Change in Diet, Physical Activity, and Body Weight in Female College Freshman

24

Change in Diet, Physical Activity, andBody Weight in Female College FreshmanScott M. Butler, MS, CPPE; David R. Black, PhD, FASHA, FSBM, FAAHBCarolyn L. Blue, PhD, RN, CHES; Randall J. Gretebeck, PhD, RD, FACSM, CHES

Scott M. Butler, Associate Instructor, doctoralstudent, William Yarber Graduate Fellow, Indi-ana University Bloomington, Bloomington, IN.David R. Black, Professor, Health Promotion;Carolyn L. Blue, Associate Professor, Nursing,Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN. RandallJ. Gretebeck, Assistant Professor, Wayne StateUniversity, School of Education, Detroit, MI.

Address correspondence to Mr. Butler, IndianaUniversity Bloomington, Applied Health Sciences,801 East Seventh Street, Bloomington, IN 47405-3085. E-mail: [email protected]

Objective: To examine diet,physical activity, and body-weightchanges associated with reloca-tion from home to university.Methods: Diet, fitness/physicalactivity, body-weight parametersand self-efficacy were assessedamong 54 freshman women uponcollege entry and 5 months later.Results: Although caloric intakesignificantly decreased, a signifi-cant increase occurred in body-weight parameters that may be

attributed to significant de-creases in total physical activity.Conclusions: Interventions areneeded aimed at increasing physi-cal activity; improving diet qual-ity related to consumption of veg-etables, fruits, breads and pasta,and meats; and decreasing alco-hol consumption.

Key words: obesity, energy equa-tion, weight management, self-ef-ficacy, college student health

Am J Health Behav. 2004;28(1):24-32

The overweight/obesity pandemic hascreated a renewed interest in theetiology of weight gain.1,2 Interest in

the etiology of weight gain also has beenrenewed because the pandemic hasspread to younger populations as indi-cated by the National Collegiate HealthRisk Survey, which revealed that 1 in 5college students is overweight (BMI [kg/m2] > to 27.8 for men and 27.3 for women).3

It also has been noted that between 1976-1980 (NHANES II) and 1988-1991 (NHANESIII), the prevalence of overweight adultsin the US population increased by 31%

and is continuing to rise.4 The totalaverage caloric intake, however, from1977-1978 to 1987-1988 in women de-creased by 3% (equivalent to 53 Kcal/day)and fat intake (adjusted for total calories)decreased by 11%.5 These divergenttrends in overweight/obesity and fat andenergy intake patterns have been de-scribed as the “American Paradox.”5 Di-etary intake has received more attentionthan physical activity for weight reduc-tion because studies have shown reducedenergy intake to be more effective forweight loss than increased physical ac-tivity.6 Investigators have concluded thateven without adequate information con-cerning physical activity, “the only avail-able explanation for the paradoxical in-crease in body weight with a decrease infat and energy intake is that physicalactivity declined.”5

Whether the recent rise in body weightin the US population is a result of changesin dietary habits, physical activity levels,or both, increased body weight representsa change in lifestyle. It may, therefore, beinstructive to study other situations thatinvolve lifestyle alterations that do not

***Reprinted with permission. No further reproduction is authorized without written permission from PNG Publications. This version of the document is not the version of record. Figures and/or pictures may be missing from this format of the document.***

Butler et al

Am J Health Behav.™™™™™ 2004;28(1):24-32 25

specifically target dietary patterns orphysical activity levels, but yet have beenassociated with changes in body weight.One such alteration in lifestyle associ-ated with increased body weight is thetransition of leaving home to attend col-lege. This relocation involves changes inthe social and physical environments aswell as cognitive and behavioral adapta-tions, which may impact dietary patternsand physical activity levels. Thus, energybalance parameters (energy intake, en-ergy expenditure, and change in energystores) can be examined in a specificpopulation that traditionally has beenreported to gain weight unrelated to growthor maturation.

Research has shown that college fresh-men who begin their tenure at a univer-sity gain weight.7-9 The research con-ducted with entering college freshmanfemales revealed weight gain of differentmagnitudes from less than 1 lb after 6months of college to 8.52 lb during theentire freshman year. Hovell et al7 foundthat college freshmen women were 2.6 to5.2 times as likely as women who did notleave home to gain 15% or more abovetheir ideal weight.

It also is important to identify key vari-ables that explain dietary and physicalactivity behaviors in order to plan andimplement interventions to preventweight gain that may be permanent amongcollege students. Self-efficacy related todiet and physical activity is one constructto consider because adopting new institu-tional arrangements and practices maynegatively affect self-efficacy.10 Studieshave revealed that self-efficacy is themost consistent and major influence onexercise behavior in both healthy andunhealthy adults.11-13

The overarching purpose of this studywas to address the dietary, fitness/physi-cal activity, and body weight parameterchanges among freshman female collegestudents during the first semester of uni-versity after relocation from home. Anextension of previous research was toexamine dietary intake and energy ex-penditure self-efficacy questions specificto relocation to a college campus.

METHODSParticipantsThe M age of participants (n=82) in the

initial sample (54 subjects completed thestudy) was 17.79 years old; 8.54% were 17

whereas 91.46% were 18 years old. Allwere unmarried and resided in residencehalls at a large Midwestern university.Subjects were predominantly white(92.68%). The remaining 3.66% wereAsian, Pacific Islander, or Native Ameri-can, and an additional 3.66% were Afri-can American. The M height was 64.31in. (SD=2.49), and weight was 136.85 lb(SD=23.38). The M BMI of the participantswas 23.31 (SD=3.72). Participants dis-played a normal (~50th percentile age 20-29 classification)14 percentage body fat witha M of 21.87 (SD=5.59). Total caloricintake for the participants (n=81) was2292.3 Kcal/day (SD=1010.39 Kcal/day).

ProceduresRecruitment, data collection, and fol-

low-up. The campus committee on theuse of human research subjects approvedall study procedures. Incoming freshmanwomen were recruited in a variety ofways to include posting of advertisements,hand-distributed letters during an orien-tation, and by word-of-mouth. Interestedparticipants were instructed to sign up fora 1-hour time slot at the main office of 5of the residence halls that housed 96.5%of freshman female students. Partici-pants were contacted by telephone, e-mail, and campus mail to remind themabout the appointment. Women whosigned up for an allotted time slot, butfailed to show up, were contacted again byphone.

The investigators traveled to the 5 par-ticipating residence halls to collect data.Because the committee on the use ofhuman research subjects required fulldisclosure of all procedures prior to initia-tion of the study, the subjects were in-formed of the posttest meeting that wouldbe held ~20 weeks later. Subjects wereuninformed of their pretest and posttestresults until 3 weeks after the posttestmeeting. After the 5-month study period,the subjects were contacted again byphone, e-mail, and campus mail to informthem of the 5 available times and datesfor the second data collection. Individualswho did not return for the second datacollection were contacted again by phoneto remind them of the final data collec-tion.

Study variables. The study variableswere body parameters, dietary intake,fitness/physical activity, and diet andphysical activity self-efficacy. Body pa-

Changes in Female College Freshman

26

rameter variables included height (in.),body weight (lb), body composition (%bodyfat), fat mass (lb), fat-free mass (lb),and BMI. Dietary variables were based onfood serving and daily nutrient consump-tion. Fitness/physical activity variablesinclude estimated VO2 max (ml/kg/min),recovery heart rate, and occupational,sports, nonsports leisure and total physi-cal activity.

Body parameter measurements.Height was measured to the nearest quar-ter inch and weight to the nearest quar-ter pound with a Detecto balance beam,physician’s scale (Webb City, Mo, model #3P704). Body mass index (BMI) was calcu-lated according to the following formula:(w)kg/(h)m2.15 A Harpenden skinfold cali-per (Model 3496, Quinton Instruments,Burgess Hill, West Sussex, England) wasused to estimate body composition. Anaverage of 3 skinfold measurements weretaken at the triceps, iliac, and thigh.Skinfold measurements were repeateduntil the 3 measurements taken werewithin 2 mm of one another. Body densityand body composition (fat mass and fat-free mass) were computed taking intoaccount gender, age, and ethnicity.16,17

The same exercise physiologist completedall body composition measurements.

Dietary intake. The Block18 Food Fre-quency Questionnaire (FFQ), which hasbeen developed from and used in theNational Health and Nutrition Examina-tion Surveys,19 was selected for assess-ment of dietary intake. Correlations be-tween scores from diet diaries and scoresfrom the FFQ exceeded .70.18 The FFQ wasanalyzed using NCI DIETSYS software(National Cancer Institute) modified foruse with the Block 95 questionnaire. Thecomputer program reports dietary pat-terns in the form of food groups (veg-etables, fruits, bread/pasta, milk, meat,and fats/oils) and macronutrients (fat [g],carbohydrates [g], protein [g], fiber, per-centage fat, percentage carbohydrates,percentage protein, percentage alcohol),as well as other nutrient information(cholesterol [mg] and number of alcoholbeverages drunk/day, etc).

Fitness/physical activity. An exer-cise physiologist conducted the QueensCollege 3-minute Step Test to estimateVO2max.15 The actual step used duringtesting was 16.25” high, and participantswere instructed to perform stepping mo-tions to an 88-beats/minute cadence set

by a metronome. The exercise physiolo-gist measured recovery heart rates from3 minutes 5 seconds to 3 minutes 20seconds.

Participants completed the BaeckeQuestionnaire of Habitual Physical Activ-ity (BQHPA).20 The BQHPA consists of 4dimensions: work, sport, leisure time,and total physical activities. The ques-tionnaire consists of 21 items scored on a5-point Likert type scale from “never” to“always” or “very often.” Participants wereinstructed to recall their leisure, sport,and occupational physical activity habitsin the previous 4 months. During theposttest, the survey assessed leisure,sport, and occupation physical activityhabits of the first semester. For the 2most frequently reported sports activi-ties, additional questions were askedabout the number of months/year andhours/week of participation. Baecke20

found that level of education was nega-tively related to work activity and posi-tively related to leisure-time activity.Test-retest reliability was satisfactory forthe work (r=.88), sports (r=.81), and lei-sure (r=.74) indices.20 Positive relation-ships have been found with accelerom-eter readings, oxygen consumption, andactivity diaries and the BQHPA.21,22

Self-efficacy. Participants completedthe Sallis Exercise and Nutrition Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (SENSQ).23 TheSENSQ has been validated with youngadults (M=36.0, SD=7.0) and college stu-dents and staff (M=21.3, SD=6.5). TheSENSQ has 12 self-efficacy for exerciseitems loading on 2 factors called resistingrelapse and making time for exercise and61 self-efficacy questions for eating-be-havior items loading on 5 factors calledresisting relapse, reducing calories, re-ducing salt, reducing fat, and behavioralskills. The SENSQ was adapted for thefreshman women in this study who livedin residence halls and not in a “free-living” environment. Items were selectedbased on their applicability to the problemand population, and whether the item hada high initial factor loading on the SENSQ.There were a total of 26 items selected, 7exercise and 19 nutrition. Participantswere instructed to recall behaviors dur-ing their final semester of high school.

Principal component factor analyseswere conducted on the adapted SENSQ(referred to hereon as the ASENSQ) toidentify subscales. Criteria for item in-

Butler et al

Am J Health Behav.™™™™™ 2004;28(1):24-32 27

clusion were as follows: (a) >3 items/factor, (b) >.4 factor score for each item, (c)eigenvalue >1, and (d) communality >.50.24

Factor analyses resulted in 3 factors con-taining a total of 13 items. Factor 1(exercise relapse/making time for exer-cise) consisted of 5 items. Factor 2 (nutri-tion resisting relapse) consisted of 4 items.Factor 3 (reducing salt/fat) consisted of 4items. The results of the factor analysisconducted on pretest data (n=82) indicatethat factor 1 scores were from .75 to .88,factor 2 scores from .71 to .81, and factor3 scores from .62 to .78. The criterion forCronbach alpha was a value >.70.24 TheCronbach alpha values for factors 1, 2,and 3 and the total scale were .90, .80, .72,and .83, respectively. The original itemnumbers from the SENSQ23 from Table 1for factor 1 are 2, 3, 4, 8, and 12 and fromTable 2 for factor 2 are 2, 3, 4, and 5 andfrom Table 2 for factor 3 are 37, 40, 46, and50.

Research Design and StatisticalAnalysesThe research design was a pretest/

posttest one-group design,25 and the sam-pling method was a nonprobability conve-nience sample. Sample bias was evalu-ated by comparing pretest data of return-ees (n=54) to pretest data of nonreturnees(n=28). Sample representativeness wasestimated by comparing the sample touniversity population and large nationalstudies. Variables used to estimatesample representativeness and samplebias in comparison to the total campuspopulation included the following: age,race/ethnicity, marital status, bodyweight, body composition, BMI, recoveryheart rate, VO2 max, caloric intake, andtotal self-efficacy. The statistical testused depended on the scale of measure-ment of the variables being compared andwhether interval/ratio data violated para-metric assumptions. Generally, theanalyses conducted were as follows: inde-pendent/dependent student’s t tests forparametric variables, a Mann-Whitney Unonparametric test when the data wereordinal and independent, and a Wilcoxinpaired sign test when the data were ordi-nal and dependent. Statistical analyseswere computed using SPSS 10.0.26

The following steps were taken to ex-amine parametric assumptions: (a) De-scriptive statistics were calculated to notethe relationship of the M, Med, and Mod as

an indication of skewness; (b) a variety ofgraphics were computed such asscatterplots to detect outliers as a pre-liminary way to visually examine distri-butions; and (c) data were analyzed fornormality (skewness and kurtosis) usingthe Kolmogorov-Smirnov test with aLilliefors significance correction and ho-mogeneity of variance by the Levene Testfor Homogeneity of Variance.26 Whenparametric assumptions were not met,variables were analyzed using nonpara-metric statistics appropriate for the databeing reduced in scale of measurement.

RESULTSSample RepresentativenessEstimationSelf-selection bias was estimated with

usable data for returnee (n=52) andnonreturnee (n=28) subgroups. The ini-tial body weight, body composition, BMI,fitness level, and total self-efficacy werecompared. Although the body weight ofthe returnee group was significantlyhigher, U (80) = 503.5, P=.014, other vari-ables (BMI, % body fat, caloric intake, andpredicted VO2 max), representing a moreaccurate estimate of epidemiologic risk27

and body composition indicated the ef-fects of the selection bias were nonsig-nificant, U (80)=599.5, P=.126; t (80)=.835,P=.406; t (78)=.314, P=.755. There was nosignificant difference either between pre-dicted fitness level and self-efficacy ofreturnees and nonreturnees, t (79)=1.44,P=.153; U (80)=646, P=.340, respectively.There also were no significant differ-ences for any of the other variables pre-sented in Table 1.

Nationwide, 20.5% of college studentsare overweight and obese.3 Data from thepresent study indicate 14.63% are over-weight (BMI [kg/m2] 25.0-29.9), and 4.88%are obese (BMI >30). However, when theoverweight and obesity categories arecombined, 19.51% of the participants arerepresented, which is ~1% below the na-tional average.3 In addition, 46.4% ofcollegiate students participating in theYouth Risk Behavior Surveillance (YRBS)reported attempting to lose weight at thetime of the survey.3 In the present sample,22.7% of the participants reported at-tempts to lose weight on 1to 2 occasions,13.9% on 3 to 5 occasions, 5.0% on 6 to 8occasions, 1.2% on 9 to 11 occasions, and9.2% on >12 occasions. All of these valuestotal 42.0%, so the difference between

Changes in Female College Freshman

28

these data and the YRBS is a negligible4.4%.

Subjects also represented the incom-ing freshman class well in terms ofethnicity, marital status, and age. Theentire incoming freshman class was com-

posed of the following racial background:88.81% white, 3.66% Asian, 3.38% Afri-can American, 2.23% Spanish, 1.64%international students, and .28% Ameri-can Indian. All but one of the incomingclass were unmarried (99.93%). The

Table 1Pre- And Posttest Energy Equation Assessments of Participants

(n=54)

Pretest PosttestM S D M S D

Variable Body Parameters

Body Weight (lb) 140.46 25.01 142.05** 25.15BMIa 23.64 3.86 23.91** 3.88Body Composition (% Fat) 21.96 5.65 23.75*** 5.41Fat mass 31.97 14.42 34.86*** 14.80Fat-free mass 108.84 13.15 107.49** 12.62

Dietary Intakeb

Food ServingsTotal caloric intake 2205.44 877.85 1856.66*** 680.60Vegetables 2.30 1.18 1.96** 1.02Fruits 1.52 1.00 1.23 .78Bread, pasta 2.78 1.15 2.17*** .83Milk 3.06 1.73 2.53* 1.45Meat 1.85 .80 1.51** .70Fats, oils 2.36 1.63 2.08 1.24

NutrientFats (g) 68.84 40.12 60.64* 31.74Carbohydrates (g) 301.96 113.43 248.78*** 88.23Protein (g) 92.96 31.63 77.63* 35.54% Fat 27.90 7.01 29.00* 8.23% Carbohydrate 55.23 6.89 54.98 8.40% Protein 17.28 2.42 16.77 2.59% Alcohol .25 .74 1.23* 2.11Cholesterol (mg) 240.65 151.75 194.73** 105.63Alcohol (# of beverages/day) .04 .10 .16* .30

Fitness/Physical Activityc

Recovery Heart Rate 143.76 17.86 146.30 15.67VO2max 39.24 3.23 38.79 2.89Leisure 2.86 .76 3.13* .60Sport 3.47 1.16 3.00* 1.25Occupational 3.17 .78 2.62*** .55Total Physical Activity 9.51 2.03 8.75* 1.73

Note.* P=.05; **P=.01; ***P=.001a BMI = (w)kg/(h)m2

b Based on Block Food Frequency Questionnaire.18

c Based on Baecke Questionnaire of Habitual Physical Activity.20

Butler et al

Am J Health Behav.™™™™™ 2004;28(1):24-32 29

university’s age breakdowns for the en-tire freshman class were as follows: age18=72%; 19=17%; and 17=3%. The vari-ables of age, ethnicity, and marital statusshow close agreement between the sampleand the entire freshman female class onthese 3 variables.

According to the third National Healthand Nutrition Education Survey (NHANESIII),28 the average caloric intake for fresh-man female college students (age 16-19category) is 1963 Kcal/day. In addition,Megel et al8 concluded that freshmanwomen consume an average of 1835 Kcal/day. The dietary intake of the returneesrevealed a caloric intake of 1856.66/day.The present results concur with the find-ings of Megel et al8 on the freshmanfemale population and are ~100 Kcal/dayapart from the national dataset.

A study conducted at the University ofPittsburgh measured M servings of di-etary intake via self-report.29 The compo-nents of the food guide pyramid that weremeasured included grains; fruits and veg-etables; dairy; and meat, fish, and beans.30

The results of these data revealed that80.3% of the participants were reportingless than the minimum recommenda-tion for grains. Similarly, 81.7% weredeficient in the fruits and vegetables cat-egory, 83.3% in the dairy category (age<25), and 35.5% in the meat, fish, andbeans categories. The results of the

present study are consistent with thevalues reported by Haberman and Luffey.29

In addition, both initial M bodyfat andpredicted VO2 max are consistent (within~1.4% and ~.31 ml/kg/min respectively)with previous studies done on freshmen.31

The data of the present study seem to besimilar to those of other studies as well aslarge national studies.

Main AnalysesBody parameters. Table 1 presents

descriptive statistics and statistical sig-nificance for variables related to changesin body parameters, dietary intake, andfitness/physical activity. Twenty of the27 (74.1%) statistical analyses were sig-nificant. Inspection of body parametervariables reveals significant changes inall 5 variables. There were significantgains in body weight, BMI, body composi-tion, and fat mass, and a correspondingsignificant decrease in fat-free mass. Theincrease in fat mass and decrease in fat-free mass attests to a reduction in fit-ness.

Dietary intake. All food servings vari-ables showed decreases, and 5 of the 7(71.4%) were significant decreases. Totalcaloric intake significantly decreased by348.78 Kcal/day, and so did vegetables,bread/pasta, milk, and meat.

In terms of nutrient variables, 7 of the9 (77.8%) changes were significant. There

Table 2Pretest and Posttest Adapted Sallis Exercise and Nutrition

Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (ASENSQ, n=52)

Pretest PosttestFactor #/Subscale Name M S D M S D

1 – Resisting Relapse: Exercise 16.56 4.53 16.27 4.95

2 – Resisting Relapse: Nutrition 14.94 3.17 14.65 3.12

3 – Reducing Salt/Fat 13.73 3.25 13.82 2.60

Total 45.24 8.34 44.75 8.25

Note.The adapted SENSQ was reduced to 3 factors based on Principal Component Factor analysis. Factors1, 2, 3, and total score consisted of 5, 4, 4, and 13 items, respectively. The original item numbers fromthe Sallis SENSQ23 from Table 1 for factor 1 are 2, 3, 4, 8, and 12 and from Table 2 for factor 2 are 2,3, 4, and 5 and from Table 2 for factor 3 are 37, 40, 46, and 50.

Changes in Female College Freshman

30

was a significant decrease in grams of fat,carbohydrates, and protein and percent-age fat and milligrams of cholesterol.There were significant increases in per-centage fat and alcohol consumed and inthe number of alcoholic beverages con-sumed/day.

Comparisons to recommendations re-ported by the US Department of Agricul-ture30 revealed deficiencies in both pre-test and posttest intake of daily vegetables,fruits, breads and pasta, and meats. Par-ticipants, however, seem to be consum-ing adequate amounts of milk.

Fitness/physical activity. Four of the6 (66.7%) fitness and physical activityanalyses were significant. Significantdecreases were observed in total physi-cal, work, and sport activities, but therewas a significant increase in leisure ac-tivities. Both of the fitness variablesshowed declines, but neither was signifi-cant.

Self-efficacy. Table 2 contains pretestand posttest Ms and SDs for ASSEQ factors1-3 and the total score. Modest nonsignifi-cant decreases occurred for factors 1, 2,and total score, but a modest nonsignifi-cant increase was observed for factor 3.

DISCUSSIONThe results of this investigation sug-

gest that when freshman women left hometo attend college, body weight increased.Furthermore, dietary energy intake didnot increase to account for this increasein body weight; dietary energy intakeactually decreased. This suggests that areduction in physical activity was prima-rily responsible for the change in bodyweight, a suggestion supported by a sig-nificant reduction in total physical activ-ity, especially occupational and sports-related physical activity. Fat mass in-creased and fat-free mass decreased,which also suggests a reduction in fit-ness due to a decrease in physical activ-ity. Although the nonsports leisure indexincreased, it did not offset the reductionin the other 2 indices. In the pretest,subjects listed a variety of occupationsthat were commensurate with a highschool education; in other words, theywere less skilled and more labor-inten-sive occupations. In the posttest mostsubjects listed their occupation as “stu-dent,” meaning that occupational activityconsisted primarily of walking to and fromclasses.

The findings of this study are similarto those of prior investigations that havedemonstrated an increase in body weightduring the freshman year. Body composi-tion though may be a better indicator ofchronic disease risk because bodyfat gainwas disproportionate to total weight gain.This increase, accompanied by a reduc-tion in fat-free mass, suggests that en-ergy requirements could be reduced forboth physical activity and resting me-tabolism. The increase in bodyfat repre-sents a reduction from the 50th percentileto the 40th percentile in the 20 to 29 age-group classification, which equates to anelevated increase in health risk.14

Another contribution of the study wasadapting the Sallis Exercise and Nutri-tion Self-Efficacy Questionnaire to femalecollege freshmen living in residence halls.Based on the preliminary psychometricresults, the adapted questionnaire ap-pears to be a useful adjunct for studyingthis topic and population. Factor loadingsand Cronbach alpha values were com-puted and comply with acceptable stan-dards for factorial validity and internalconsistency.24 Psychometric estimatesneed to be further validated in futurestudies to provide additional perspectiveabout levels of self-efficacy. In accor-dance with self-efficacy theory,10 the find-ings support the stability of residence hallstudents’ confidence to overcome diet andphysical activity obstacles because stu-dents’ perceptions about self-efficacy didnot change over time.

The present study may have limita-tions. The relatively small sample sizereduced the minimal power to detect sig-nificant differences between the pretestsand posttests for some variables. Never-theless, 74% of the variables assessedand reported in Table 1 were significant.Because diet and physical activity werenot observed, self-report bias may haveoccurred. For example, a higher degree ofcaloric underreporting occurs with in-creasing body weight,31,32 and problems ofoverreporting time and intensity havebeen noted with self-report of physicalactivity.33 Nevertheless, self-report is thenorm in nutritional and physical activityfield studies because of practicality and“reasonableness” in terms of time con-siderations of voluntary study participants.Consequently, self-reported nutrition andactivity instruments were the measuresof choice in the present study.33 Because

Butler et al

Am J Health Behav.™™™™™ 2004;28(1):24-32 31

the study measured dietary patterns overa time period of months, the use of dietarytools that predict caloric intake based on1 to 7-day time periods was inappropriate.In addition, to maximize participation byconducting in vivo data collections withinparticipants’ residence halls, skinfoldassessments for body composition and astep test for aerobic fitness were neces-sary as field measures. Requiring volun-teer participants to be measured in alaboratory setting would have seriouslyjeopardized recruitment and retentionbased on prior experiences with conduct-ing studies in residence halls on campus.

The results have programmatic impli-cations. The findings demonstrate thatinterventions are needed to reverse theupward trends noted in body compositionamong the female college freshmen inthis study and as part of a total effort toreverse the national trend of increasingadiposity. The findings suggest that anintervention to provide guidance aboutphysical activity and diet following a sig-nificant change in living arrangementswould be beneficial. The focus of theintervention based on the current studyresults for this sample would be on ways toincrease total, leisure, and sport activityas well as the overall quality of the diet.Cautions should be indicated about con-suming or increasing alcohol usage andthe health consequences as well as en-gaging in a risky behavior.

This study has implications for futureresearch. Because a greater increase inpercentage bodyfat than body weight wasobserved, body composition may be a more“sensitive” measure and assessment ofrisk for freshman women. Use of behav-ioral surveys aids in the identification ofspecific risk behaviors. Decreases inphysical activity patterns appear to be astronger marker of weight gain than areincreases in caloric intake. The furtheridentification of the unique obstacles andopportunities relevant to diet and physi-cal activity is a priority for understandingweight gain in freshman college womenwho relocate to the university.

In summary, the findings in thissample of female college freshmen sup-ports the assumption of Heini andWeinsier5 that weight gain in the face ofconstant or reduced caloric intake is aresult of a reduction in habitual physicalactivity. Results of this study promulgatethe need for educational programs in the

areas of physical activity, fitness, and dietand may help in designing interventionsfor freshman women residing in residencehalls on college campuses who have relo-cated and appear to be at risk.

REFERENCES1.Mokdad AH, Serdula MK, Dietz WH, et al. The

spread of the obesity epidemic in the UnitedStates, 1991-1998. JAMA. 1999;282:1519-1522.

2.National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.Clinical guidelines on the identification, evalu-ation, and treatment of overweight and obesityin adults (NIH Publication No. 98-4083).Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Healthand Human Services, 1998:12-26,56-93.

3.U.S. Department of Health and Human Ser-vices. Youth risk behavior surveillance na-tional college health risk behavior survey –U.S., 1995. MMWR. 1997;46:1-31.

4.Flegal KM, Carroll MD, Ogden CL, et al.Prevalence and trends in obesity among USadults, 1999-2000. JAMA. 2002;288:1723-1727.

5.Heini AF, Weinsier RL. Divergent trends inobesity and fat intake patterns: the Americanparadox. Am J Med. 1997;102:259-264.

6.Votruba SB, Horvitz MA, Schoeller DA. Therole of exercise in the treatment of obesity.Nutrition. 2000;16:179-188.

7.Hovell MF, Mewborn CR, Randle Y, et al. Riskof excess weight gain in university women: athree-year community controlled analysis.Addict Behav. 1985;10:15-28.

8.Megel ME, Wade F, Hawkins P, et al. Healthpromotion, self-esteem, and weight amongfemale college freshmen. Health Values.1994;18:10-19.

9.Hodge CN, Jackson LA, Sullivan LA. The“freshman 15” facts and fantasies about weightgain in college women. Psychol Women Q.1993;17:119-126.

10.Bandura A. Self-efficacy: The Exercise ofControl. New York: WH Freeman 1997:1-68.

11.McAuley E. Understanding exercise behav-ior: a self-efficacy perspective. In Roberts GC,(Ed). Motivation in Sport and Exercise.Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics 1992:107-127.

12.Fletcher JS, Banasik JL. Exercise self-effi-cacy. Clin Excell Nurse Pract. 2001;5:134-143.

13.Sherwood NE, Jeffery RW. The behavioraldeterminants of exercise: implications forphysical activity interventions. Annu RevNutr. 2000;20:21-44.

14.American College of Sports Medicine. ACSM’sGuidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescrip-tion. 5th ed. Baltimore, MD: Williams &Wilkins, 2001:58-59,112.

15.McArdle WD, Katch FI, Katch LV. ExercisePhysiology, Energy, Nutrition, and HumanPerformance. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lea &Febiger, 1991:225-226.

16.Jackson AS, Pollock ML. Practical assess-

Changes in Female College Freshman

32

ment of body composition. The Physician andSports Medicine. 1985;13:76-90.

17.Heyward VH, Stolarczyk LM. Applied BodyComposition Assessment. Champaign, IL:Human Kinetics, 1996:146-147.

18.Block G, Hartman AM, Dresser CM, et al. Adata-based approach to diet questionnairedesign and testing. Am J Epidemiol.1986;124:453-469.

19.National Center for Health Statistics, Office ofHealth Research, Statistics, and Technology.National health and nutrition examinationsurvey (on-line). Available: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm. AccessedAugust 15, 2000.

20.Baecke JAH, Burema J, Frijters IER. A shortquestionnaire for the measurement of habitualphysical activity in epidemiological studies.Am J Clin Nutr. 1982;36:936-942.

21.Jacobs DR Jr, Ainsworth BE, Hartman TJ, etal. A simultaneous evaluation of ten com-monly used physical activity questionnaires.Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1993;25:81-91.

22.Miller DJ, Freedson PS, Kline GM. Compari-son of activity levels using the Caltrac accel-erometer and five questionnaires. Med SciSports Exerc. 1994;26:376-382.

23.Sallis JF, Pinski RB, Grossman RM, et al.The development of self-efficacy scales forhealth-related diet and exercise behaviors.Health Educ Res. 1998;3:283-292.

24.Tabachnick BG, Fidel LS. Using MultivariateStatistics. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2001:635-707.

25.Campbell DT, Stanley JC. Experimental andQuasi-Experimental Designs for Research.

Chicago: Rand McNally, 1963:7.26.SPSS Inc. SPSS Base 7.5 Applications Guide.

Chicago, IL: SPSS, 1997:53-56.27.Kannel WB, D‘Agostino RB, Cobb JL. Effect of

weight on cardiovascular disease. Am J ClinNutr. 1996;63:419S-422S.

28.National Center for Health Statistics, Office ofHealth Research, Statistics, and Technology.Dietary intake of macronutrients, micronutri-ents, and other dietary constituents: UnitedStates 1988-94: National Center for HealthStatistics. Vital and Health Statistics Series11 No. 245 (DHHS Publication No. PHS 2000-1695) Washington, DC: US Governing Print-ing Office, 2002:8.

29.Haberman S, Luffey D. Weighing in collegestudents’ diet and exercise behaviors. J AmColl Health Assoc. 1998;46:189-191.

30.U.S. Department of Agriculture. Food GuidePyramid: A Guide to Daily Food Choices.Home and Garden Bulletin No. 252. Wash-ington, D.C.:U.S. Department of Agriculture,Human Nutrition Information Service, 1992:2.

31.Black AE, Prentice AM, Goldberg GR, et al.Measurements of total energy expenditureprovide insights into the validity of dietarymeasurements of energy intake. J Am DietAssoc. 1993;93:572-579.

32.Johnson RK, Goran MI, Poehlman ET. Cor-relates of over-and underreporting of energyintake in healthy older men and women. AmJ Clin Nutr. 1994;59:1286-1290.

33.Montoye HJ, Kemper HCG, Saris WHM, et al.Measuring Physical Activity and Energy Ex-penditure. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics,1996:42-71.