska2003) and Mazur et al. (Reference Mazur, Klimek, Telega, Hejda, Wdowiak and Małecka-Tendera2008) found that SES did not significantly affect the BMI of elementary school children in south-eastern Poland, or the nutritional status of children. They also indicated that in large cities such as Warsaw, SES had a greater effect on the body build of children and adolescents than in towns and rural parts of Poland.

The present study did not show any significant relationship between Marty’s index and the Sargent Vertical Jump Index and the two living condition factors. Moreover, no apparent relationship between these variables has been shown in the literature. However, some studies have suggested a positive effect of high SES on muscular strength; for example, Siniarska (Reference Siniarska1996) found that children in larger families achieved better results in grip strength than their peers from smaller families. However, other studies did not find such a relationship (Freitas et al., Reference Freitas, Maia, Beunen, Claessens, Thomis, Marques and Lefevre2007; Birnie et al., Reference Birnie, Cooper, Martin, Kuh, Sayer, Alvarado and Hardy2011).

Social and cultural changes can affect the somatic and motor development of children and adolescents through changes in diet, medical care, sanitation and physical activity. Longitudinal studies in the UK have indicated how inequalities in SES have changed over time and influenced the body height, weight and BMI of the children. In the years 1946–1970, greater body weight was associated with low SES, while after the year 2000, children from lower SES families were significantly heavier than their peers from richer families. On the other hand, the relationship between body height and SES was different. Taller children always came from families with a higher SES, while the differences between children’s body height and inequalities in SES decreased between generations (Bann et al., Reference Bann, Johnson, Li, Kuh and Hardy2018).

In conclusion, this study in school children in Poland found that most of the somatic characteristic and muscular strength test results had greater values in boys than in girls. Boys were more sensitive (ecosensitive) than girls in terms of the relationship between body structure and grip strength, and the family size. Boys from smaller families were taller, with larger body weights, BMIs and chest and arm circumferences, but with worse results in grip strength. Girls in families with higher SES (parents with better education and professions) had lower weights and smaller BMI and arm circumferences. The results may be useful in examining the effect of living conditions on the somatic and motor development of children against the background of social and economic changes in Central and Eastern Europe in the 1990s.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency, commercial entity or not-for-profit organization.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Ethical Approval

The study was conducted in agreement with the Code of Ethics of the World Medical Association for experiments involving humans. Parents and children were informed that they were not obliged to participate in the research and that they could withdraw from the study without giving a reason. The authors assert that all procedures contributing to this work comply with the ethical standards of the relevant national and institutional committees on human experimentation and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2008.

References

Akhtar, M, Bhatty, N, Sattar, M and Javed, MT (2001) Comparison of nutritional status in children of different socio-economic statuses. Medical Journal of the Islamic World Academy of Sciences 14(3), 97102.Google Scholar
Al-Agha, AE, Tatwany, BO, Aiash, DA, Mandourah, LA and Abukhalil, NT (2015) The effect of socioeconomic status, number of siblings and parental of education on children body mass index at Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: cross sectional study. Family Medicine & Medical Science Research 4, 184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alam, AA (2008) Obesity among female school children in North West Riyadh in relation to affluent lifestyle. Saudi Medical Journal 29, 11391144.Google ScholarPubMed
Artaria, MD (2010) Socioeconomic and genetic factors influencing the strength, weight, length and width measurements of children. Folia Medica Indonesiana 46(3), 161166.Google Scholar
Bann, D, Johnson, W, Li, L, Kuh, D and Hardy, R (2018) Socioeconomic inequalities in childhood and adolescent body-mass index, weight, and height from 1953 to 2015: an analysis of four longitudinal, observational, British birth cohort studies. Lancet Public Health 3(4), 194203.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barriuso, L, Miqueleiz, E, Albaladejo, R, Villanueva, R, Santos, JM and Regidor, E (2015) Socioeconomic position and childhood-adolescent weight status in rich countries: a systematic review, 1990–2013, BMC Pediatrics 15, 129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birnie, K, Cooper, R, Martin, RM, Kuh, D, Sayer, AA, Alvarado, BE and Hardy, R (2011) Childhood socioeconomic position and objectively measured physical capability levels in adulthood: a systematic review and metanalysis. PLoS One 6: e15564.Google Scholar
Bogin, B and MacVean, RB (1981) Body composition and nutritional status of urban Guatemalan children of high and low socioeconomic class. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 55(4), 543551.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bradley, RH and Corwyn, RF (2002) Socioeconomic status and child development. Annual Review of Psychology 53, 371399.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Charzewska, J, Chabros, E, Jajszczyk, B, Rogalska-Niedźwiedź, M and Chwojnowska, Z (2004) Wysokość ciała młodzieży z Warszawy na tle kolejnych okresów ekonomii. In Kaczanowski, K, Bergman, P, Charzewska, J, Piechaczek, H (eds) Trendy sekularne na tle zmian cywilizacyjnych [in Polish]. Siódme Warsztaty Antropologiczne, AWF, Warsawa, Warsaw, pp. 7584.Google Scholar
Chen, AY and Escarce, JJ (2014) Family structure and childhood obesity: an analysis through 8th grade. Maternal and Child Health Journal 18(7), 17721777.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chrzanowska, M, Koziel, S and Ulijaszek, SJ (2007) Changes in BMI and the prevalence of overweight and obesity in children and adolescents in Cracow Poland, 1971–2000. Economics and Human Biology 5(3), 370378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derman, O (2013) Adolescents physical, sexual development. Turkey Clinics Journal of Family Medicine – Special Topics 4(1), 711.Google Scholar
El Mouzan, MI, Al Herbish, AS, Al Salloum, AA, Foster, PJ, Al Omar, AA, Qurachi, MM and Kecojevic, T (2010) Pattern of sex differences in growth of Saudi children and adolescents. Gender Medicine 7(1), 4754.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Freitas, D, Maia, J, Beunen, G, Claessens, A, Thomis, M, Marques, A and Lefevre, J (2007) Socio-economic status, growth, physical activity and fitness: the Madeira Growth Study. Annals of Human Biology 34, 107122.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Giagazoglou, P, Kyparos, A, Fotiadou, E and Angelopoluou, N (2007) The effect of residence area and mother’s education on motor development of preschool-aged children in Greece. Early Child Development and Care 177, 479492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grzega, U (2015) Changes in consumption in Poland in the period of transformation. Journal of International Students 8(3), 152163.Google Scholar
Grzelak, J, Nieczuja-Dwojacka, J, Siniarska, A and Samul, E (2015) Budowa i proporcje ciała warszawskiej młodzieży gimnazjalnej [in Polish]. Studia Ecologiae et Bioethicae 13(3), 85103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hakeem, R (2001) Socio-economic differences in height and body mass index of children and adults living in urban areas of Karachi, Pakistan. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55(5), 400406.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Handelsman, DJ, Hirschberg, AL and Bermon, S (2018) Circulating testosterone as the hormonal basis of sex differences in athletic performance. Endocrine Reviews 39(5), 803829.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hurbo, T (2008) Secular changes in height, weight and chest circumference of 4–7 year old children from Minsk in the 20th century. Acta Medica Lituanica 15(4), 222228.Google Scholar
Ignasiak, Z, Sławińska, T and Domaradzki, J (2002) The influence of social-economic factors on the morphofunctional growth of children considering the urbanisation factor aspect. Acta Universitatis Palackianae Olomucensis. Gymnica 32(2), 934.Google Scholar
Jansen, W and Hazebroek-Kampschreur, AA (1997) Differences in height and weight between children living in neighborhoods of different socioeconomic status. Acta Paediatrica 86(2), 224225.Google Scholar
Jeannot, E, Mahler, P, Elia, N, Cerruti, B and Chastonnay, P (2015) Sociodemographic and economic determinants of overweight and obesity for public-school children in Geneva State, Switzerland: a cross-sectional study. International Journal of Preventive Medicine 6, 39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jeyakumar, A, Ghugre, P and Gadhave, S (2013) Mid-upper-arm circumference (MUAC) as a simple measure to assess the nutritional status of adolescent girls as compared with BMI. Infant, Child & Adolescent Nutrition 5(1), 2225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jo, Y (2014) What money can buy: family income and childhood obesity. Economics and Human Biology 15, 112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, A (2016) Intergenerational educational attainment, family characteristics and child obesity. Journal of Biosocial Science 48, 557576.Google ScholarPubMed
Kolekar, SM and Sawant, SU (2013) Mid-arm circumference and triceps skin-fold thickness in rural school children. International Journal of Recent Trends in Science and Technology 7(2), 5659.Google Scholar
Kowalkowska, J, Wadolowska, L, Wuenstel, JW, Słowińska, MA and Niedźwiedzka, E (2014) Socioeconomic status and overweight prevalence in Polish adolescents: the impact of single factors and a complex index of socioeconomic status in respect to age and sex. Iranian Journal of Public Health 43(7), 913925.Google Scholar
Martin, R and Saller, K (1957) Lehrbuch der Anthropologie. Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Mazur, A, Klimek, K, Telega, G, Hejda, G, Wdowiak, L and Małecka-Tendera, E (2008) Risk factors for obesity development in school children from south-eastern Poland. Annals of Agricultural and Environmental Medicine 15, 281285.Google ScholarPubMed
Meko, LN, Slabber-Stretch, M, Walsh, CM, Kruger, SH and Nel, M (2015) School environment, socioeconomic status and weight of children in Bloemfontein, South Africa. African Journal of Primary Health & Family Medicine 7(1), doi: 10.4102/phcfm.v7i1.751.Google ScholarPubMed
Mészáros, Z, Mészáros, J, Szmodis, M, Pampakas, P, Osváth, P and Völgyi, E (2008) Primary school child development – issues of socioeconomic status. Kinesiology 40, 153161.Google Scholar
O’Dea, JA and Caputi, P (2001) Association between socioeconomic status, weight, age and gender, and the body image and weight control practices of 6- to 19-year-old children and adolescents. Health Education Research 16(5), 521532.Google ScholarPubMed
Otero, J, Cohen, DD, Herrera, VM, Camacho, PA, Bernal, O and López-Jaramillo, P (2016) Sociodemographic factors related to handgrip strength in children and adolescents in a middle income country: the SALUS study. American Journal of Human Biology 29(1), doi: 10.1002/ajhb.22896.Google Scholar
Özdemir, A, Utkualp, N and Palloş, A (2016) Physical and psychosocial effects of the changes in adolescence period. International Journal of Caring Sciences 9(2), 717.Google Scholar
Piko, B and Keresztes, N (2008) Sociodemographic and socioeconomic variations in leisure time physical activity in a sample of Hungarian youth. International Journal of Public Health 53, 306310.Google Scholar
Puciato, D (2010) Morpho-functional development of children and adolescents from Jedlina-Zdrój with regard to objective quality of life of their families. Human Movement 11(1), 6670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Puciato, D, Mynarski, W, Rozpara, M, Borysiuk, Z and Szyguła, R (2011) Motor development of children and adolescents aged 8–16 years in view of their somatic build and objective quality of life of their families. Journal of Human Kinetics 28, 4553.Google ScholarPubMed
Silva, DA, Pelegrini, A, Petroski, EL and Gaya, AC (2010) Comparison between the growth of Brazilian children and adolescents and the reference growth charts: data from a Brazilian project. Jornal de Pediatria 86(2), 115120.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Siniarska, A (1996) Family environment, parents’ constitutional characteristics and biological development of children. Journal of Human Ecology Special Issue 4, 145183.Google Scholar
Suka, M, Sugimori, H, Yoshida, K, Kanayama, H, Sekine, M, Yamagami, T and Kagamimori, S (2005) Body image and body satisfaction play important roles in the path to dieting behavior in Japanese preadolescents: the Toyama birth cohort study. Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine 10(6), 324330.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Suliga, E (2009) Socio-economic differentiation of the growth and the dietary intake of Polish boys aged 7–16 years. Annals of Human Biology 36(2), 199210.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tandon, PS, Zhou, C, Sallis, JF, Cain, KL, Frank, LD and Saelens, BE (2012) Home environment relationships with children’s physical activity, sedentary time, and screen time by socioeconomic status. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 9, 88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thakur, R and Gautam, RK (2017) Pre and post pubertal growth difference among boys and girls of 5-18 years of age: a cross sectional study among central Indian Population. Human Biology Review 6(2), 164187.Google Scholar
Uramowska-Zyto, B and Kozłowska-Wojciechowska, M (2003) Zachowania żywieniowe rodzin ubogich [in Polish]. Roczniki PZH 54, 221229 Google Scholar
Vieweg, VR, Johnston, CH, Lanier, JO, Fernandez, A and Pandurangi, AK (2007) Correlation between high risk obesity groups and low socioeconomic status in school children. Southern Medical Journal 100, 813.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vigenerova, J, Humenikova, L, Brabec, M, Riedlova, L and Blaha, P (2007) Long-term changes in body weight, BMI and adiposity rebound among children and adolescents in the Czech Republic. Economics and Human Biology 5 (Supplement), 409425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wells, JCK (2007) Sexual dimorphism in body composition. Best Practice & Research: Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism 21, 415430.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wronka, I (2014) Socioeconomic status, body mass index and prevalence of underweight and overweight among Polish girls aged 7–18: a longitudinal study. Journal of Biosocial Science 46(4), 449461.Google ScholarPubMed
Zhi, X, Xi, W, Gao, L, Huang, J, Yang, X, Dai, W, Deng, Y and Zhang, X (2015) Physical fitness status of children and adolescents in Tianjin of China during past three decades: a cross-sectional study. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Medicine 8(6), 93069312.Google ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Table 1. Descriptive statistics characterizing the living conditions of the examined children aged 7–15, Warsaw, 1997

Figure 1

Table 2. Rotated Component Matrix for selected family characteristics (independent variables)

Figure 2

Table 3. Differences between sexes for somatic variables and muscular strength test results

Figure 3

Table 4. Multiple regression analysis showing the association between somatic characteristics, muscular strength test results and studied factors