Variation of the cormic index since the onset of summer school camps in Spain (1887) up to present days

Abstract

Objectives: To assess a secular change in proportion between lower limbs and torso, we analyzed the evolution of cormic index in schoolchildren attending summer camps organized by the Spanish National Pedagogic Museum between 1887 and 1924, also comparing to later studies up to the present.Subjects and methods: Unpublished primary data for height and sitting height were collected from 805 individuals of both sexes. Data were pooled in cohorts according to age and year of measurement. Additionally, the analysis included comparison with published data from both national and international populations.Results: Among males, a noteworthy decrease of the cormic index is perceived from the first to the last camps, while in females this is only seen for the group under 11 years old. With data from published Spanish references (1900-2019) a decrease is observed for the male series but is not evident for females. Cormic index values from the camps overlap among the international references, despite the former being from much earlier years. Conclusion:The cormic index decreased among Spanish male children along the decades.

Hand grip strength in boys and girls from summer school camps in Spain, 1900–1925. A comparison with 21st century data

“…Such low stature has already been described and its secular trend analyzed in former studies (González Montero de Espinosa et al, 2000). Low values are not restricted to body height, but also to other anthropometric variables measured in the same summer camps, as our group has reported before (Herráez et al, 2019; Herráez et al, 2021). A feasible reason for this may be that in the period under analysis, first quarter of the 20th century, there was a profound scarcity in life conditions and a high prevalence of malnutrition among the least favored subpopulations, with a low socioeconomic level (Cámara et al, 2019).…”

“…To achieve the established objectives, we then statistically compared the new Cohort 1 to the other two cohorts; significant differences were verified between such first period and the second and third cohorts. Since these latter two were, in turn, very similar, we decided to G omez (1918);v, MPN (1926).…”