Curvilinear associations between anthropometric measures and physical fitness in Chinese college students: shared and sex-specific fitness tests, with menstrual health assessed in women


Abstract

Objective : To examine sex-specific nonlinear associations between anthropometric measures and physical fitness performance in Chinese college students, and to evaluate whether menstrual health indicators contribute to women’s fitness models. Methods : This cross-sectional study included 2,468 Chinese college students (men: 1,644; women: 824). Anthropometric measures (body mass index [BMI], waist-to-hip ratio [WHR], and arm span) were collected for all participants. Women additionally reported menstrual health characteristics, including age at menarche, cycle length, menstruation duration, menstrual regularity, dysmenorrhea, and severity of common menstrual symptoms (CMSS). Fitness performance was assessed using shared tests (50-m sprint, sit-and-reach, standing long jump) and sex-specific tests (men: pull-ups and 1,000-m run; women: one-minute sit-ups and 800-m run). For each fitness outcome, linear and quadratic regression models were compared using nested model tests; women’s models additionally included menstrual health indicators. Results: In men, quadratic models provided better fit than linear-only models across all fitness outcomes. BMI showed curvilinear associations with 50-m sprint and 1,000-m run times, with model-derived turning points around BMI ≈ 20.5 kg/m ² ; BMI also demonstrated nonlinear patterns for sit-and-reach (turning point ≈ 26.7), standing long jump ( ≈ 19.0), and pull-ups ( ≈ 18.2). WHR exhibited curvilinear associations with 50-m sprint, standing long jump, pull-ups, and sit-and-reach, with turning points clustered around WHR ≈ 0.73 – 0.76. Arm span showed a curvilinear association with sit-and-reach in men (turning point ≈ 171.5 cm). In women, evidence of nonlinearity was more selective: quadratic terms improved model fit for the 50-m sprint and 800-m run, with BMI turning points at ≈ 16.0 and ≈ 18.2, respectively, whereas linear models were adequate for sit-and-reach, standing long jump, and one-minute sit-ups. In women ’ s models, age at menarche showed a curvilinear association with 50-m sprint performance (turning point ≈ 12.2 years), and greater CMSS severity was independently associated with poorer one-minute sit-up performance. Conclusions: Anthropometric measures were associated with fitness performance in an outcome-specific and sex-dependent manner, with nonlinearity evident particularly in men and in women’s running outcomes. Menstrual health indicators contributed additional explanatory value in women, highlighting the importance of considering menstrual health when interpreting fitness performance and designing sex-sensitive health promotion strategies. Model-derived turning points should be interpreted within the observed data range and warrant confirmation in prospective and interventional studies.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].