Edium High Low SF-G Medium Higher Low SF-PA Medium Higher Low SF-PC Medium High Low SF-PAT Medium Higher Low SF-PS Medium High M 22.29 23.65 24.38 20.48 22.a,b,c a,b a,cSD five.09 four.82 four.78 6.10 5.47 five.72 four.91 four.52 four.22 5.09 5.03 4.46 6.14 5.41 five.ten 4.85 four.87 four.95 CI LL 21.87 23.32 23.77 19.98 22.53 23.46 17.29 21.65 23.75 16.47 21.11 24.19 19.29 21.41 22.84 16.42 19.50 22.17 UL 22.71 23.97 24.99 20.98 23.28 24.92 18.ten 22.26 24.84 17.31 21.79 25.34 20.30 22.15 24.15 17.22 20.16 23.Homogeneity of Variance Lev. Sig. FANOVA Sig.Welch Test W Sig.1.0.19.0.–a,b,c a,b,c4.0.46.0.43.0.24.19 a,b,c 17.69 a,b,c 21.a,b,c1.0.222.0.–24.30 a,b,c 16.89 21.45 24.a,b,c a,b,c a,b,c1.0.251.0.–19.80 a,b,c 21.78 23.a,b,c a,b,c9.0.41.0.40.0.16.82 a,b,c 19.83 22.a,b,c a,b,c0.0.139.0.–Note 1: GS, general self-concept; SF-G, general physical self-concept; SF-PA, physical capability; SF-PC, physical condition; SF-PAT, physical attractiveness; SF-PS, physical strength. Note two: a, b, c, Post hoc (Bonferroni)–pairwise between-group comparisons. Note two: PA, Physical Activity; M, Imply; SD, Normal Deviation; CI, Confidence Intervals; LL, Lower Limit; UL, Upper Limit; Lev., Levene-test; Sig., Degree of significance; F, F-test; W, Welch statistic.Children 2021, 8,7 ofTable three presents the distinct dimensions of physical self-concept according to diet program high-quality. With regard for the dimension in the common self-concept, a constructive trend is noticed with escalating Mediterranean diet plan adherence, as well as with physical attractiveness and strength. With regard to the common physical self-concept, in contrast, data revealed far better Estramustine phosphate sodium Description outcomes in those having a poor-quality diet plan. Precisely the same occurred using the dimension describing physical capacity, in which a damaging trend was observed having a poorer-quality eating plan leading to far better outcomes (23.07 five.98 vs. 22.25 five.58 vs. 19.86 five.37). With regard to the dimension pertaining to physical condition, it was observed that adolescents who followed a medium-quality diet regime reported superior values than people who consumed a low- or high-quality diet program.Table three. Levels of physical self-concept according to eating plan top quality. Diet plan Top quality Low GS Medium High Low SF-G Medium High Low SF-PA Medium High Low SF-PC Medium High Low SF-PAT Medium High Low SF-PS Medium Higher M 22.46 23.27 24.a,b,c a,b,c a,b c, cSD 5.01 4.94 four.86 4.96 5.95 5.75 five.98 5.88 five.37 five.19 four.87 5.20 five.55 five.61 5.63 five.68 five.96 5.95 CI LL 21.95 22.93 23.57 23.04 20.79 21.82 22.51 21.97 19.32 20.29 21.52 20.57 18.48 19.81 21.25 20.07 19.80 20.88 UL 22.96 23.61 24.48 23.52 21.98 22.61 23.63 22.54 20.40 21.00 22.43 21.07 19.59 20.58 22.30 20.62 21.00 21.Homogeneity of Variance Lev. Sig. FANOVA Sig.0.0.10.0.23.21.38 b,c 22.22 a,b,c 23.07 a,b,c 22.25 a,b,c 19.86 20.64 21.97 20.82 19.04 20.19 21.a,b,c a,b,c a,b,c a,b,c a,b,c a,b,c a,b,c a,c0.0.8.0.1.0.18.0.0.0.25.0.1.0.11.0.20.20.40 b,c 21.26 a,b,c0.0.13.0.Note 1: GS, general self-concept; SF-G, basic physical self-concept; SF-PA, physical potential; SF-PC, physical condition; SF-PAT, physical attractiveness; SF-PS, physical strength. Note two: a, b, c, Post hoc (Bonferroni)–pairwise between-group comparisons. Note 2: M, Imply; SD, AZD4573 custom synthesis Standard Deviation; CI, Self-confidence Intervals; LL, Reduced Limit; UL, Upper Limit; Lev., Levene-test; Sig., Degree of significance; F, F-test.Table 4 presents the outcomes from the bivariate Pearson correlations performed amongst the dimensions of self-concept, diet excellent and physical activity levels. In relation to physical activity, a posi.