论文部分内容阅读
Objective:To explore the relationship between the arch type and physical form,physical fitness,body fat and somatotype.Methods:Measure and type the arch of 382 male soldier in a certain army by footprint ratio method;Routinely detect the results of height and weight,body fat,100 and 5 000 meters running,standing jump;According to the international heath-carter method,ten indexes were measured and the somatotype were evaluated.Results:1382 samples,flatfoot 91,accounted for 23.6%,the foot arch index 0.60+0.21;non-flatfoot 291,76.2%,arch index 1.14+0.22,t=22.83,P=0.001;2Comparing the mean of the results of height,weight,BMI,body fat percentage,100 and 5 000 meters running,standing jump of the two groups(flatfoot and non-flatfoot)samples,t-text,P>0.05;3Assessed by the method of heath-carter shape,flatfoot group somatotype mean is 2.7(0.7)-4.8(1.3)-2.7(0.9),sam is 1.5(0.9);non flatfoot group somatotype mean is 2.3(0.7)-5.0(3.1)-2.4(0.9),sam is 1.6(1.0);The distance of two groups`points in3D space mean somatotypes is 0.54;t-test of the two groups`somatotype mean,P>0.05.Conclusions:Compared the flatfoot group with the control group,there is no significant difference in physical form,physical fitness,body fat and somatotype.The increasingly high rate of flatfoot in healthy people is physical,but not flatfoot disease,and no need for surgery.
Objective: To explore the relationship between the arch type and physical form, physical fitness, body fat and somatotype. Methods: Measure and type the arch of 382 male soldier in a certain army by footprint ratio method; Routinely detect the results of height and weight , body fat, 100 and 5 000 meters running, standing jump; According to the international heath-carter method, ten indexes were measured and the somatotype were evaluated. Results: 1382 samples, flatfoot 91, accounted for 23.6%, the foot arch index 0.60 + 0.21; non-flatfoot 291,76.2%, arch index 1.14 + 0.22, t = 22.83, P = 0.001; 2Comparing the mean of the results of height, weight, BMI, body fat percentage, 100 and 5 000 meters running, standing feet of the two groups (flatfoot and non-flatfoot) samples, t-text, P> 0.05; 3Assessed by the method of heath-carter shape, flatfoot group somatotype mean is 2.7 (0.7) -4.8 (1.3) -2.7 Sam is 1.5 (0.9); sam is 1.5 (0.9); non flatfoot group somatotype mean is 2.3 (0.7) -5.0 (3.1) -2.4 space mean somatotypes is 0.54; t-test of the two groups `somatotype mean, P> 0.05. Conclusions: Compared the flatfoot group with the control group, there is no significant difference in physical form, physical fitness, body fat and somatotype. Increasing high rate of flatfoot in healthy people is physical, but not flatfoot disease, and no need for surgery.