Edium High Low SF-G Medium Higher Low SF-PA Medium Higher Low SF-PC Medium Higher Low SF-PAT Medium High Low SF-PS Medium Higher M 22.29 23.65 24.38 20.48 22.a,b,c a,b a,cSD 5.09 four.82 four.78 six.ten five.47 five.72 4.91 four.52 four.22 five.09 5.03 4.46 six.14 five.41 5.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 18.10 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, common self-concept; SF-G, common physical self-concept; SF-PA, physical capacity; SF-PC, physical situation; SF-PAT, physical attractiveness; SF-PS, physical strength. Note two: a, b, c, Post hoc (Bonferroni)–pairwise between-group comparisons. Note 2: PA, Physical Activity; M, Imply; SD, Typical Deviation; CI, Self-confidence Intervals; LL, Reduced Limit; UL, Upper Limit; Lev., Levene-test; Sig., Degree of significance; F, F-test; W, Welch statistic.Kids 2021, 8,7 ofTable 3 presents the various dimensions of physical self-concept according to diet plan high-quality. With regard for the dimension of the common self-concept, a constructive trend is observed with increasing Ethaselen Epigenetic Reader Domain Mediterranean diet plan adherence, in addition to with physical attractiveness and strength. With regard to the common physical self-concept, in contrast, information revealed superior outcomes in those with a poor-quality diet. The identical occurred with the dimension describing physical ability, in which a unfavorable trend was observed having a poorer-quality diet leading to better outcomes (23.07 five.98 vs. 22.25 5.58 vs. 19.86 five.37). With regard for the dimension pertaining to physical condition, it was observed that adolescents who followed a medium-quality eating plan Lesogaberan Biological Activity reported much better values than people that consumed a low- or high-quality diet.Table three. Levels of physical self-concept according to diet plan quality. Diet program Top quality Low GS Medium Higher Low SF-G Medium High Low SF-PA Medium Higher Low SF-PC Medium Higher Low SF-PAT Medium Higher 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 four.96 five.95 5.75 5.98 five.88 five.37 5.19 four.87 five.20 five.55 five.61 5.63 five.68 five.96 five.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.ten.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, general physical self-concept; SF-PA, physical potential; SF-PC, physical condition; SF-PAT, physical attractiveness; SF-PS, physical strength. Note 2: a, b, c, Post hoc (Bonferroni)–pairwise between-group comparisons. Note 2: M, Imply; SD, Normal Deviation; CI, Self-confidence Intervals; LL, Decrease Limit; UL, Upper Limit; Lev., Levene-test; Sig., Level of significance; F, F-test.Table 4 presents the outcomes with the bivariate Pearson correlations performed among the dimensions of self-concept, eating plan top quality and physical activity levels. In relation to physical activity, a posi.