Nature and Science 2010;8(6)

The Effect of Body weight, Percentage Body fat and Body Mass
Index on Adolescent Academic Performance.
Oyebamiji Oyedele Oketayo1 *, Joshua Olufemi Ojo2 , Ephriam Peter Inyang1, Raphael Adewale Adenodi1, Francis
Omowonuola Akinluyi1 and Rufus Temidayo Akinnubi1

1. Department of Physics, Adeyemi College of Education, Ondo, 35100, Nigeria.

2. Department of Physics, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, 220002, Nigeria.
oketayodele06@yahoo.com

Abstract: Studies have been made to evaluate the nutritional status of 110 Nigerian higher institution Physics
students and compare it with their performances over a period of one year. Students’ weight, Percentage Body Fat
(% BF) and Body Mass Index (BMI) were measured using Bioimpedance technique while their performances were
determined by finding the Cumulative Grade Point average (CGPA) for all the courses offered. The data were
analyzed using Pearson correlation at both 0.01 and 0.05 level of significance for all the subjects (generally) and on
the basis of Body Mass Index. While a significant positive correlation was found between the body fat and weight
with academic performance (r = 0.921, r = 0.885 ) for overweight subjects, a negative significant relationship was
obtained between the adolescent academic performance and body fat ( r = - 0.920) as well as body weight (r = -
0.954) for the obese . The results show that the academic performance of the obese adolescents can strongly be
influenced by their body fat and weight after controlling for unobserved heterogeneity. The finding indicates that
adolescent obesity may have adverse academic consequences. Thus targeting obesity reduction policies may not
only improve health outcomes but also have a positive impact on improving their academic performance and human
capital accumulation. [Nature and Science 2010;8(6):36-42]. (ISSN: 1545-0740).

Keywords: percentage body fat ; body mass index ; adolescent academic performance

Introduction mass index between 25 and 29.9 kg/m2 and obesity as a

There is growing clinical interest in body
composition most especially the percentage body fat.
This is because of the evidence that links body
composition with health risks and the development of
certain diseases ( Tanita Corporation of America,
2003). New research also indicates that fat loss, not
weight loss can extend human longevity ( John Dae,
2003). The important aspect of the contemporary study
of nutritional diseases is establishing the phenotypic
characteristics of human subjects ( Pietrobelli, 2003).
Body composition is really the ratio of lean body mass
to fat body mass. According to John Dae (2003), too
much fat can lead to health problems such as heart
diseases, diabetics, high cholesterol and other serious
conditions. He asserted that too little body fat can be
just detrimental as too much. If people can keep their
body fat at a reasonable level, they can be healthier,
happier, and of course, look their best ( Kenneth,
2004).This infact makes monitoring percentage body
fat a key component of any weight loss or fitness
programme. Obesity is a known indicator of many
serious medical conditions including heart disease,
diabetes and even certain form of cancer. Body mass
index is a simple calculation that determines height to
weight ratio. The index correlates a person’s physical
stature with mortality ratios based on actuarial studies.
According to the National Institute of health and World
Health Organization, overweight is defined as Body
BMI equal to or greater than 30. A BMI of 18 or lower
indicates that a person is underweight. Due to
increasing prevalence of obesity among Nigerian men
and women, this paper examines the sensitivity of the
association between adolescent body weight, body
mass index, body fat (nutritional status) and academic
performance (to potential biases caused by unmeasured
heterogeneity) of students with less discipline inferrals
( i.e. with few or no disciplinary incidents), with high
level of cardiovascular fitness measured as by walking
/ running test, good class attendance and little or low
psychological stress. Studies have shown that the
performance of adolescents in their various academic
endeavours depends on a lot of factors. Kenneth H.
Cooper in an attempt to study Texas students’ fitness in
relation to their academic performance, discovered
that better performance are associated with high levels
of fitness, healthy levels of cardiovascular fitness,
fewer disciplinary incidents and better school
attendance ( Kenneth, 2004). The research also
conducted with a view to having the National
longitudinal study of adolescent health, the relationship
between several measures of adolescent body weight
and grade point average (GPA) using Pearson
correlation coefficient produced consistent evidence of
a negative relationship between body weight and
academic performance for white females aged 16-24
while for white males and non-white females, little

36
 Nature and Science 2010;8(6)

evidence of significant relationship between body
weight and academic performance after controlling for
unobserved heterogeneity ( Hoffmann et al,
2006).These findings indicate that adolescent obesity
may have adverse academic consequences for males
and females thus, targeting obesity reduction policies
which may not only improve health outcomes but also
have a positive impact on improving their academic
performance and human capital accumulation.
Furthermore, those who were screened positive for
weight preoccupation according to OBGYN news
magazine were dissatisfied with their body size and
reported that their weights and eating habits affected
their worth and also interfered with their academic
performance or social relationship ( Sullivan and
Michelle, 2005). Martha Holden (2008) in the study to
see if there is correlation between BMI and academic
achievement in mathematics of 450 students in Ohio
achievement test, a statistically significant negative
relationship was found and most importantly, a direct
relation was obtained between students at risk for
obesity and lower test performance ( Mattha, 2009).
This research was a correlational study aiming at
investigating the relationship between adolescents’
body fat, body weight, body mass index and academic
performance taking the subjects as a group and on the
basis of sex and their BMI or nutritional status.
Materials and Methods
Written and verbal consent were obtained from 105
subjects (male = 63, female = 42) aged 18-28yrs in
year 1 of a College of Education located in a medium-
sized city before commencing the research and after
obtaining ethical clearance from the College Medical
Centre. Only non-pregnant female students were
allowed to participate in the exercise without any age
limit. For each subject, the height was measured to the
nearest 0.1cm by having the subject stand erect,
looking straight ahead, against a calibrated wall. Body
weight (with minimal clothing and without foot wears)
was obtained to the nearest 0.1kg ( on semester basis )
using Tanita Body Composition Analyzer ( BF 350 )
which at the same time determines the percentage body
fat to the nearest 0.1% based on bioimpedance
technique. In this system, two footpad electrodes
(pressure contact) are incorporated to the platform of a
precision electronic scale. The subject’s measurements
are taken while in standing position with the electrodes
in contact with base feet. The body fat monitor
/analyzer automatically measure weight and then
impedance. The computer software embedded in the
product uses the impedance, subject’s gender, height,
fitness level, age and weight to determine the
percentage body fat based on equation or formular. The
student’s performance was determined by finding the
cumulative grade point average (CGPA) for a session.
Adolescents were asked questions on their education,
health, family, romantic relationships, pear group,
neighborhoods and sexual relationship to cater for
potential biases caused by unmeasured heterogeneity.
Results and discussion
This study utilized data of the weight, body fat, and
body mass index from bioimpedance technique to
examine the relationship between adolescent nutritional
status and their academic performance. Out of the 105
subjects studied, 71.4% of the adolescents had their
BMI within the normal range, 18.1% were underweight,
4.7% were overweight and 5.7% were obese. Tables 1
and 2 depict the statistical distribution of the subjects
on the basis of sex and World Health Organization
(WHO) body mass index classifications respectively
while figures 1 and 2 show the frequency distribution
of the no of subjects and the Mean performance
(CGPA) according to their Body Mass Index (BMI)
groups.

Table 1: The Range, Mean and Standard Deviation of Students’Nutritional status and their CGPA o
ntheBa
siso
f
Sex

Pa
rame
ter
s Ma le(n=63) Fe
ma l
e(n=4 2)
Ra nge Mean±SD Range Mean±SD
Age(y r
s) 18.00-28.
00 21.
96±2.
66 19.
00-26.
00 21.
54±2.
14
Heig
h t(m) 1.52-1 .
83 1.
69±0.
06 1.
50-1.79 1.
65 ±0.07
Weight(Kg) 46.20-78.
20 59.
70±7.10 44.
2-87.3
0 55.
81±8.
53
BodyFat(%) 3.60-43.00 12.
10±7.
50 3.
50-42.
30 16.
29±8.
97
BMI(Kg/ m2) 17.25-27.
84 20.
68±2.
25 16
.50-33.
67 20
.50±3.
18
CGPA 0.88-4.82 2.
72 ±1.
06 0.
65-4.53 2.
32 ±0.89

Ta
ble2:St
at
is
ti
calt
abl
esho
wingSt
ude
nts
’Nu
tri
ti
ona
lst
at
usa
ndt
hei
rCGPAo
ntheb
asi
soft
hei
rBMI(
WHO)

37
 Na
tur
eandSc
ienc
e 2
010;
8(6
)

BMI Bodyf
at BMI CGPA
Gr
oup (%) (Kg/m2)
Ra nge Me a
n±SD Range Mean±SD Ra nge Mean±SD
Und e
rweigt 3.
h 50-1
7.30 13.
31±9. 1
4 16.
50-
18.
47 17
.74±0.
58 2
.78–4 .
04 2.
78±1.
04
(n=1 9)
No r
ma l 5.60-3
2.10 13.
42±6.
71 18.
70-
24.
70 2
0.8
1±1
.63 0
.65–4.
82 2.
58±1.
00
(n=75)
Ov e
rweight 13.00-
38.4 24.
04±9.
77 25.
03-
27.
84 25.
95± 1.
24–3.6
5 2.
04±0.
97
(n=5) 27.
84
Ob e
se(n=6) 37.6-2.
30 40.
01±2.
01 30.
09-
33.
60 3
2.77±1.
38 0
.71-3
.45 1.
91±0.
99

BMIGr
oup Age He
ight(
m) We
ight(
Kg)
(yr
s)
Underwe
igt 18.
h 00-26.
00 21.
73±2.
72 1.
58-
1.80 1
.68±0
.06 44.
30- 5
0.17±4.
04
(n=1 9) 58.
50
Normal 18.
00-28.
00 21.
68±2.
34 1.
50-
1.83 1
.68±0
.07 44.
20- 5
9.10±
(n=75) 71.
40 6
1.90
Overwei
ght 20.
00-28.
00 23.
20±3.
11 1
.52
-1.
73 1
.64±0
.08 59.
30- 7
0.48±7.
81
(n=5) 78.
20
Obese 24.
00-26.00 24
.83±0
.75 1
.60
-1.
65 1
.61±0
.02 86.
00- 8
6.95±0.
74
(n=6) 87.
30

Ta bl e3:Co rrelationc o eff

ic i
entt
able(ons exb asis)
Sex He ight We i
g ht BMI Age Ac a demicp e
rfo rma nc e
* **
Bo dyf at Ma l
e -0.272 0.27 2* 0 .509 0.
02 9 0 .0 86
** ** **
Fema le - 0.513 0.46 1 0.763 0.
08 9 - 0.3 30*
**
BMI Ma l
e -0.207 0.75 2 1.000 0.
14 0 0 .0 35
Fema le - 0.211 0.85 3** 1 .000 0.
22 1 - 0.3 76*
**
* = significant at 0.05 level = significant at 0.01 level Non-asterisked figures= Not significant

On s exb asis,forma le( n = 63) ,no s igni

fi
c a
ntr el
ati
o ns hi
pe x ist
sb et
we ena d ol
e s
centa cade mic
pe
rforma ncea ndb odyf ato rwe ightwhe rea sawe akne gati
ves ign i
f i
cantc orre
lationwa so bt
ainedf orf ema le
a
do l
escents( Ta b l
e3) .Thi si ndic
a t
e stha tthesetwop ar
ame tersma yi no newa yo rtheo therha veane ga t
ive
i
nfl
uenc eo nf ema lea cademi cpe rf
o rma nce.Thea verageperforma nceo ftheo verwe i
g htan dtheo beseislowe rt han
t
heu nde r
we ighta ndt hosewho seBMIf allwithintheno rma lrange-Fi gu re1 .Fo rb othu nde rweightandno rmal
s
ubjects,nos igni f
ic a
ntc orrelati
one xistsamo ngb odyfat,bodyma ssind exa nda c ademicp erforma nceb utapo sit
ive
s
ignif
icanta ssoc iati
one xistsb et
we ent hea cademicp er
formanc eandb o dyf at( r=0 .92 0)aswe lla sBMI( r=0 .920)
f
oro verweighta ndane gati
v es i
gnificantc orr
elat
ionwa sobtainedb et
we ena cad emicp erforma nc eandb odyf at(r=
-
0.920)s oalsowi thb odywe ight(r=-0 .754)a sshowni nfigures3-6r espe cti
v el
y.Se veralre asonscoulda c count
f
orsu chane ga tiver elati
onshipb etwe enthe setwop arameter
sf ortheo b ese.Ac cordi
ngt oCo wle y(2004 )
,i tma ybe
t
hatp oora ca demi cpe rf
orma nc ec auseshi gherbo dywe ight.Thi sma yb et hec ase,i f
,f ore x a
mp le,a dolescent
c
ho os
et oe ate xc essi
v el
yt ops ycho l
ogic a
llyc o
mp ensateforp er
formin gp oo rlyins cho ol(Co wl ey,20 04;Ke nne t
h,
2004).Theme ana cademicpe r f
orma nce( CGPA)i ncr
easedfo rad ol
esce ntswi thl owb odyma s sind e
xf ortheo bese
gr
oup( Ta bl
e2) .Mo reover,Po o
ra cade mics t
ressma ya l
soca usep sycho l
og icals t
ress,wh ichr educeso ncea ppe ti
te
s
t
a
ndr esulta
n tb odywe i
ght(Hof f
ma nnet al,2 006).Inthe1 t
h r
eeBMIg roup s,thewe i
gh t
so ft hesestude nt
swe re
a
lsofo undt ob epo siti
v e
lyc o rr
elatedwi ththeirhe i
ghts(rbe t
we en0 .69 2a nd0 .
9 22)b utther ev e
rseist hec as ein
o
be s
eg roupwhe reawe akne gati
vec orrel
ati
onc oe
ffic
ient( r=- 0.2 65)i so btai
ned .Fo rb othma leandf ema le
a
do l
escents,the rei salsoapo sit
ivesigni f
icantcorr
e l
ati
onb et
we enb odywe ighta ndhe ighto rbo dyfat.Th ispo sit
ive
s
ignif
icantr elati
o nshipo btainedf orfema lea dol
escentsincaseo fwe igh tan dhe ighto rb odyfa tint hi
ss t
u dya grees
c
loselywi t
ht hewo rko fOjoet al (2008)f orNi ger
ianwo me ninc hil
d-b earinga g e(18-52y r
s).

38
 Na
tur
eandSc
ienc
e 2
010;
8(6
)

Figure 1: Frequency distribution of the Mean CGPA based on

BMI

2.5
Mean
CGPA 2

1.5

0.5

0
Underweight Normal Overweight Obese
BMI Group

Figure 2: Frequency distribution of the subjects on the basis

of BMI

80
70
No of adolescents
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Underweight Normal Overweight Obese
BMI Group

Fi
gur
e3:
There
lat
ions
hipbe
twe
ena do
lesc
enta
cad
emi
cpe
rfo
rma
ncea
ndt
hePe
rce
nta
geBo
dyFa
tfo
r
ad
ole
sce
ntsinov
erwe
ightgroup

39
 Na
tur
eandSc
ienc
e 2
010;
8(6
)

CGPA = -0.16 + 0.09 * BF

R-Square = 0.85
3.00

Adolescent
academic
performance

A
2.00 A

A
A

1.00

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00

Percentage Body Fat

Fi
gur
e4:Thea
cade
micPe
rfo
rma
nce(
CGPA)a
gai
nstBo
dyMa
ssI
nde
xfo
rOv
erwe
igh
tgr
oup

3.50

CGPA = -17.48 + 0.75 * BMI

R-Square = 0.78

3.00

Adolescent 2.50
Performance
(CGPA)
A
2.00 A

1.50

A
A

10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00

Body Mass Index

2
(Kg/m )

Figure 5: Adolescent academic performance against Body fat for the obese

40
 Na
tur
eandSc
ienc
e 2
010;
8(6
)

3.00 CGPA = 16.44 + -0.37 * Body fat

R-Square = 0.55

2.50 A

Adolescent A
Academic
performance 2.00

1.50 A

1.00
A
A

40.00 45.00 50.00

% Body fat

3.00 CGPA = 42.19 + -0.47 * Weight

R-Square = 0.23

Adolescent 2.50 A
Academic
A
performance
2.00

1.50 A

1.00
A
A

85.00 85.50 86.00 86.50 87.00

Body weight (Kg)

Figure 6: The adolescent academic performance against Body weight for obese

Conclusion obe
seg roup.Thu s,ta
rgeti
ngo besi
tyreduct
ionpo l
ici
es
Asap ionee r
ingwo rkwi thi
nt hisme t
ropo l
is
, mayno to nl
yi mp r
ovehealt
ho utcomesbutalsohavea
t
hisp apere xami nesc rit
icallyther el
atio
ns hipb et
we en pos
iti
ve i mpact o n i mproving t hei
r a cademic
adol
escentb odywe ight,bo dyma ssinde x,p e
rcentage pe
rforma nceandhu manc api
talaccumulat
ion.Physi
cal
bodyf atandt heira cademi cpe rf
orma nce.Ther esult
s f
it
nessa sse
ssme nt(int e
rmso fb ody comp osi
ti
on,
suggestar obus te videnceo fapo si
tiver elati
onship ae
robicc a
pacity,mu sc
u l
ars t
rength,endurancea nd
bet
we enb ody we ight a nd a cademi ca chi
e vement f
lexi
bili
ty e t
c) i s therefore r e
comme nded f or
amongt heo ve rwe i
ghta dole s
centsa f
terc o
nt ro
llingthe ad
olescentsmo ste s
peci
allytheo besetoavoidhe al
th
vari
ousf ormo funme a s
ure dhe te
rogene i
ty.A l o tof r
isksp o
se db yo bes
it
ya ndfora nimp ro
veda cademic
st
udiesh aves hownt hathig hlev e
lsoff i
tne s
sa tschool pe
rforma nce.Su cha do
lesce
ntswhoa r
ea tp ot
entia
l
ar
es ignif
icant l
ya ssocia
te d wi t
h hi g hl evel
so f r
isksforo besityarea dvi
sedtomo nit
ortheirdiet
ary
card
iovascularf itness,b e
tters choolattendance ,fewer i
ntakesaswe ll
.
di
scipli
naryi nc i
de ntsa ndhi ghpa ssi
ngr a
teso rb ett
er
academicp e
rf orma nce(Ke nne t
h,20 04).The rewa s Acknowledgement
al
soas tr
ongne gativec or
r ela
tionb et
we enb odyf at/ The a uthorsa r
e ver
y gr
ate
fult
o the
bodyma ssi nde xa nda ca demicpe rforma ncei nt he Coor
dinato
ro fBi ol
ogi
calTr
aceEl
ement
sRe
sea
rch

41
 Na
tur
eandSc
ienc
e 2
010;
8(6
)

(
BTER)Labor
ato
ry,Depa
rtmento
fPhys
ics
,Obafe
mi [5] Ho ffma n n,Da ni
el.J.,Polic
astro,PeggyQui ck,
Awo
lowoUniver
sit
yfo
rgiv i
ngusthec
hancet
ou se Virgini
aLe ea ndSo o-Ky nng.Cha ngei nb odywe ight
t
heequi
pme
nt. andf atma sso fme na ndwo me nint hefirstye aro f
Universi
ty Ed uca t
ion,J ournalo fAme r
ican Co llege
Correspondence to: Health.2006 ;(2):5 -8.
OketayoOy eba
mi jiOyedel
e [6] Su lli
va n, Mi chele. G. We ightt r
a ining
DepartmentofPhy si
cs, Programmema yi mp r
oves elf-
ima ge(Cl i
nicalrou nds)
AdeyemiCo ll
egeo fEducat
ion, OBGYNNe wsMa gazi
ne,2 005:5-10.
Ondo35100.Ni geria
. [7] Ma tt
haHo lde
nJ .Co r
relat
ionb etweenb ody
Cel
lularPhone:+234-8068565178,+234-
80335
96566 Ma s
sI ndexa nd Ac ademi ca c
hieveme nt.A Studyby
Email:oket
ayodele06@y a
hoo.com Lakewo ods cho olsa nd La k e
wo od ho spi
tal,Ma t
tha
HoldenJ ennin gs Fo und at
ion,we st
sho r
e Ma g
a z i
ne.
References 2009;2 6
6 -771-2 8 33:
10-15 .
[1] Ta nita Corpor
a t
ion of Ame ri
c a. [8] Co wleyW.TheEf fecto fBo dyWe ighti n
Und e
rsta
nd ing Bo dyFa tAna l
ysisexc e
rptfro
mt he Adolescent Ac ademic Pe rf
orma nce, So ut hern
pamp hl
et1 999:1 -
3. Economi cJo urna lAr t
ic
les.20 04;(1)
:2 10-220.
[2] John Do e. Bodyometr
yfutr
e x, [9] J.O.Oj o ,O.O.Ok etayo,A.O.Ab ode ri
n,
ht
tp:/
/www. f
utrex.
c o
m/ 6100htm/.2003:1-
3 A.A.Sa lawu a nd S. R.A.Ad ewusi.Ev aluati
o no f
[
3] Pie t
robell
i. Mul t
i-
Co mpo ne
nt Bo dy Nutrit
ionalSt atu su si
ngBo dyf a
t,Phy siol
ogicala nd
Comp osi
tion Mo dels:Re centa dvancesa ndf u
ture Biochemica lPa ra meter
si ns omeNi g eri
anWo me n.A
di
recti
onsEu ropeanJ o
urnalsofCl i
nicalNutr
it
ion,5 5. paperp resen t
edb y A.A.Sa lawu a tSo urc
ec hem-
2001:69-70 . i
nternati
ona lCo nf er
enceo fOs un State Chapte ro f
[
4] Ke nnet
hH.Co oper
.Thei mpa cto
fEx erc
ise Chemi cal So cietyo f Ni geri
a, Ob a f
emi Awo lowo
onGr owingBr a i
nCo operAe robi
csCe nte
r-News Universi
ty,Ile-Ife,2 008:
2 7-29.
Mag azi
ne,2 004:324 .

3
/11/
201
0.

42