Table 2.
Data on health behavior of the sample
| Group | Health Status1 [Mode] n (%) Median (P25–P75) | Physical Activity1 [hours/week] Mean (SD) Median (P25–P75) | Sedentary time1 [hours/day] Mean (SD) Median (P25–P75) | WHO-5 Score1 [1–100] Mean (SD) Median (P25–P75) | Playing time [hours/week] Mean (SD) Median (P25–P75) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total sample (n = 800) | “very good” 352 (43.9) | 9.2 (8.4) | 7.7 (3.6) | 59.4 (17.5) | 20.3 (15.6)O |
| 4.0 (3.0–4.0) | 7.0 (4.0–10.0) | 8.0 (5.0–10.0) | 60.0 (48.0–72.0) | 17.0 (0.9–27.0) | |
| Professional players (n = 20) | “very good” 10 (50.0) | 7.0 (5.6) | 7.9 (4.1) | 69.2 (9.6) | 36.4 (23.7) |
| 3.0 (3.3–4.8) | 5.5 (4.0–9.5) | 8.0 (4.3–11.5) | 68.0 (64.0–72.0) | 33.5 (19.3–48.5) | |
| Former professional players (n = 15) | “very good” & “good” 6 (40.0) | 9.8 (6.3) | 8.5 (3.5) | 64.5 (8.0) | 23.0 (16.7)O |
| 4.0 (3.0–4.0) | 8.0 (5.0–12.0) | 8.0 (5.0–12.0) | 64.0 (56.0–72.0) | 18.0 (11.0–40.0) | |
| Amateurs (n = 187) | “very good” 80 (42.8) | 8.4 (8.2)O | 8.3 (3.6)O | 60.8 (16.6) | 26.7 (14.9)O,R |
| 4.0 (3.0–4.0) | 6.0 (3.0–10.0) | 9.0 (6.0–10.0) | 64.0 (52.0–72.0) | 23.0 (16.0–35.0) | |
| Regular players (n = 445) | “very good” 197 (44.1) | 9.3 (8.8) | 7.8 (3.7)O | 58.7 (17.8) | 21.3 (14.3)O,A |
| 4.0 (3.0–4.0) | 7.0 (4.0–10.0) | 8.0 (5.0–10.0) | 60.0 (48.0–72.0) | 18.0 (11.0–26.5) | |
| Occasional players (n = 133) | “very good” 59 (44.4) | 10.2 (7.6)A | 6.5 (2.8)R,A | 57.8 (18.8) | 5.1 (5.6)P,F,A,R |
| 4.0 (3.0–4.0) | 8.0 (5.0–14.0) | 6.0 (4.0–8.0) | 60.0 (48.0–72.0) | 3.5 (2.0–7.0) | |
| p | 0.55 | 0.03 | < 0.01 | 0.05 | < 0.01 |
1Kruskal–Wallis test; 17 Participants missing, because of not specifying physical activity, sedentary time. Superscript letters indicate statistically significant (p < 0.05) differences to other groups in the same column: Pprofessional players; Fformer professional players; Aamateurs; Rregular players; Ooccasional players. Bold values shows a significance (p < 0.05)