Somatotypological features of the formation of morphological status in the peripubertal period of ontogenesis
https://doi.org/10.51523/2708-6011.2021-18-1-3
Abstract
The performed analytical review of literature on constitutional features of the formation of morphological status in the peripubertal period of ontogenesis has found that somatometric indicators of schoolchildren living in different urban-ecological conditions statistically significantly differ but the identified trends in the physical development of children and adolescents are often contradictory. There is lack of synthesizing data that characterize the somatic status of different body type representatives among urban schoolchildren in Belarus, although these data are important for the assessment of the health status of children cohorts.
About the Author
V. A. Melnik
Gomel State Medical University
Belarus
Belarus
Viktor A. Melnik, D.Sc. (Biology), Associate Professor, Dean of the Faculty for International Students, Gomel
References
1. Tegako LI. Constitution, personality, health and character of a person. Minsk, RB, Belaruskaja navuka; 2010. 162 p. (In Russ.)
2. Tegako LI, Negasheva MA. Influence of the degree of urbanization on somatic features and adaptive capabilities of schoolchildren and students in Minsk and Moscow. Aktual'nye Voprosy Antropologii. 2012;7:75-84. (In Russ.)
3. Pereira S, Gomes TN, Santos DR, Maia JA, Katzmarzyk PT, Souza M et al. Multilevel modelling of somatotype components: the Portuguese sibling study on growth, fitness, lifestyle and health. Annals of Human Biology. 2017;44(4):316-324. https://doi.org/10.1080/03014460.2016.1243727
4. Kutseryb T, Vovkanych L, Hrynkiv M, Majevska S, Muzyka F. Peculiarities of the somatotype of athletes with different directions of the training process. Journal of Physical Education and Sport. 2017;17(1):431-435.
5. Dorohov RN, Chernova VN. Integration of somatometric and functional indicators of children and adolescents. Izvestija Smolenskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta. 2016;1(33):291-297. (In Russ.)
6. Ponomareva OV. Correlation between anthropometric and physiometric indicators of children. Rossijskij Vestnik Perinatologii i Pediatrii. 2015;60(4):162. (In Russ.)
7. Fedotova TK, Chtecov VP. Intra-group relationships of body size variability with puberty in school-age children. Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta. Serija 23: Antropologija. 2013;3:28-41. (In Russ.). https://dlib.eastview.com/browse/doc/38973773
8. Ghosh S, Dosaev T, Prakash J, Livshits G. Quantitative genetic analysis of the body composition and blood pressure association in two ethnically diverse populations. American J. of Physical Anthrop. 2017;162(4):701-714. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.23161
9. Mel'nik VA. Constitutional features of the formation of morphofunctional indicators of physical development and puberty of urban schoolchildren. Gomel', RB, GomGMU; 2015. 224 p. (In Russ.)
10. Benítez-Hernández ZP. Body composition, nutritional status and diet in rural and urban Tarahumara schoolchildren in Chihuahua, México. Nutricion Clinica Dietetica Hospitalaria. 2014;34(2):71-79.
11. Boyne MS, Thame M, Osmond C. Growth, body composition, and the onset of puberty: longitudinal observations in Afro-Caribbean children. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 2010;95(7):3194–3200. https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2010-0080
12. Godina E. Secular trends in anthropometry. In: Human Diversity: design for life: 9th International Congress of Physiological Anthropology. Proceedings. Delft, the Netherlands, 22-26 August 2008. р. 43-47.
13. Salivon II. Changes in the physical type of the population of Belarus over the last Millennium. Minsk, RB, Belaruskaja navuka; 2011. 172 p. (In Russ.)
14. Salivon II, Mel'nik VA. Method for determining human body types based on a set of anthropometric indicators. Chelovek i ego Zdorov'e. Nauchno-Prakt. Vestnik Kurskogo Gos. Med. Un-ta. 2015;1:93-98. (In Russ.)
15. Alekseeva NT, Anohina ZhA, Korden AN. Features of anthropometric indicators of adolescents living in urban and rural ecology. Zhurnal Anatomii i Gistopatologii. 2015;4(3):19. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.18499/2225-7357-2015-4-3-19-19
16. Ahmad NS, Kurbanova GV, Kalybaeva AM, Kerejbaeva GH, Sakieva ZZh, Zhaksybaeva GS. The impact of air pollution on the morphological and functional indicators of schoolchildren of Almaty. Uspehi Sovrem. Estestvoznanija. 2015;1(3):443-446. (In Russ.)
17. Kuzmichev JuG, Bogomolova ES, Kaljuzhnyj EA, Shaposhnikova MV, Badeeva TV. et al. Informative value of regional and international standards for assessing the length and weight of children and adolescents. Medicinskij Al'manah. 2015;2(27):83-86. (In Russ.)
18. Chen Y, Zhang YT, Chen C, et al. [Update on pubertal development among primary school students in Shanghai, 2014]. Zhonghua yu Fang yi xue za zhi [Chinese Journal of Preventive Medicine]. 2016 Nov;50(11):971-975. https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.0253-9624.2016.11.010
19. Hurbo TL. Secular Trends in the Primary Indicators of Physical Development in Children, Adolescents and Young People between the Ages of 4–18 from Minsk (from 1920s to 2000s). International Journal of Anthropology. 2015;30(3-4):207-224.
20. Kaverin AV, Zenkin AS, Shchanikina GI, Shchanikin AA. Impact of ecological factors on morphofunctional indicators of evolutive somatotype of girls of various nationalities. Research J. of Pharmaceutical, Biolog. and Chemical Sciences. 2016;7(2):624-631.
Review
For citations:
Melnik V.A. Somatotypological features of the formation of morphological status in the peripubertal period of ontogenesis. Health and Ecology Issues. 2021;18(1):20-26. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.51523/2708-6011.2021-18-1-3
Views: 447
Email this article 