Author(s): MARIN, L., VANDONI, M., PIRAZZI, A., RE, F., CORTESE, L., VIGO, A., CAVALLO, C., PATANÈ, P., Institution: MASTER DEGREE COURSE OF MOTOR SCIENCES, Country: ITALY, Abstract-ID: 860

INTRODUCTION:
Despite the widely recognized benefits of physical activity on health and well-being, studies highlight a significant decline in exercise participation and an increase in sedentary behaviors during university years. However, differences in physical fitness among students from different academic programs remain largely unexplored.
METHODS:
Forty-five university students (age, 22.62 ± 2.82; 26 Female) were enrolled and divided into three groups of 15, based on their degree program: Motor Science (MS), which includes courses based on the practice of physical activity, Psychiatric Rehabilitation Therapy (TERP) and Physiotherapy (PT), which do not have any. Assessments were done in May 2024 at the University of Pavia with two standardized test batteries: the Alpha-Fit Test Battery and the Health Assessment Battery. These tools enabled the evaluation of the follow functional capacities: aerobic fitness, 6-Minute Walking Test (6MWT), 2 km Walking Test (2KMWT); muscular strength, 30-Second Push-Up Test, Modified Push-Up Test, 30-Second Sit-Up Test, Dynamic Sit-Up Test; muscular power, standing Broad Jump (SBJ), Jump and Reach; flexibility, Sit and Reach Test, Shoulder-Neck Flexibility Test; balance, One-Leg Stand Test. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software. One-way ANOVA or the Kruskal-Wallis test were applied, depending on data distribution. A statistical significance threshold of p < 0.05 was set. Post hoc comparisons were conducted to identify significant differences between groups.
RESULTS:
Compared to PT and TERP, MS showed superior performance in aerobic fitness (2KMWT, p 0,011), muscular strength (30-second sit-up, p < 0.001; 30-second push-up, p 0.012; modified push-up, p < 0.001; dynamic sit-up, p 0.043) and power (SBJ, p 0.002; jump and reach, p < 0,001). Balance was significantly better in MS compared to PT (p = 0.004); whereas no significant differences emerged between MS and TERP. Flexibility results showed no significant differences among groups. The comparison between TERP and PT showed no significant differences in any of the outcomes.
CONCLUSION:
This study underscores the impact of academic pathway on physical fitness of the university students. Despite the small sample, the observed differences suggest that curricular physical activity levels may play a crucial role in shaping physical fitness.
Future research should explore the long-term implications of these findings and investigate targeted interventions to improve the physical fitness of university students regardless of their academic background.