Table. 3.
Multiple linear regression analysis of the association between the four movement behavior profiles and obesity indicators among 807 workers
| Variables | Profile | β | 95% CI | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BMI (kg/m2) | Chimpanzees | Ref | ||
| Lions | 1.0 | 0.1, 2.0 | 0.04 | |
| Koalas | 0.8 | −0.3, 1.9 | 0.15 | |
| Ants | 0.4 | −0.5, 1.3 | 0.39 | |
| Chimpanzees | Ref | |||
| WC (cm) | Lions | 4.3 | 1.4, 7.2 | <0.001 |
| Koalas | 3.1 | 0.1, 6.2 | 0.05 | |
| Ants | 2.6 | −0.2, 5.3 | 0.07 | |
| Chimpanzees | Ref | |||
| Fat (%) | Lions | 2.0 | 0.6, 3.4 | 0.01 |
| Koalas | 2.0 | 0.4, 3.7 | 0.02 | |
| Ants | 1.0 | −0.4, 2.4 | 0.16 |
Each model is adjusted for age, sex, smoking status, alcohol, poor dietary intake, and socioeconomic status; BMI body mass index, WC waist circumference, CI confidence interval; “Chimpanzees” was set as a reference; results in bold are significant at p < 0.05; β is the beta estimate that indicated estimated difference in obesity indicators between each animal profile and “Chimpanzees”