Comparative analysis of physical fitness and body composition in first-year bachelor sports sciences students from France and Portugal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Physical fitness and body composition are foundational to the training and academic success of sports sciences students. However, baseline physical profiles may vary across institutions and countries, reflecting differences in cultural, educational, and physical activity environments. This study aimed to compare physical fitness levels and anthropometric characteristics of first-year sports sciences students from three European institutions in France and Portugal. METHODS: ), upper- and lower-body strength (handgrip, isometric mid-thigh pull), explosive power (standing long jump), flexibility (sit-and-reach), and balance (standing stork test). Anthropometric measures included body mass, fat mass, and lean mass. Group and gender differences were analyzed using ANOVA and effect sizes. RESULTS: Students from UMLP displayed significantly higher performance in estimated VO₂max (IPB vs UMLP d = 1.08; IPG vs UMLP d = 0.81), strength (isometric mid-thigh pull [IPB vs UMLP d = 0.65; IPG vs UMLP d = 0.73]), flexibility (IPB vs UMLP d = 0.61; IPG vs UMLP d = 0.69), balance (IPG vs UMLP d = 0.91), and body composition (higher lean mass [IPB vs UMLP d = 0.19; IPG vs UMLP d = 0.28], lower fat mass [IPB vs UMLP d = 0.22; IPG vs UMLP d = 0.31]) compared to their Portuguese peers. IPG students outperformed the other groups in the standing long jump test (IPB vs IPG d = 0.51; IPG vs UMLP d = 1.38). Males consistently outperformed females across all fitness domains except flexibility. Significant group-by-gender interactions were observed for flexibility and strength measures. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights substantial differences in physical fitness and body composition among first-year sports sciences students across institutions in France and Portugal. These findings underline the importance of assessing students' physical readiness at university entry and suggest that institutional and cultural factors may influence physical health trajectories. Targeted interventions may be warranted to ensure baseline fitness equity and promote academic and athletic success.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".