## 3 Results  
Table 1 shows the values of the basic statistics. The sample of respondents had average BMI values that were slightly above the cut-off point value for normally nonwished people. The index of dissatisfaction with body image was above zero (15.19 \(\pm\) 11.38), which means that the current estimation exceeded the idealized figure. Table 2 shows the values of Pearson's correlation coefficient for the BMI, body image, and quality of life domains of the tested sample. The dimensions of physical (Sig. = 0.026) and psychological health (Sig. = 0.005) had a negative correlation with BMI, which means that respondents with higher BMI values corresponded to lower scores in the domains of physical and psychological health within the quality of life assessment questionnaire. The relationships of BMI, the index of dissatisfaction with body image, and modalities of physical activity with the quality of life domains are shown in Table 2. BMI was significantly correlated (although with a low and negative correlation) with physical (Sig. = 0.026) and psychological health (Sig. = 0.005). The index of dissatisfaction with body image was only statistically significantly (Sig. = 0.022) correlated with the physical domain of quality of life, and the correlation between variables was also weak and negative. The relationship between walking and psychological health was positive and low (Sig. = 0.002) as they were between moderate PA and psychological (Sig. = 0.003) and environmental health (Sig. = 0.045) and between vigorous PA and psychological Health (Sig. = 0.043) and social relationships (Sig. = 0.001). By using a hierarchical regression analysis, the impact of physical activity as a mediator of BMI and quality of life was determined (Table 3). Only results that show that physical activity has a moderating impact are presented. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Variables** & **Mean** & **SD** \\ \hline BMI (kg/m\({}^{2}\)) & 25.58 & 3.19 \\ Body dissatisfaction & 11.10 & 17.37 \\ Sexual body dissatisfaction & 12.61 & 20.18 \\ Compared body dissatisfaction & \(-\)9.65 & 22.32 \\ The index of dissatisfaction with BI & 15.19 & 11.38 \\ Physical health & 86.45 & 8.36 \\ Psychological health & 81.81 & 9.70 \\ Social relationships & 80.16 & 13.33 \\ Environmental health & 70.50 & 11.87 \\ Walking (MET-min/week) & 1584.00 & 1248.35 \\ Moderate PA (MET-min/week) & 2449.21 & 2699.29 \\ Vigorous PA (MET-min/week) & 2959.37 & 2536.96 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Descriptive statistics (\(n=500\)). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Variables** & **Physical Health** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Psychological** \\ **Health** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Social** \\ **Relationships** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Environmental** \\ **Health** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline
**BMI** & r & \(\mathbf{-0.16}\) * & \(\mathbf{-0.20}\) ** & \(\mathbf{-0.08}\) & \(0.05\) \\
**The index of dissatisfaction** & Sig. & \(\mathbf{0.026}\) & \(\mathbf{0.005}\) & \(0.251\) & \(0.477\) \\
**The index of dissatisfaction** & r & \(\mathbf{-0.17}\) * & \(\mathbf{-0.14}\) & \(0.06\) & \(0.04\) \\
**with body image** & Sig. & \(\mathbf{0.022}\) & \(0.065\) & \(0.407\) & \(0.615\) \\
**Walking** & r & \(0.04\) & \(\mathbf{0.22}\) ** & \(\mathbf{-0.05}\) & \(0.00\) \\
**Moderate PA** & Sig. & \(0.619\) & \(\mathbf{0.002}\) & \(0.539\) & \(0.985\) \\
**Vigorous PA** & r & \(0.02\) & \(\mathbf{0.22}\) ** & \(0.03\) & \(\mathbf{0.15}\) * \\
**Legend:** & Sig. & \(0.773\) & \(\mathbf{0.003}\) & \(0.723\) & \(\mathbf{0.045}\) \\
**Vigorous PA** & r & \(-0.04\) & \(\mathbf{0.15}\) * & \(\mathbf{-0.24}\) ** & \(0.04\) \\ Sig. & \(0.627\) & \(\mathbf{0.043}\) & \(\mathbf{0.001}\) & \(0.604\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Relationships of BMI, body image, and quality of life. Table 3 shows the moderating effect of physical activity on the relationship of BMI and QoL.