The Impact of Body Composition on Exercise Capacity - Assignment Example

?Results Table Descriptive statistics of study variables (n=138) Variables Mean (Sd) Age (years) 20.36 32) Weight (kg) 56.63 (7.55) Height (cm)158.75 (10.12) BMI (kg/m2) 22.03 (1.86) Waist circumference (WC) cm 83.1 (7.15) Hip circumference (HC) cm 98.84 (7.26) Waist to hip ratio (WHR) 0.84(0.03) Waist to height ratio (WHtR) 0.52 (0.05) Percent body fat % 30.88 (4.30) Body fat mass (kg) Soft lean mass (kg) 17.49 (3.90) 36.00(3.58) SBP(T0) 106.40(9.26) SBP(T6) 109.75(10.05) DBP(T0) 67.23(8.32) DBP(T6) 69.82(9.28) Heart Rate(T0) 81.99(13.47) Heart Rate(T6) 90.46(17.63) Dyspnea Broge ( T0) .36(0.90) Dyspnea Broge (T6) 1.71(1.7) Fatigue Broge( T0) .56(1.02) Fatigue Broge( T6) 2.03(2.1) SPo2 ( T0 ) 97.18(2.4) SPo2( T6) 97.88(1.67) 6MWD (meters) (walked) 430.60(39.6) Predicted 6MWD (meters) (equation) 433.67(28.5) %6MWD 100.09(14.7) MET 1080.9(1253.2) PAL Factor 1.5359(0.1) mHR 199.6(1.3) % mHR T0 41.06(6.7) % mHR T6 45.3(8.8) Abbreviations: T0 , measurement taken at the beginning of the test;T6,measurement taken at the end of the test; BMI, body mass index; SBP, systolic blood pressure; DBP, diastolic blood pressure;SPo2 ,oxygen saturation; 6MWD,distance walked in six-minute walk test; Predicted 6MWD, predicted distance to walk in six-minute walk test from reference equation;%6MWD, percentage of distance walked in reference to predicted distance; MET, metabolic equivalent; PAL ,physical activity level; mHR, maximum heart rate;%mHR , percentage of maximum heart rate. The introduction established that the relationship that exists between BMI and other variables attributable to body composition are based on physiologic, pathologic and environmental factors. Due to this, data were collected on some of these key physiologic, pathologic and environmental factors in relation to the BMI of the subjects with normal weight. The average BMI of subjects with normal weight was found to be 22.03. This was in correspondence with an average age of 20.36 years. One physiologic feature of the data collection was the waist to hip ratio, of which an average 0.84 units were recorded among. Yet, the percentage of body fat recorded for the subjects with normal BMI was found to be 30.88. As part of the research question for the primary outcome, the researcher wanted to find out if the percentage of body fat in subjects with normal body mass index affects their six minute walk distance. In light of this, a predicted 6MWD of 433.67 was set for them, out of which an actual 6MWD of 430.60 was covered. Table.2:Comparison of mean values of six minutes walk test in relation to the percentages of Body Fat Variable Percentage of Body Fat. F value p value Low Mean (Sd) Normal Mean (Sd) High Mean (Sd) SBP T0 107.41 (10.96) 106.99 (8.9) 104.18 (7.97) 1.330 .268 SBP T6 111.32 (12.62) 109.37 (9.74) 108.94 (7.61) .573 .565 DBP T0 68.44 (9.73) 67.71 (7.87) 65.03 (7.47) 1.686 .189 DBP T6 70.26 (11.02) 69.39 (9.2) 70.26 (7.63) .153 .858 Heart Rate HR T0 85.15 (14.5) 81.97 (14.27) 78.88 (9.88) 1.861 .160 Heart Rate HR T6 91.88 (19.67) 90 (18.29) 89.97 (14.18) .146 .865 mHR 199.70(1.5) 42.6(7.2)44 199.64(1.3) 4 199.59(1.0) 0.067 0.93 % mHR T0 42.6(7.2) 41.0(7.1) 39.5(4.9) 1.85 0.16 % mHR T6 45.99(9.8) 45.1(9.1) 45.1(7.1) 0.14 0.87 Dyspnea T0 ttTTstart 0.29 (0.91) 0.39 (0.94) 0.38 (0.85) .127 .881 Dyspnea T6 1.24 (1.71) 1.73 (1.52) 2.15 (1.99) 2.478 .088 Fatigue T0 0.29 (0.68) 0.66 (1.19) 0.62 (0.92) 1.522 .222 Fatigue T6 1.56 (1.97) 2.07 (2.1) 2.41 (2.39) 1.372 .257 SpO2 % T0 96.29 (3.25) 97.54 (1.95) 97.32 (2.35) 3.120 .047 SpO2 % T6 98.21 (1.68) 97.56 (1.82) 98.18 (1.29) 2.438 .091 6MWD (meter walked) 424.29 (42.09) 435.57 (34) 426.68 (47.14) 1.151 .319 Predicted 6MWD (equation0 434.41 (13.58) 431.32 (36.51) 437.76 (19.58) .594 .554 % 6MWD 97.71 (9.71) 102.26 (17.64) 97.63 (11.37) 1.703 .186 MET 1227.07 (1273.66) 1095.31 (1312.31) 904.94 (1114.71) .567 .568 PAL values 1.55 (0.10) 1.54 (0.10) 1.51 (0.09) 1.932 .149 Abbreviations: T0 , measurement taken at the beginning of the test;T6,measurement taken at the end of the test; BMI, body mass index; SBP, systolic blood pressure; DBP, diastolic blood pressure;SPo2 ,oxygen saturation; 6MWD,distance walked in six-minute walk test; Predicted 6MWD, predicted distance to walk in six-minute walk test from reference equation;%6MWD, percentage of distance walked in reference to predicted distance; MET, metabolic equivalent; PAL ,physical activity level; mHR, maximum heart rate;%mHR , percentage of maximum heart rate. In relation to objective 2 spelt out in the introduction, the research aimed to compare the dietary intake among subjects with normal BMI with different percentages of body fats categorized as low % body fat, normal % body fat and high % body fat. In relation to subjects with normal BMI, 6MWD of 424.29m was recorded for percentage of body fat for low mean. The 6MWD for percentage of body fat for normal mean was 435.57m. A drop in 6MWD was recorded for high mean at a distance of 426.68m. In percentage terms, the percentage of distance walked in reference to predicted distance were 97.71%, 102.26% and 97.63% for the different percentages of body fat given as low %BF, normal %BF and high %BF respectively. In a non-correlated manner, the physical activity level for low mean %BF was the highest, coming up to 1.55, followed by normal mean %BF with 1.54 and finally high mean %BF at 1.51. Table 3: Correlation between 6MWD and body composition 6MWD(walked) Weight (kg) p-value .064 .459 Height (cm) p-value .192 .024* BMI (kg/m2) p-value .031 .721 Waist circumference (wc) p-value -.060 .482 Hip circumference (hc) p-value -.044 .606 Waist to hip ratio (WHR) p-value -.068 .428 Waist to height ratio (whtr) p-value -.095 .269 Percent body fat % p-value -.004 .963 Body fat mass (kg) p-value .046 .593 Soft lean mass p-value .131 .126 MET p-value .123 .151 PAL p-value .196* .021 *Statistically significant * P-value significant at < 0.05 Abbreviations: 6MWD,distance walked in six-minute walk test; Predicted 6MWD, predicted distance to walk in six-minute walk test from reference equation;%6MWD, percentage of distance walked in reference to predicted distance; MET, metabolic equivalent; PAL ,physical activity level. The researcher committed very good effort into finding the relationship between the body composition of the subjects and the 6-minute walk distance that they could cover. The relevance of this correlation will be drawn back to the aim of the study, which tries to find the impact of body composition on exercise capacity, given that the 6-minute walk is a form of exercise. From table three, the height of the subjects was not found to be statistically significant to the 6MWD. The P-value on the heights of the subjects was however found to be significant. In terms of physical activity level, which also relates directly to the research aim, the table shows that the physical activity level of the subjects were significant to their 6MWD but the P-value for the same variable was not significant. Table 4: Correlation between body composition variables and PAL PAL Factor Weight (kg) p-value -.102 .232 Height (cm) p-value .007 .933 BMI (kg/m2) p-value -.108 .209 Waist circumference (wc) p-value -.140 .101 Hip circumference (hc) cm p-value -.102 .234 Waist to hip ratio (WHR) p-value -.152 .074 Waist to height ratio (whtr) p-value -.101 .236 Percent body fat % p-value -.191 .025* Body fat mass (kg) p-value -.180 .034* Soft lean mass p-value -.045 .598 Due to the relationship that physical activity level has on the research aim of exercise activity, the researcher undertook a separate comparative test to compare body composition and physical activity level. In this, it was outlined that there was no statistical significance (-.191) between percentage of body fat and physical activity level. Meanwhile the P-value of the same variable produced a statistically significant value of .025. For body fat mass, which was measured in kg, there was no statistical significance in the value obtained (-.180) as in relation to physical activity level but for its p-value, there was a statistical significance (.034). Table . 5:Comparison of mean values of dietary intake in relation to the categories of percentages of Body Fat Variable Percentage of Body Fat. F value P value Low Mean (Sd) Normal Mean (Sd) High Mean (Sd) CHO intake (g/d) 104.54 (25.79) 104.18 (32.21) 105.05 (37.03) .008 .992 %CHO intake 104.54 (25.79) 104.18 (32.21) 105.05 (37.03) .008 .992 PROT intake (g/d) 51.52 (20.23) 52.44 (21.01) 54.65 (17.75) .225 .799 %PROT intake 156 (61.05) 141.75 (60.47) 138.56 (45.69) .946 .391 FAT (g/d) 65.72 (27.81) 70.73 (38.34) 79.52 (75.79) .717 .490 %FAT intake 192.3 (82.31) 192.4 (105.48) 206.7 (194.39) .159 .853 EEI (Kcal) 1215.74 (287.69) 1262.97 (433.62) 1354.48 (706.68) .722 .488 PAL 1.55 (0.1) 1.54 (0.1) 1.51 (0.09) 1.932 .149 (EI/TER)*100 63.89 (15.66) 62.08 (21.81) 65.35 (32.26) .233 .793 (EEI/BMR) 0.99 (0.24) 0.95 (0.34) 0.98 (0.5) .121 .886 (EEI/BMR)*100 98.84 (24.03) 95.48 (33.75) 98.2 (50.17) .121 .886 Abbreviations: CHO, carbohydrates, PROT, protein; EEI, estimated energy intake; PAL physical activity level; TER, total energy requirement; BMR, basal metabolic rate. From table 1, the effect of percentage of body fat on BMI had been clear and so the researcher became concerned with factors that resulted in increased percentage of body fat. Due to this, an analysis and comparative study was done on the mean values of dietary intake in relation to various categories of percentage of body fat. First, it was realized that there were different quantities of nutritional intakes contributing to the overall percentage of body fat. This is because different mean values were recorded for each of the categories given as low mean, normal mean and high mean. Generally, highest quantities of dietary intakes were found in high means across all nutrient variables. However, this was not balanced with a high level of physical activity level, as the high mean recorded the least PAL of 1.51 as against 1.54 in those with normal mean and 1.55 in those with low mean. In effect, nutrients taken in were not properly utilized through physical body activity and so they deposited to become body fats in the long run. Between the low mean and normal mean, the trend was that protein and fat intakes were higher in normal means but carbohydrate intake was higher in low mean. In terms of PAL however, it was those with low mean that recorded higher values of 1.55 against 1.54 in those with normal mean. In totality, the energy intake over the total energy requirement in high means was the highest (65.35), giving an indication of presence of unused energy. This was followed by low mean (63.89) and normal mean (62.08) Table.6: Correlation between the variables of body composition and dietary intake of study subjects CHO intake % CHO intake PROT intake % Protein intake FAT intake % FAT intake Estimated Energy intake (EEI) EEI/TER)*100 Weight (kg) p-value -.021 -.021 -.047 -.300 .075 -.012 .053 -.087 .810 .810 .584 .000* .385 .888 .533 .308 Height (cm) p-value .030 .030 .042 -.068 -.015 -.049 .001 -.064 .730 .730 .625 .429 .857 .566 .992 .456 BMI (kg/m2) p-value -.062 -.062 .021 -.223 .103 .018 .079 -.062 .467 .467 .808 .008* .231 .838 .359 .470 Waist circumference(wc) p-value -.005 -.005 .084 -.145 .071 -.007 .076 -.044 .957 .957 .328 .089 .405 .931 .374 .605 Hip circumference (hc) p-value -.015 -.015 .110 -.088 .100 .035 .103 -.005 .860 .860 .199 .305 .242 .684 .227 .955 Waist to hip ratio (WHR) p-value .000 .000 .094 -.049 .059 .010 .068 .004 .999 .999 .271 .570 .491 .911 .427 .963 Waist to height ratio p-value -.021 -.021 .099 -.038 .054 .005 .058 -.015 .805 .805 .247 .660 .533 .950 .496 .864 Percent body fat % p-value -.002 -.002 .067 -.093 .109 .054 .108 .026 .984 .984 .432 .278 .204 .531 .208 .758 Body fat mass (kg) p-value -.019 -.019 .039 -.234 .099 .004 .090 -.053 .822 .822 .649 .006* .248 .962 .296 .540 Soft lean mass p-value -.042 -.042 -.037 -.289 .073 -.013 .048 -.105 .628 .628 .664 .001* .396 .879 .576 .220 *Statistically significant* P-value significant at < 0.05 Abbreviations: CHO, carbohydrates, PROT, protein; EEI, estimated energy intake; PAL physical activity level; TER, total energy requirement; BMR, basal metabolic rate. Having established different quantities of dietary intake was recorded in the subjects according to low mean, normal mean and high mean, the researcher wanted to find the significance of the dietary intake to their composition, using P-value. As far as percentage of dietary intake is concerned, it was established that it was only protein intake that had a significance on the on the body composition of the subjects. The significance was however not recorded across all body composition as the variables with significant correlations were weight (kg), BMI, body fat mass, and soft lean mass with P-values of .000, .008, .006, and .001 respectively. With all other variables on the body composition, there were no statistical significance identified between them and the dietary intake variables such as carbohydrate, fats, estimated energy intake, physical activity level, basal metabolic rate and total energy requirement. Table.7: Distribution of Under reporting ,Over reporting and Acceptable reporting of Energy intake No. (%) Under reporting Over reporting Acceptable reporting 117(84.8) 17(12.3) 4(4.9) Using the data as reported by the subjects about their dietary intake, the three categories of reporting (under, over and acceptable) was calculated. The distribution in which 84.8% were under reported their energy intake, 12.3% were over reported and only 4.9% were acceptable. Table 7 throws more light on the distribution of reporting that were sampled from the subjects on their dietary intake according to three categories namely under reporting, normal reporting and over reporting. This was done to gain insight into the reporting biases that existed among the respondents. Generally, reporting bias takes place where respondents engage in either selective revealing or suppress vital information whiles responding to research instruments (quote). From experiences cases of under reporting is often displayed when subjects are responding to an undesirable behavior (quote). Consequently, there was as much as 84.4% of under reporting calculated from the research. Over reporting is also associated with over emphasis on the reporting of a behavior. Such incidents gave up 12.3% while 4.9% cases of acceptable reporting were experienced. Read More