# The Effect of Regular Physical Activity on Muscle and Adipose Tissue in Premenopausal Women
## 3 Results
### Whole-Body Analysis  
Table 3 presents the mean values of the whole-body analysis of body composition. The comparison of differences in the mean values of the whole-body analysis between the monitored groups is presented in Table 4. The whole-body analysis also included the assessment of weight status by BMI (Table 5). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Variable**} & **Total** & **T1** & **T2** & **T3** \\  & **(_n_ = 136)** & **(_n_ = 47)** & **(_n_ = 45)** & **(_n_ = 44)** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Age (years)} & M \(\pm\) SD & M \(\pm\) SD & M \(\pm\) SD & M \(\pm\) SD \\  & 41.07 \(\pm\) 2.77 & 40.77 \(\pm\) 2.60 & 41.29 \(\pm\) 2.81 & 41.16 \(\pm\) 2.93 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Marital status} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\(n\) (\%)} & \(n\) (\%) & \(n\) (\%) & \(n\) (\%) \\  & Single & 10 (7\%) & 7 (15\%) & 2 (4\%) & 1 (2\%) \\  & Married & 90 (66\%) & 31 (66\%) & 26 (58\%) & 33 (75\%) \\  & Cohabitation & 13 (10\%) & 4 (9\%) & 8 (18\%) & 1 (2\%) \\  & Divorced & 22 (16\%) & 5 (11\%) & 8 (18\%) & 9 (21\%) \\  & Widow & 1 (0.7\%) & 0 (0\%) & 1 (2\%) & 0 (0\%) \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Education} & Trained, high school without & \multirow{2}{*}{8 (6\%)} & \multirow{2}{*}{2 (4\%)} & \multirow{2}{*}{2 (4\%)} & \multirow{2}{*}{4 (9\%)} \\  & school leaving certificate & & & & \\  & High school with school & \multirow{2}{*}{56 (41\%)} & \multirow{2}{*}{20 (43\%)} & \multirow{2}{*}{21 (47\%)} & \multirow{2}{*}{15 (34\%)} \\  & leaving certificate & & & & \\  & Higher vocational & 7 (5\%) & 0 (0\%) & 4 (9\%) & 3 (7\%) \\  & University & 65 (48\%) & 25 (53\%) & 18 (40\%) & 22 (50\%) \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Economic situation of the family (as assessed by the participants)} & Below average & 4 (3\%) & 1 (2\%) & 2 (4\%) & 1 (2\%) \\  & Average & 110 (81\%) & 37 (79\%) & 35 (78\%) & 38 (91\%) \\ \cline{1-1}  & Above average & 22 (16\%) & 9 (19\%) & 8 (18\%) & 5 (7\%) \\ \hline \multicolumn{4}{l}{T1—women in the lowest tertile, T2—women in the medium tertile, T3—women in the highest tertile, _n_—frequency in individual tertiles, M—mean, SD—standard deviation.} \\ \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Demographic characteristics of the sample. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Parameters**} & **T1 (_n_ = 47)** & **T2 (_n_ = 45)** & **T3 (_n_ = 44)** \\  & **M \(\pm\) SD** & **M \(\pm\) SD** & **M \(\pm\) SD** \\ \hline BH (cm) NS & 167.30 \(\pm\) 6.23 & 168.85 \(\pm\) 5.78 & 168.29 \(\pm\) 6.39 \\ BM (kg) * & 72.38 \(\pm\) 13.44 & 66.28 \(\pm\) 10.55 & 66.39 \(\pm\) 9.20 \\ BMI (kg/m2) * & 25.29 \(\pm\) 4.59 & 22.60 \(\pm\) 3.29 & 22.76 \(\pm\) 2.60 \\ BF (kg) * & 27.22 \(\pm\) 8.88 & 21.24 \(\pm\) 6.68 & 20.80 \(\pm\) 5.51 \\ BF (\%) * & 36.81 \(\pm\) 5.73 & 31.39 \(\pm\) 5.28 & 30.92 \(\pm\) 4.52 \\ FFM (kg) NS & 45.16 \(\pm\) 5.72 & 45.04 \(\pm\) 4.92 & 45.59 \(\pm\) 4.76 \\ FFM (\%) * & 63.19 \(\pm\) 5.73 & 68.61 \(\pm\) 5.28 & 69.08 \(\pm\) 4.52 \\ VFA (cm2) * & 70.35 \(\pm\) 36.21 & 52.86 \(\pm\) 31.79 & 49.64 \(\pm\) 18.31 \\ App. index (kg/m2) NS & 6.53 \(\pm\) 0.79 & 6.45 \(\pm\) 0.60 & 6.60 \(\pm\) 0.57 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} BH—body height, BM—body mass, BM—body mass, BM—body fat, FEM—fat-free mass, VFA—userical fat area, App. index—Appendicular fat-free mass/body height, M—mean, SD—standard deviation, _n_—frequency  
\end{table} 
Table 3: Mean values of whole-body analysis of body composition in monitored women in the individual tertiles and differences determined by ANOVA (* statistically significant difference, NS no significant difference). Statistically significant differences were detected in the parameters of BM, BMI, BF, FFM (%), and VFA. The post hoc test was performed with these parameters, and the results are presented in Table 4.  
Table 4 presents only the parameters that the ANOVA showed to be statistically significant (Table 3). The average values of all monitored parameters in T1 women presented in Table 4 differed significantly when compared with the mean values of T2 and T3 women.