Associations Between Fitness, Physical Activity, and Fatness in Preschool Children With Typical and Atypical Motor Coordination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Increased adiposity in children confers a higher risk of cardiovascular disease in later life, with low cardiorespiratory fitness strongly linked to poorer metabolic health. Children with motor coordination problems are likely to be less physically fit and at a higher risk of obesity. In this study, we examined the associations between aerobic and anaerobic fitness, device-measured physical activity, and body adiposity in children (aged 4–5 years) with typical and atypical motor coordination. Methods Baseline data from the Coordination and Activity Tracking in CHildren (CATCH) cohort study were utilised. The assessments included aerobic and anaerobic fitness via time-to-exhaustion on Bruce treadmill test and normalised mean power on Wingate cycling test, respectively; light physical activity (LPA), moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA), and sedentary time via accelerometry; and body adiposity (%) via bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA). The Movement Assessment Battery for Children-Second Edition (MABC-2) was used to assess motor coordination and classify children as typically developing (TD, >16th percentile) or at risk of developmental coordination disorder (DCD, ≤16th percentile). General linear regression models were fitted to examine associations. Results The analyses included 495 participants (5.0 ± 0.6 years, 56% male, and body adiposity 22.7 ± 4.2%). Aerobic fitness (β = −0.006, p < 0.001) and MVPA (β = −0.018, p = 0.045) were negatively associated with body adiposity when adjusted for age, sex, and MABC-2 score. There was no relationship between sedentary time and body adiposity. There were no interactions of sex or MABC-2 score with any variable. Conclusion Lower aerobic fitness and MVPA were associated with higher body adiposity in preschoolers, regardless of motor coordination. Interventions targetting improved aerobic fitness and MVPA are therefore warranted in both TD and atypically developing preschoolers. Whether maintaining high aerobic fitness in children with possible DCD confers protection against obesity requires longitudinal investigation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".