Changes in Body Composition Among Young Adults from Bydgoszcz (Poland) in 2021–2025: A Report on Secular Trends
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12775/JEHS.2026.91.72550Keywords
Somatotype, anthropometry, Wanke–Kolasa typology, physiotherapy students, biological anthropologyAbstract
Objective: The aim of the study was to assess changes in somatic types according to the Wanke–Kolasa classification among physiotherapy students between 2021 and 2025 and to analyze the influence of selected socio-urbanization factors on the somatic structure of the studied population.
Materials and Methods: The study included 574 first-year physiotherapy students from Bydgoszcz, including 207 men and 367 women. Based on anthropometric measurements, five typological indices constituting the basis of the Wanke–Kolasa somatic classification were calculated. Selected socio-urbanization factors were also analyzed. Descriptive statistics, the Mann–Whitney U test with Bonferroni correction, and the Jonckheere–Terpstra test were applied.
Results: The studied population was dominated by components corresponding to a slender and relatively athletic body build. Both women and men demonstrated slight fluctuations in individual somatic components; however, no significant monotonic trends over time were observed. Mixed somatic types occurred more frequently than homogeneous profiles. Socio-urbanization factors showed no significant influence on somatic structure, except for a local association between maternal education level and the “H” component among women.
Conclusions: The somatic structure of physiotherapy students during the analyzed period demonstrated high stability. The obtained results indicate limited variability of morphological traits in young adults after the completion of biological maturation and suggest a greater role of biological factors and lifestyle than classical socioeconomic determinants in shaping somatotype.
References
1.NCD Risk Factor Collaboration (NCD-RisC). Worldwide trends in body-mass index, underweight, overweight, and obesity from 1975 to 2016: a pooled analysis of 2416 population-based measurement studies in 128.9 million children, adolescents, and adults. Lancet. 2017;390(10113):2627-2642. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32129-3.
2.Guthold R, Stevens GA, Riley LM, Bull FC. Worldwide trends in insufficient physical activity from 2001 to 2016: a pooled analysis of 358 population-based surveys with 1.9 million participants. Lancet Glob Health. 2018;6(10):e1077-e1086. doi:10.1016/S2214-109X(18)30357-7.
3.Katzmarzyk PT, Mason C. The physical activity transition. J Phys Act Health. 2009;6(3):269-280. doi:10.1123/jpah.6.3.269.
4.Hall G, Laddu DR, Phillips SA, Lavie CJ, Arena R. A tale of two pandemics: How will COVID-19 and global trends in physical inactivity and sedentary behavior affect one another? Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2021;64:108-110. doi:10.1016/j.pcad.2020.04.005.
5.Wells JCK, Chomtho S, Fewtrell MS. Programming of body composition by early growth and nutrition. Proc Nutr Soc. 2007;66(3):423-434. doi:10.1017/S0029665107005651.
6.Ammar A, Brach M, Trabelsi K, Chtourou H, Boukhris O, Masmoudi L, et al. Effects of COVID-19 home confinement on eating behaviour and physical activity: Results of the ECLB-COVID19 international online survey. Nutrients. 2020;12(6):1583. doi:10.3390/nu12061583.
7.Cieśla E, Mleczko E, Bergier J, Markowska M. Physical activity, body composition and lifestyle of students from selected European countries. Ann Agric Environ Med. 2019;26(1):119-124. doi:10.26444/aaem/102874.
8.Lewandowski A, Siedlaczek M, Piekorz Z, Kryst Ł. Secular trends (2001–2020) in physical fitness as a health component in physiotherapy students from Bydgoszcz (Poland). Sci Rep. 2024;14(1):11490. doi:10.1038/s41598-024-62157-1.
9.Keating XD, Guan J, Piñero JC, Bridges DM. A meta-analysis of college students’ physical activity behaviors. J Am Coll Health. 2005;54(2):116-126. doi:10.3200/JACH.54.2.116-126.
10.Irwin JD. Prevalence of university students’ sufficient physical activity: a systematic review. Percept Mot Skills. 2004;98(3 Pt 1):927-943.
11.Pengpid S, Peltzer K. Physical inactivity and associated factors among university students in 23 low-, middle- and high-income countries. Int J Public Health. 2015;60(5):539-549. doi:10.1007/s00038-015-0680-0.
12.Wanke A. Zagadnienie typów somatycznych. Przegląd Antropologiczny. 1954;20:64-104.
13.Kolasa E. Typologia konstytucjonalna kobiet polskich. Przegląd Antropologiczny. 1963;29:5-48.
14.Carter JEL, Heath BH. Somatotyping: Development and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1990.
15.Cole TJ. Secular trends in growth. Proc Nutr Soc. 2000;59(2):317-324. doi:10.1017/S0029665100000365.
16.Wang Y, Lim H. The global childhood obesity epidemic and the association between socio-economic status and childhood obesity. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2012;24(3):176-188. doi:10.3109/09540261.2012.688195.
17.López-Valenciano A, Suárez-Iglesias D, Sanchez-Lastra MA, Ayán C. Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on university students’ physical activity levels: an early systematic review. Front Psychol. 2021;11:624567. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.624567.
18.Lewandowski A, Grucza R. Diversity of body composition among female students of physiotherapy at the Medical University in Bydgoszcz. Fizjoterapia Polska. 2003;3(2):122-127.
19.Lewandowski A, Piekorz Z, Kryst Ł. Magnitude and pace of secular trends of body proportions among young adults with different place of residence between 2001 and 2019. Anthropol Anz. 2024. doi:10.1127/anthranz/2024/1706.
20.Lewandowski A, Piekorz Z, Siedlaczek M, Kryst Ł. Changes in somatic composition of young adults depending on time and place of residence. Manuscript submitted for publication. 2026.
21.Malinowski A, Bożilow W. Podstawy antropometrii. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Naukowe (dane wydawnicze do uzupełnienia); brak roku.
22.Martin R, Saller K. Lehrbuch der Anthropologie in systematischer Darstellung mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der anthropologischen Methoden. Bd. 1. 3., völlig umgearb. und erw. Aufl. Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer Verlag; 1957.
23.Pastuszak A, Buśko K, Kalka E. Somatotype and body composition of volleyball players and untrained female students – reference group for comparison in sport. Anthropol Rev. 2016;79(4):461-470. doi:10.1515/anre-2016-0033.
24.Buśko K, Pastuszak A, Kalka E. Body composition and somatotype of judo athletes and untrained male students as a reference group for comparison in sport. Biomed Hum Kinet. 2017;9(1):7-13. doi:10.1515/bhk-2017-0002.
25.Nowak O, Kaczmarek M, Piontek T. Morphological asymmetry, sex and dominant somatotype among Polish youth. PLoS One. 2020;15(9):e0238706. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0238706.
26.Kochman M, Kasperek W, Guzik A, Drużbicki M. Body composition and physical fitness: does this relationship change in 4 years in young adults? Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(3):1579. doi:10.3390/ijerph19031579.
27.Sterkowicz-Przybycień KL, Sterkowicz S, Żarów RT. Somatotype, body composition and proportionality in Polish top Greco-Roman wrestlers. J Hum Kinet. 2011;28:141-154. doi:10.2478/v10078-011-0031-z.
28.Glista J, Pop T, Weres A, Czenczek-Lewandowska E, Podgórska-Bednarz J, Rykała J, et al. Change in anthropometric parameters of posture of physiotherapy students after three years of professional training. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:719837. doi:10.1155/2014/719837.
29.Kutseryb T, Hrynkiv M, Vovkanych L, Muzyka F, Melnyk V. Anthropometric characteristics and body composition of female students involved in volleyball training. Anthropol Rev. 2022;85(4):389-401. doi:10.18778/1898-6773.85.4.03.
30.Carter JEL. The Heath-Carter anthropometric somatotype: instruction manual. San Diego (CA): San Diego State University; 2002.
31.Grgic J, Schoenfeld BJ, Davies TB, Lazinica B, Krieger JW, Pedisic Z. Effect of resistance training frequency on gains in muscular strength: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med. 2018;48(5):1207-1220. doi:10.1007/s40279-018-0872-x.
32.Malina RM, Bouchard C, Bar-Or O. Growth, maturation, and physical activity. 2nd ed. Champaign (IL): Human Kinetics; 2004.
33.Wells JCK. The evolution of human adiposity and obesity: where did it all go wrong? Dis Model Mech. 2012;5(5):595-607. doi:10.1242/dmm.009613.
34.Hanson MD, Chen E. Socioeconomic status and health behaviors in adolescence: a review of the literature. J Behav Med. 2007;30(3):263-285. doi:10.1007/s10865-007-9098-3.
35.Lamerz A, Kuepper-Nybelen J, Wehle C, Bruning N, Trost-Brinkhues G, Brenner H, et al. Social class, parental education, and obesity prevalence in a study of six-year-old children in Germany. Int J Obes (Lond). 2005;29(4):373-380. doi:10.1038/sj.ijo.0802914.
36.Sobal J, Stunkard AJ. Socioeconomic status and obesity: a review of the literature. Psychol Bull. 1989;105(2):260-275. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.105.2.260.
37.Komlos J, Brabec M. The trend of mean body height of young men in the last two centuries. Econ Hum Biol. 2010;8(1):14-24. doi:10.1016/j.ehb.2009.09.001.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Marcin Siedlaczek, Andrzej Lewandowski, Aleksandra Siedlaczek, Zuzanna Piekorz
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The periodical offers access to content in the Open Access system under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0
Stats
Number of views and downloads: 38
Number of citations: 0
