ArticleBMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation2025
Comparative analysis of physical fitness and body composition in first-year bachelor sports sciences students from France and Portugal.
Article in BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPhysical 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.
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted with 172 first-year university students (121 males, 51 females) enrolled in sports sciences programs at one French (UMLP) and two Portuguese institutions (IPB and IPG). Participants completed a standardized physical fitness test battery assessing aerobic capacity (estimated VO₂
resultsStudents 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.
conclusionsThis 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.