MOVEMENT ACTIVITY DETERMINATION WITH HEALTH-RELATED 
VARIABLES OF UNIVERSITY STUDENTS IN KOSICE
Peter BAKALÁR1, Martin ZVONAR2*, Jaromir SEDLACEK3, Rut LENKOVA3, Peter SAGAT4, 
Lubos VOJTASKO5,3, Erika LIPTAKOVA6, Miroslava BARCALOVA5,7
1Pavol Jozef Šafárik University, Institute of Physical Education and Sports, Ondavská 21, Kosice, Slovakia
2Masaryk University, Faculty od Sports Studies, Kamenice 5, Brno, Czech Republic
3University of Presov, Faculty of Sport, Department of Sports Kinanthropology, 17th November Str., Presov, Slovakia
4Prince Sultan University Riyadh, Department of  Physical Education, Riyadh, Saudy Arabia
5Technical University of Kosice, Department of Physical Education, Vysokoškolská 4, Kosice, Slovakia
6Technical University of Kosice, Faculty of Economics, 
Department of Applied Mathematics and Business Informatics, Němcovej 32, Kosice, Slovakia
7Technical University of Kosice, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, 
Department of Biomedical Engineering and Measurement, Letná 9, Kosice, Slovakia
Received: May 29, 2017
Accepted: Mar 12, 2018
Original scientific article
Introduction: There is currently a strong scientific evidence about the negative health consequences of physical 
inactivity. One of the potential tools for promoting physical activity at the institutional level of the Ecological 
model is to create conditions and settings that would enable pupils, students and employees engage in some 
form of physical activity. However, physical activities as a subject are being eliminated from the study programs 
at Slovak universities. The purpose of the study was to find current evidence about the level of structured 
physical activity and health-related variables in university students in Košice.
Material and methods: The sample consisted of 1,993 or, more precisely, 1,398 students who attended two 
universities in Košice. To collect data, students completed a questionnaire and were tested for body height, 
body weight, circumferential measures and percentage body fat.
Results: The university students did not sufficiently engage in a structured physical activity. A large number of 
students had either low or high values of percentage body fat and BMI and high WHR values.
Conclusions: Our findings have shown that the research into physical activity of university students should 
receive more attention.
Uvod: Trenutno imamo na voljo zelo trdne znanstvene dokaze o negativnih telesnih posledicah zaradi telesne 
nedejavnosti. Eno izmed morebitnih orodij za promocijo telesne dejavnosti na institucionalni ravni Ekološkega 
modela je ustvarjanje pogojev in okolja, ki omogoča učencem, študentom in zaposlenim vključevanje v 
določeno telesno dejavnost. Na univerzah na Slovaškem se telesne dejavnosti kot predmet izločajo iz študijskih 
programov. Namen študije je raziskovanje trenutnih dokazov o ravni strukturirane telesne dejavnosti in 
spremenljivk, ki so povezane z zdravjem pri študentih v mestu Košice.
Gradivo in metode: Vzorec je vključeval 1.993, ali natančneje 1.398 študentov, ki obiskujejo obe univerzi v 
mestu Košice. Zbiranje podatkov je potekalo v obliki vprašalnika, ki so ga študenti izpolnili, ter testiranja za 
pridobivanje podatkov o telesni višini, telesni teži, obodnih vrednosti in odstotka telesne maščobe.
Rezultati: Univerzitetni študenti se ne vključujejo v strukturirane telesne dejavnosti v zadostni meri. Visoko 
število študentov ima prenizke ali previsoke vrednosti za odstotek telesne maščobe in indeks telesne mase ter 
visoke vrednosti pri razmerju med pasom in boki.
Zaključek: Ugotovitve nakazujejo, da bi morali raziskovanju telesne dejavnosti univerzitetnih študentov 
posvečati več pozornosti.
ABSTRACT
Keywords: 
Physical activity, 
percentage body fat, 
Body mass index, 
Waist-hip ratio, 
university students
IZVLEČEK
Ključne besede: 
telesna dejavnost, 
odstotek telesne 
maščobe, indeks 
telesne mase, razmerje 
med pasom in boki, 
univerzitetni študenti
*Corresponding author: Tel. + 420 602 733 111; E-mail: zvonar@fsps.muni.cz
Zdr Varst. 2018;57(2):88-95
DOLOČANJE GIBALNE DEJAVNOSTI S SPREMENLJIVKAMI NA PODROČJU 
ZDRAVJA PRI UNIVERZITETNIH ŠTUDENTIH V MESTU KOŠICE 
Bakalár P, Zvonar M, Sedlacek J, Lenkova R, Sagat P, Vojtasko L, Liptakova E, Barcalova M. Movement activity determination with health related variables of university 
students in Kosice. Zdr Varst. 2018;57(2):88-95. doi: 10.2478/sjph-2018-0012.
10.2478/sjph-2018-0012
88
© Nacionalni inštitut za javno zdravje, Slovenija. 
1 INTRODUCTION 
At present, we have strong scientific evidence on the 
negative health consequences of lack of movement activity, 
which we define as ‘the behaviour of an individual with a 
low volume of normal physical activity and the deficit of 
structured movement activities with the prevalence of 
sedentary lifestyle’ (1). In the Slovak Republic, according 
to the Eurobarometer 2014 (2), no ordinary physical 
activity, such as cycling from place to place or gardening, 
is practiced by 19% of the population, and up to 41% of 
the population does not practice any physical exercise or 
any sport, which represents an increase of 6% compared 
to 2009. Thus, the low level of physical activity can be 
considered a public policy problem that needs to be 
addressed at the national level (3). One of the theoretical 
concepts applicable to the promotion of mobility of the 
population is the Ecological Model of Behaviour (4). For 
the above model, the desired change in behaviour, in our 
case, the increase in the level of movement activity, will 
be more successful if we focus on influencing as many 
of the correlates and determinants of motion activity. 
We will work through multiple interventions at different 
levels (individual, interpersonal, institutional, communal 
and public) at the same time (5). At the institutional 
level, which includes schools, companies, health facilities 
or civic associations, it is possible to support mobility 
activities by creating conditions and environments 
for carrying out a specific physical activity for pupils, 
students, employees or residents (6). Especially in the 
case of schools, we have a tool for influencing a large 
number of individuals in the direction of their physical 
education. In the academic year 2015/16, despite the 
long-term decreasing trend in the number of university 
students, 149,031 citizens of the Slovak Republic 
(together with foreigners, it is 158,659 students) were 
studying at Slovak universities (7), accounting for about 
2.8% of the whole Slovak population. University education 
is, for the majority of them, often the last formal learning 
environment in which they can acquire the knowledge 
and skills needed to lead an active lifestyle with lifelong 
positive health benefits (8, 9). Research suggests that 
incorporating compulsory education related with health 
or physical activity into university education studies may 
impact on health-related knowledge, attitudes and real 
behaviour in graduates (10). At the Slovak universities, 
however, we can, paradoxically, watch the opposite trend, 
when physical activities as a subject are often excluded 
from study programs, even among optional subjects, 
at humanities faculties, and in teacher study programs 
(11). From 36 Slovak and 4 foreign universities operating 
in Slovakia, it provides teaching of physical activity for 
students of 23 universities (57.5%) (12).
 
1.2 Objectives
On the example of two of two Slovak universities, 
Technical University of Kosice (TUKE) and P. J. Safarik 
University in Kosice (UPJS), we analyse the frequency of 
structured physical activity and health-related variables 
of their students, both in the context of the obligation and 
selection of hours of physical activity during university 
studies.
 
2 MATERIALS AND METHODS
In our research, are involved 3391 students from two 
Kosice universities, TUKE and UPJS. Data were collected 
in the academic year 2012/2013, in two waves, October/ 
November 2012 and April/ May 2013. There was applied 
questionnaire and measurements of somatic parameters. 
During the winter term, in October/ November 2012, 1993 
students were involved (sample S1), 810 males and 1183 
females; 1042 were students from TUKE and 951 from 
UPJS. During the summer term, in April/ May 2013, we 
again collected data from the next 1398 students (sample 
S2), 558 males and 840 females, 645 from TUKE and 753 
from UPJS.
For the needs of this study, we prepared a non-standardized 
questionnaire, from which we gathered students’ age, 
gender, the year of study, and the frequency of structured 
exercise activity during the last 6 months.
Somatic parameters were learned by measuring in an 
indoor sports hall. Students were dressed in light sports 
closing (shorts and T-shirts). Parameter body height (BH) 
was measured according to the instructions in sports 
metrology (13). Apparatus Omron BF 511 was used to learn 
values of the parameters body weight (BW), Body Mass 
Index (BMI) and percentage of body fat (% fat). Waist-hip 
ratio was measured with measuring tailor tape. according 
to instructions of the WHO (2011). 
When evaluating the percentage of fat, we used the 
classification of Gallagher et al. (14) listed in the OMRON 
BF 511 manual for men and women of age 18–39. For men, 
the values were <8% low, 8.0–19.9% normal, 20.0–24.9 
high and ≥25% very high. For females, the values were 
<21% low, 21.0–32.9% normal, 33.0–38.9% high and ≥39 
very high.
WHR values were classified according to the WHO 
recommendations (15), and with respect to gender 
dimorphism – females: <0.75 excellent, 0.75–0.79 good, 
0.80–0.86 average and >0.86 at risk, and males: <0.85 
excellent, 0.85–0.89 good, 0.90–0.95 average and >0.95 
at risk.
10.2478/sjph-2018-0012 Zdr Varst. 2018;57(2):88-95
89
10.2478/sjph-2018-0012 Zdr Varst. 2018;57(2):88-95
90
BMI was evaluated according to the WHO classification 
(16): ≤18.5 underweight, between 18.5 and 24.9 normal 
(healthy) weight, 25.0–29.9 overweight, and ≥30 obese.
To assess the significance of differences between groups 
in the frequency of structured movement activity, body 
fat percentage, BMI and WHR, we used the Kruskal Wallis 
test. We divided the research groups according to the 
year of study, into three sub-groups, namely: the 1st year, 
2nd year, 3rd–6th year. To evaluate the magnitude of the 
statistical significance of the differences in the mean 
values of the monitored indicators, we used the t-test for 
independent files. Statistical significance was evaluated 
at p <0.05.
Pedagogical interpretation is based on fundamental 
logical methods, mainly on analysis, comparison and 
generalization. 
 
3 RESULTS
The basic characteristics of S1 and S2 are shown in Table 
1. The mean values of the body height of both male and 
female groups were in the average body height of the 
Slovak population (13) of this age (average male 173–185 
cm and female intervals 163–172 cm). The average body 
weight of male S1 was at the upper limit of the mean 
weight and the average weight of the S2 set in the 
overweight interval (male average 64–77 kg, overweight 
77–89 kg). The average body weight of both groups of 
females was in the range of average population body 
weight (52–64 kg).
At the beginning of the academic year 2012/2013, from 
a total of 18,505 students of TUKE and UPJS, the subject 
physical activity was chosen by 2958 freshmen, 1622 in 
the second, 352 in the third, 412 in the fourth, 142 in 
the fifth and 5 in the sixth year of study. Obligation to 
complete the subject physical activities for all students 
of the 1st year and 2nd year of the UPJS Medical Faculty 
(n=406 resp. 407) and some other faculties of TUKE was 
reflected in their high percentage of enrolled students of 
the above years (74.9% and 46.8%, respectively).
The selectivity of physical activity subject in the 3rd 
to 6th years of both universities was again reflected in 
a significant drop in the number of students in physical 
activity lessons (Figure 1). 
Table 1.
Figure 1.
Fundamental characteristics of our groups according to gender and year of study.
Percentages of TUKE and UPJS students signed for PA 
courses in each study year.
Legend: S1 – sample 1 (September 2012); S2 – sample 2 (May 2013)
Age
BH(cm)
BW(kg)
Age
BH(cm)
BW(kg)
19.7±1.7
179.2±6.6
75.7±12.7
20.0±2.6
166.1±6.3
60.3±10.5
n = 622
S1, n=518
20.7±1.2
179.0±6.8
77.6±14.4
20.8±2.8
166.2±6.2
60.4±10.8
n = 367
S1, n=204
23.1±3.8
178.5±7.0
79.3±18.2
22.7±2.8
166.7±6.0
59.8±9.6
n = 194
S1, n=88
20.3±2.2
179.1±6.7
76.6±13.9
20.7±2.8
166.2±6.2
60.2±10.4
N = 1183
S1, n=810
20.7±1.3
180±6.4
77.9±13.7
20.8±1.9
166.7±6.1
59.6±9.7
n = 448
S2, n=376
21.9±1.3
180.3±6.2
80.4±11.5
21.7±2.2
167.4±6.1
61.2±11.8
n = 276
S2, n=146
23.2±1.4
178.7±7.7
78.5±13.2
23.1±1.4
167.6±5.7
59.5±8.8
n = 116
S2, n=36
21.1±1.5
180.0±6.5
78.6±13.1
21.4±2.1
167.1±6.1
60.1±10.3
N = 840
S2, n=558Males
Females
Total (N)2st year (n) 3rd-6th year (n)1st year (n)
10.2478/sjph-2018-0012 Zdr Varst. 2018;57(2):88-95
91
By analysing the frequency of structured movement 
activity, we found that 38.8% of males and 62.9% of S1 
females (beginning of the academic year) were involved 
in structured movement activity irregularly or not at all. 
At the same time, among males, the number of students 
engaged in exercise activity was 3 times a week higher 
than that of females. The influence of gender on the 
frequency of structured physical activity of university 
students was confirmed by our previous studies (17), as 
well as by another study by Mota and Esculcas (18). In S2 
Table 2. T-tests between S1 and S2 regarding gender and year of study.
Legend: S1 – sample 1 (September 2012); S2 – sample 2 (May 2013); FSPA – frequency of structured physical activity (1); 
%FAT – body fat percentage (%); BMI – body mass index (kg. m-2); WHR – waist hip rate (1); *p<0.05.
FemalesMalesGender:
Health variables: WHR WHRBMI BMI%FAT %FATFSPA FSPA
(the end of academic year), 13.6% of males and 29.7% of 
females were irregularly or not attracted to structured 
physical activity, which is less than in S1 for males and 
females. The difference between the two independent 
groups (S1 and S2) was statistically significant (Table 2). 
If we consider the performance of structured physical 
activity 1 times a week as insufficient, we can say that 
most of our students were not physically active at the 
beginning of the academic year (52.1% of males and 76.5% 
of females). 
S1
S2
p
S1
S2
p
S1
S2
p
S1
S2
p
3.3±1.4
3.8±1.1
0.0001*
3.4±1.2
3.9±1.0
0.0004*
3.3±1.3
3.8±1.1
0.0259*
3.4±1.3
3.8±1.1
0.0001*
23.6±3.7
23.9±3.9
0.1498
24.2±4.1
24.6±3.3
0.2591
24.5±4.1
24.4±3.1
0.9322
23.8±3.9
24.2±3.8
0.11
2.6±1.2
3.3±1.1
0.0001*
2.8±1.1
3.3±1.1
0.0001*
2.8±1.1
3.4±1.1
0.0001*
2.7±1.1
3.3±1.1
0.0001*
21.8±3.6
21.3±3.0
0.0101*
21.9±3.8
21.8±3.7
0.6519
21.5±3.1
21.3±3.2
0.6172
21.8±3.6
21.4±3.3
0.0271*
19.1±7.5
18.8±7.6
0.52
20.4±7.7
20.5±7.3
0.965
21.4±8.0
20.4±7.0
0.5234
19.7±7.6
19.3±7.5
0.3877
0.84±0.07
0.85±0.07
0.0015*
0.84±0.8
0.86±0.06
0.0025*
0.86±0.09
0.85±0.07
0.3231
0.84±0.08
0.86±0.07
0.0004*
29.9±7.7
28.7±6.8
0.0095*
30.5±7.2
29.2±7.4
0.024*
29.8±6.8
28.7±6.6
0.1803
30.1±7.4
28.9±7.0
0.0003*
0,77±0,07
0,74±0,06
0.0001*
0,76±0,06
0,74±0,06
0.0002*
0,76±0,06
0,73±0,08
0.0122*
0,76±0,07
0,74±0,06
0.0001*
1st year
2nd year
3rd-6th year
Total
10.2478/sjph-2018-0012 Zdr Varst. 2018;57(2):88-95
92
In both groups of males and females (S1 and S2), we 
found higher average values of body fat (norms according 
to Gallagher et al., 2000 are 8–19.9% for men and 21–
32.9% for women). More authors prove that there exist 
some systematic differences depending on the way of 
gaining data (19). Our apparatus OMRON BF 511 slightly 
overvalues the percentage of body fat, compared to skin 
folders (20) or apparatus OMRON BF 306 (21, 24). Despite 
the system measurement error, the measured results 
can be used to compare the percentage of body fat of 
the groups. For females from S1 group, for example, 
there were measured higher percentages of body fat, 
compared to S2 females in all groups in average by 1.2%, 
with statistically significant differences. Among males, 
the differences between the groups are not statistically 
significant. However, there is the trend in increasing the 
percentage of fat with the higher year of study (Table 3), 
both among males and females.
Average BMI values were found in both men and women 
of both groups in the recommended bands, with no 
significant differences between the groups (normal 
weight men and women 18.50–24.99; WHO, 2014) (Table 
4). Several Slovak authors have come to similar results 
(19–25). In monitoring the distribution of students within 
single BMI bands, we found that, in case of males, 26.3% 
of S1 and 26.7% of S2 were in the overweight band, and 
6% and 7.3%, respectively, in the obesity band. For our 
females, this distribution was smaller with 12.1% of S1 
and 10.5% of S2 groups in the overweight band, and 3.5% 
and 1.9%, respectively, in the obesity band. The incidence 
of underweight in females was 11.7% in S1 and 14.5% in 
S2 (Table 4). 
Table 3.
Table 4.
T-tests between S1 and S2 regarding gender and year of study.
Absolute and relative distribution of BMI in September 2012 and May 2013 measurements.
Legend: S1 – sample 1 (September 2012); S2 – sample 2 (May 2013).
Legend: S1 – sample 1 (September 2012); S2 – sample 2 (May 2013).
Females
Females, BMI
Males
Males, BMI
N
N
N
N
Norms
Norms
Norms
Norms
Low Low
8.0-19.9
18.5-24.9 18.5-24.9
21.0-32.9
High HighNormal Normal
20.0-24.9
25-29.9 25-29.9
33.0-38.9
Very high Very high
>25.0
30.0> 30.0>
>39.0>25.0 <8.0
<18.5 <18.5
<20.9
S1
810
S2
558
S1
810
S2
558
S1
1183
S2
840
S1
1183
S2
840
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
26
3.2
27
4.8
28
3.5
11
2.0
103
8.7
100
11.9
139
11.7
122
14.5
175
21.6
117
21
213
26.3
149
26.7
225
19
160
19
143
12.1
88
10.5
430
53.1
297
53.2
520
64.2
357
64
714
60.4
519
60.9
860
72.7
614
73.1
179
22.1
117
21
49
6
41
7.3
141
11.9
61
7.3
41
3.5
16
1.9
10.2478/sjph-2018-0012 Zdr Varst. 2018;57(2):88-95
93
Average values of WHR of our group, both males and 
females, were found (Table 2) in recommended bands 
(norms of males ≤0.95 and females ≤0,85; WHO, 2011). 
Risk values of WHR can be seen among males of S1 in 
5.4%, and of S2 in 6.5%. For females in S1, it was 7.8%, and 
for S2, 3.9% (Table 5). For these men and women, we can 
talk about increased health risks. In the first and second 
year of study groups, we observed a WHR index increase 
trend among males, but females, on the contrary, had a 
decrease in WHR in both groups. These trends were also 
manifested in a significant difference between both men 
and women. Similar results were also found by other 
authors (22–26). 
4 DISCUSSION
A significant decrease in the number of students present 
at physical activity lessons in the higher years of study 
(although we do not have complete facts about their 
physical activity), is for us a strong indicator of a lower 
interest in structured physical activity in higher years 
of university studies. Both groups of males and females 
that we observed at the beginning of school year (S1), 
were significantly less physically active, like groups at the 
end of school year (S2). From this, we can deduce that 
the compulsory subject of physical activity could lead to 
one of its main goals – to increase the level of physical 
activity of university students. Another deduction can be 
about the negative influence of summer vacations on the 
volume of movement activity. These findings relate mainly 
to the 1st and 2nd year of study, in which the comparison 
of differences in the frequency of structured movement 
activity was statistically significant in both men and 
women. The question is why students from the 3rd to the 
6th year of schooling disappear from the hours of optional 
movement activities. Should not the obligation to pass 
a physical activity lead the students to take free hours 
of physical activity to maintain a higher level of their 
physical fitness? Did not we teach them that during the 
lessons? Should hours of physical activity be compulsory 
Table 5. Absolute and relative distribution of WHR in September 2012 and May 2013 measurements.
Legend: S1 – sample 1 (September 2012); S2 – sample 2 (May 2013).
FemalesMales
N NNorms Norms
Excellent Excellent
0.85-0.89 0.75-0.79
Average AverageGood Good
0.90-0.95 0.80-0.85
At risk At risk
0.96> 0.86><0.85 <0.75
S1
810
S2
558
S1
1183
S2
840
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
470
58
262
47
534
45.1
535
63.7
93
11.5
100
17.9
209
17.7
74
8.8
203
25.1
160
28.7
348
29.4
198
23.6
44
5.4
36
6.5
92
7.8
33
3.9
throughout the whole study? Or should we choose a 
different format (10), the introduction of compulsory 
hours of the subject Health Education, including not only 
physical education (practical and theoretical part), but 
also health psychology and nutrition education that can 
lead to long-term positive results. According to Keating 
et al. (28), there are three main reasons as to why we 
are unable to increase the level of physical activity of 
university students through their participation in lessons 
of physical activity, namely:
• Research on the physical activity of university 
students is not sufficient;
• research of the physical activity of university 
students lacks a multilevel approach (individual, 
interpersonal, institutional, communal and public);
• movement activity diagnostic tools are subjective 
and inconsistent, making comparisons of movement 
activity parameters between individual groups 
difficult or impossible.
Of course, thinking that changing all university students 
to practice regularly physical activities would be naive. 
However, not to attempt to influence as many of them 
as possible would be irresponsible from point of view 
of society in the light of the negative health, economic 
and social consequences of physical activity deficiency. 
10.2478/sjph-2018-0012 Zdr Varst. 2018;57(2):88-95
94
As stated in the University Act itself in Slovakia (29), the 
mission of higher education institutions ‘is to develop a 
harmonious personality, knowledge, wisdom, good and 
creativity in man and to contribute to the development 
of education, science, culture and health for the welfare 
of society as a whole, thereby contributing to develop a 
knowledge-based society ... e.g. via contributing to the 
prevention and treatment of diseases. Considering both 
normal and structured physical activities as equivalent in 
terms of their health benefits (1), we think that the place 
of structured physical activity in movement education 
is indispensable. At the same time, numerous groups of 
individuals with low or high percentages of body fat and 
BMI as well as high WHR values should be our primary 
target groups in the field of health education for university 
students.
 
5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMEDATIONS 
The frequency of structured movement activity of students 
of selected colleges of high education is inadequate. Its 
support in the form of lessons of movement activities has 
its social justification in its current form, as well as its 
hidden limitations and deficiencies, the identification 
of which should be the subject of further research into 
the physical activity of university students. Considering 
the need to apply the multilevel approach, based on our 
findings on the prevalence of risk values with health-
associated variables and considering the methodological 
weaknesses of our study, we therefore recommend further 
research in the following fields:
1. Monitoring of individual parameters of physical 
activity of university students (frequency, intensity, 
type and time of movement activities) at all 
universities in the Slovak Republic with a uniform 
diagnostic tool (subjective or objective). Our study 
is an example of the use of a non-standardized 
subjective diagnostic tool, in which we focus only on 
monitoring the frequency of structured movement 
activity, without identifying intensity, kind and time 
involved in a physical activity.
2. Monitoring health-related variables (the percentage 
of body fat, BMI, WHR) at all universities in the Slovak 
Republic by a uniform methodical procedure.
3. Monitoring the correlations of physical activity of 
college students in the research of identified groups 
of correlates of physical activity: a) demographic 
and biological factors, b) psychological, cognitive 
and emotional factors, c) attributes of behaviour and 
skills, d) social and cultural factors, e) environmental 
factors and f) characteristics of movement activity 
(30-32).
4. Monitoring the determinants of physical activity of 
university students through the monitoring of the 
influence of obligatory passing of hours of movement 
activities in the subject of Health Education, as 
independent variables, together with health-
related indicators, knowledge, attitudes and actual 
behaviour of graduates. This monitoring can take the 
form of interventions supporting the physical activity 
of students in well-designed and conducted research 
experiments.
5. Identification of successful interventions to support 
physical activity of graduates and their transitions 
into conditions of other universities.
6. Analysing the structure and evaluation of the quality 
of the educational process on the lessons of physical 
activities carried out in the various educational 
environments of university education institutions. 
The real situation that only 9.4% of thirds, 13.3% of 
fours, 3.7% of fifth and 1.3% of sixths (Figure 1) chose 
physical activity may be, to a certain extent, also 
a reflection of dissatisfaction with the educational 
process and the educational environment in which this 
process takes place. As with other types of sports and 
fitness equipment in the developing fitness industry 
in Kosice, the introduction of basic principles of sport 
management into the management of movement 
education at universities appears to be a necessary 
step.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
The authors declare that no conflicts of interest exist.
FUNDING
The study was supported by the grant project VEGA 
1/1343/12, entitled ‘Selected risk factors of obesity and 
exercise prevention.’
ETHICAL APPROVAL
The study has been performed in accordance with the 
declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethical 
committee of the Faculty of Sports Studies, Masaryk 
University, Brno, Czech Republic.
10.2478/sjph-2018-0012 Zdr Varst. 2018;57(2):88-95
95
REFERENCES
1. Dobry L, Cechovska I. Zdravotní benefity pohybové aktivnosti a 
behaviorální intervence. In: Hendl J, Dobrý L, et al. Zdravotní 
benefity pohybových aktivit: monitorování, intervence, evaluace. 
Praha: Karolinum, 2011:14-60.
2. Eurobarometer. Sport and physical activity, 2014. Accessed March 
22nd, 2015 at: http://ec.europa.eu/health/nutrition_physical_
activity/docs/ebs_412_en.pdf.
3. Kalman M, Hamrik Z. Je nizka uroven pohybove aktivity 
verejnepoliticky problem?. Telesna Kultura. 2013;5:96-114.
4. McLeroy KR, Bibeau D, Steckler A, Glanz K. An ecological perspective 
on health promotion programs. Health Educ Q. 1988;15(4):351-77.
5. Hendl J, Dobry L, et al. Zdravotni benefity pohybovych aktivit: 
monitorovani, intervence, evaluace Praha: Karolinum, 2011. 
6. Bocarro JN, Kanters MA. Leisure, health, and physical activity. In: 
Dimensions of leisure for life: individuals and society. Champaign: 
Human Kinetics, 2010:67-87.
7. MSVVS SR: annual reports about state of universities in Slovakia in 
year 2016. Accessed February 8th, 2017 at: https://www.minedu.sk/
vyrocne-spravy-o-stave-vysokeho-skolstva/.
8. McSharry P, Timmins F. An evaluation of the effectiveness of a 
dedicated health and well-being course on nursing students’ health. 
Nurse Educ Today. 2016;44:26-32. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2016.05.004. 
9. Sparling PB. College physical education: an unrecognized agent of 
change in combating inactivity-related diseases. Perspect Biol Med. 
2003;46(4):579-87. 
10. Pearman SN, Valois RF, Sargent RG, Saunders RP, Drane JW, 
Macera CA. The impact of a required college health and physical 
education course on the health status of alumni.  J Am Coll Health. 
1997;46(2):77-85. doi: 10.1080/07448489709595591.
11. Gerhatova B. Sucasny stav univerzitneho sportu v Slovenskej 
republike, Ministerstvo skolstva SR. CD-2009-26896/21007. 2009; 
5:10. 
12. Jancokova L, Pugschova B, Bendikova E. Telesná výchova na vysokých 
školách v slovenskej republike. ACC J. 2015;21:148-59. 
13. Sedlacek J, Cihova I. Športová metrológia. Bratislava: ICM Agency, 
2009.
14. Gallagher D, Heymsfield SB, Heo M, Jebb SA, Murgatroyd PR, 
Sakamoto Y. Healthy percentage body fat ranges: an approach for 
developing guidelines based on body mass index. Am J Clin Nutr. 
2000;72(3):694-701. 
15. World Health Organisation. Waist circumference and waist-hip ratio: 
report of a WHO expert consultation, 2011. Accessed February 20th, 
2017 at: http://www.who.int/nutrition/publications/obsity/WHO_
report_waistcircumference_and_ waisthip_ratio/en/.
16. World Health Organisation. The international classification of adult 
underweight, overweight and obesity according to BMI, 2014. 
Accessed January 15th, 2017 at: http://apps.who.int/bmi/index.
jsp?introPage=intro_3.html.
17. Bakalar P, Matus I, Hancova M. The comparison of selected lifestyle 
variables of first-year students at two universities in Kosice. Phys 
Activ Rev. 2016;4:192-9.
18. Mota J, Esculas C. Leisure-time physical activity behavior: structured 
and unstructured choices according to sex, age, and level of physical 
activity. Int J Behav Med. 2002; 9(2):111-21.
19. Brtková M, et al. Body composition of undergraduates - comparison 
of four different measurement methods. Phys Activ Rev. 2014;2:38-
44.
20. Jurkovicova J, et al. Prevalencia a trendy vyvoja rizikovych faktorov 
kardiovaskularnych chorob u vysokoskolakov: zivotne podmienky a 
zdravie. Bratislava: Urad Verejneho Zdravotnictva SR, 2010:142-51.
21. Hrcka J, Kovarova M, Benacka J. Pohybova aktivita edukantov 
fyzioterapie vo volnom case a jej reflexia na vybranych zdatnostnych 
a zdravotnych charakteristikach. Trnava: Univerzita sv. Cyrila a 
Metoda v Trnave, 2011.
22. Hrcka J, Bobrík M, Krska P. Od sebapoznania k autokultivácii cez 
pohybovú aktivitu vysokoškoláka. Telesná výchova a šport, Bratislava. 
2006;16(2):22-6.
23. Krska P. La relation entre le développement physique des filles à 
l’école primaire et le niveau de leur performance motrice. Rev Int 
Sci Hum Naturelles. 2011;1:87-94.
24. Petrasova M, et al. Obvod pasa alebo BMI?. In: Zivotné podmienky a 
zdravie. Bratislava: Úrad Verejného Zdravotníctva SR, 2010:166-71.
25. Hertelyova Z, Salaj R, Chmelarova A, Dombrovsky P, Dvorakova MC, 
Kruzliak P. The association between lipid parameters and obesity 
in university students. J Endocrinol Invest. 2016;39(7):769-78. doi: 
10.1007/s40618-015-0240-8. 
26. Zidek J. Longitudinálne hodnotenie stavu telesného rozvoja 
študentov SJF STU Bratislava. In: 17. rocnik Medzinárodnej vedeckej 
konferencie »Od vyskumu k praxi«, 29.-30.11.2012. Bratislava: 
Nakladateľstvo STU, 2012:379-83.
27. Honz O, Cepkova A. Hodnotenie stavu telesneho rozvoja studentov 
povinnej telesnej vychovy. In: Telesna vychova, sport, vyskum 
na univerzitach. Zbornik referatov z 15. rocnika medzinarodnej 
vedeckej konferencie, 25.-26.11.2010. Bratislava: STU Bratislava, 
2010:47-51.
28. Keating XD Guan J, Piñero JC, Bridges DM. A meta-analysis of 
college students’ physical activity behaviors. J Am Coll Health. 
2005;54(2):116-25. doi: 10.3200/JACH.54.2.116-126.
29. Zákon o vysokých školách 2014. Accessed February 1st, 2017 at: 
http://jaspi.justice.gov.sk/jaspiw1/htm_zak/jaspiw_zak_print.asp.
30. Trost SG Owen N, Bauman AE, Sallis JF, Brown W. Correlates of 
adults’ participation in physical activity: review and update. 
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2002;34(12):1996-2001. doi: 10.1249/01.
MSS.0000038974.76900.92.
31. Sallis JF, Prochaska JJ, Taylor WC. A review of correlates of 
physical activity of children and adolescents. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 
2000;32(5):963-75. 
32. Cerar K, Kondrič M, Sindik J. The profiling of University of Ljubljana 
students according to their motives for exercise participation. Zdr 
Varst. 2017;56:107-14. doi: 10.1515/sjph-2017-0014.