Cross-sectional study identifies fitness levels and physical activity prevalence in young adults, suggesting health benchmarks.
Background: Understanding the prevalence of physical activity and fitness in the young population is crucial for establishing a benchmark for current baseline levels and monitoring future changes. Aim: This study was designed to examine multiple aspects of fitness relevant to health, including physical activity, cardiorespiratory fitness, muscular fitness and body composition. Methods: A total of 419 students between the ages of 18 and 25 years were screened in this cross-sectional survey after obtaining approval from the institution’s ethical board (RUHS-CMS/Ethics Comm-2018/148). The ‘Global Physical Activity Questionnaire’ was used to evaluate PA. Body fat percentage was measured using a Harpenden skinfold calliper, followed by measurement of VO 2 max using a gas analyser and handgrip strength assessment with the help of a computerised dynamometer. Results: The results showed that most of the male study population (62.9%) was highly active, and most of the females (59.7%) were active. The majority of males (55.6%) belonged to the athlete category, and females (32.6%) belonged to the average category of body fat distribution. Most males (27.6%) were in the fair category, whereas most females (32.6%) were in the good category of VO 2 max. The majority of the study population (male, 76.4%; female, 78.5%) were in the normal category. Physical activity was moderately positively correlated with VO 2 max and handgrip strength ( r = 0.429 and r = 0.408) and negatively correlated with body fat percentage ( r = −0.315). Conclusion: This study provides a baseline understanding of the prevalence of physical activity and fitness amongst young adults. This information can be beneficial for assessing a person’s fitness level and promoting physical activity and lifestyle modifications to prevent cardiovascular and metabolic issues.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Buttar et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: