Dataset Information

Is Sitting Always Inactive and Standing Always Active? A Simultaneous Free-Living activPal and ActiGraph Analysis.

ABSTRACT: Sedentary Behavior (SB), defined as sitting with minimal physical activity, is an emergent public health topic. However, the measurement of SB considers either posture (e.g., activPal) or physical activity (e.g., ActiGraph), and thus neglects either active sitting or inactive standing. The aim of this study was to determine the true amount of active sitting and inactive standing in daily life, and to analyze by how much these behaviors falsify the single sensors' sedentary estimates. Sedentary time of 100 office workers estimated with activPal and ActiGraph was therefore compared with Bland-Altman statistics to a combined sensor analysis, the posture and physical activity index (POPAI). POPAI classified each activPal sitting and standing event into inactive or active using the ActiGraph counts. Participants spent 45.0% [32.2%-59.1%] of the waking hours inactive sitting (equal to SB), 13.7% [7.8%-21.6%] active sitting, and 12.0% [5.7%-24.1%] inactive standing (mean [5th-95th percentile]). The activPal overestimated sedentary time by 30.3% [12.3%-48.4%] and the ActiGraph by 22.5% [3.2%-41.8%] (bias [95% limit-of-agreement]). The results showed that sitting is not always inactive, and standing is not always active. Caution should therefore be paid when interpreting the activPal (ignoring active sitting) and ActiGraph (ignoring inactive standing) measured time as SB.

SUBMITTER: Kuster RP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7730923 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Is Sitting Always Inactive and Standing Always Active? A Simultaneous Free-Living activPal and ActiGraph Analysis.

Kuster Roman P RP Grooten Wilhelmus J A WJA Blom Victoria V Baumgartner Daniel D Hagströmer Maria M Ekblom Örjan Ö

International journal of environmental research and public health 20201128 23

Sedentary Behavior (SB), defined as sitting with minimal physical activity, is an emergent public health topic. However, the measurement of SB considers either posture (e.g., activPal) or physical activity (e.g., ActiGraph), and thus neglects either active sitting or inactive standing. The aim of this study was to determine the true amount of active sitting and inactive standing in daily life, and to analyze by how much these behaviors falsify the single sensors' sedentary estimates. Sedentary t ...[more]

PMID: 33260568

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: We investigated whether substituting sitting with standing and self-perceived light walking in free-living conditions would improve cardiometabolic risk factors, mood, and cognition in overweight/obese adults. Methods: In a randomized, cross-over study, 24 (m/f: 13/11) sedentary overweight/obese participants (64 ± 7 years, BMI 29 ± 2 kg/m2) followed two activity regimens of each 4 days in free-living conditions: "Sit": sitting 13.5 h/day, standing 1.4 h/day, self-perceived light-intensity walking 0.7 h/day; for "SitLess" these activities lasted 7.6, 4.0, and 4.3 h/day, respectively. Meals were standardized and physical activity was assessed by accelerometry (activPAL). Insulin sensitivity (expressed as Matsuda-index based on an oral glucose tolerance test), circulating lipids, blood pressure, mood (pleasantness and arousal), and cognition were assessed on the morning after the activity regimens. Quality of life and sleep were assessed on the last day of the activity regimens. Results: We observed that AUC (0-190 min) for insulin decreased by 20% after SitLess vs. Sit [10,125 (656) vs. 12,633 (818); p = 0.006]. Insulin sensitivity improved by 16% after SitLess vs. Sit [Matsuda-index, mean (SEM): 6.45 (0.25) vs. 5.58 (0.25) respectively; p = 0.007]. Fasting triglycerides, non-HDL-cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B decreased by 32, 7, and 4% respectively, whereas HDL-cholesterol increased by 7% after SitLess vs. Sit (all p < 0.01). Diastolic blood pressure was lower after SitLess vs. Sit (p < 0.05). Pleasantness (as one marker of mood status) after the oral glucose tolerance test was higher after SitLess vs. Sit (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference between regimens for cognition, quality of life and sleep. Conclusions: Reducing sitting time in free-living conditions markedly improved insulin sensitivity, circulating lipids, and diastolic blood pressure. Substituting sitting with standing and self-perceived light walking is an effective strategy to improve cardiometabolic risk factors in overweight/obese subjects.

Project description:ContextAnterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) and gait speed are risk factors for developing knee osteoarthritis (OA). Measuring minute-level cadence during free-living activities may aid in identifying individuals at elevated risk of developing slow habitual gait speed and, in the long term, OA.ObjectiveTo assess differences in peak 1-minute cadence and weekly time in different cadence intensities between individuals with and without ACLR.DesignCross-sectional study.SettingShort-term, free-living conditions.Patients or other participantsA total of 57 participants with ACLR (34 women, 23 men; age = 20.9 ± 3.2 years, time since surgery = 28.7 ± 17.7 months) and 42 healthy control participants (22 women, 20 men; age = 20.7 ± 1.7 years).Main outcome measure(s)Each participant wore a physical activity monitor for 7 days. Data were collected at 30 Hz, processed in 60-second epochs, and included in the analyses if the activity monitor was worn for at least 10 hours per day over 4 days. Mean daily steps, peak 1-minute cadence, and weekly minutes spent at 60 to 79 (slow walking), 80 to 99 (medium walking), 100 to 119 (brisk walking), ≥100 (moderate- to vigorous-intensity ambulation), and ≥130 (vigorous-intensity ambulation) steps per minute were calculated. One-way analyses of covariance were conducted to determine differences between groups, controlling for height and activity-monitor wear time.ResultsThose with ACLR took fewer daily steps (8422 ± 2663 versus 10 033 ± 3046 steps; P = .005) and spent fewer weekly minutes in moderate- to vigorous-intensity cadence (175.8 ± 116.5 minutes versus 218.5 ± 137.1 minutes; P = .048) than participants without ACLR. We observed no differences in minutes spent at slow (ACLR = 77.4 ± 40.5 minutes versus control = 83.9 ± 34.3 minutes; P = .88), medium (ACLR = 71.6 ± 40.2 minutes versus control = 82.9 ± 46.8 minutes; P = .56), brisk (ACLR = 115.3 ± 70.3 minutes versus control = 138.3 ± 73.3 minutes; P = .18), or vigorous-intensity (ACLR = 24.3 ± 36.5 minutes versus control = 38.1 ± 60.9 minutes; P = .10) cadences per week.ConclusionsParticipants with ACLR walked approximately 40 fewer minutes per week in moderate- to vigorous-intensity cadence than participants without ACLR. Increasing the time spent at cadence ≥100 steps per minute and overall volume of physical activity may be useful as interventional targets to help reduce the risk of early development of OA after ACLR.

Project description:BackgroundSedentary behaviour is a public health concern that requires surveillance and epidemiological research. For such large scale studies, self-report tools are a pragmatic measurement solution. A large number of self-report tools are currently in use, but few have been validated against an objective measure of sedentary time and there is no comparative information between tools to guide choice or to enable comparison between studies. The aim of this study was to provide a systematic comparison, generalisable to all tools, of the validity of self-report measures of sedentary time against a gold standard sedentary time objective monitor.MethodsCross sectional data from three cohorts (N?=?700) were used in this validation study. Eighteen self-report measures of sedentary time, based on the TAxonomy of Self-report SB Tools (TASST) framework, were compared against an objective measure of postural sitting (activPAL) to provide information, generalizable to all existing tools, on agreement and precision using Bland-Altman statistics, on criterion validity using Pearson correlation, and on data loss.ResultsAll self-report measures showed poor accuracy compared with the objective measure of sedentary time, with very wide limits of agreement and poor precision (random error?>?2.5 h). Most tools under-reported total sedentary time and demonstrated low correlations with objective data. The type of assessment used by the tool, whether direct, proxy, or a composite measure, influenced the measurement characteristics. Proxy measures (TV time) and single item direct measures using a visual analogue scale to assess the proportion of the day spent sitting, showed the best combination of precision and data loss. The recall period (e.g. previous week) had little influence on measurement characteristics.ConclusionSelf-report measures of sedentary time result in large bias, poor precision and low correlation with an objective measure of sedentary time. Choice of tool depends on the research context, design and question. Choice can be guided by this systematic comparative validation and, in the case of population surveillance, it recommends to use a visual analog scale and a 7 day recall period. Comparison between studies and improving population estimates of average sedentary time, is possible with the comparative correction factors provided.

Dataset Information

Is Sitting Always Inactive and Standing Always Active? A Simultaneous Free-Living activPal and ActiGraph Analysis.

Publications

Is Sitting Always Inactive and Standing Always Active? A Simultaneous Free-Living activPal and ActiGraph Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets