Confusion and Conflict in Assessing the Physical Activity Status of Middle-Aged Men
Open Access
- 2 February 2009
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Public Library of Science (PLoS) in PLOS ONE
- Vol. 4 (2) , e4337
Abstract
Physical activity (including exercise) is prescribed for health and there are various recommendations that can be used to gauge physical activity status. The objective of the current study was to determine whether twelve commonly-used physical activity recommendations similarly classified middle-aged men as sufficiently active for general health. We examined the commonality in the classification of physical activity status between twelve variations of physical activity recommendations for general health in ninety men aged 45–64 years. Physical activity was assessed using synchronised accelerometry and heart rate. Using different guidelines but the same raw data, the proportion of men defined as active ranged from to 11% to 98% for individual recommendations (median 73%, IQR 30% to 87%). There was very poor absolute agreement between the recommendations, with an intraclass correlation coefficient (A,1) of 0.24 (95% CI, 0.15 to 0.34). Only 8% of men met all 12 recommendations and would therefore be unanimously classified as active and only one man failed to meet every recommendation and would therefore be unanimously classified as not sufficiently active. The wide variability in physical activity classification was explained by ostensibly subtle differences between the 12 recommendations for thresholds related to activity volume (time or energy), distribution (e.g., number of days of the week), moderate intensity cut-point (e.g., 3 vs. 4 metabolic equivalents or METs), and duration (including bout length). Physical activity status varies enormously depending on the physical activity recommendation that is applied and even ostensibly small differences have a major impact. Approximately nine out of every ten men in the present study could be variably described as either active or not sufficiently active. Either the effective dose or prescription that underlies each physical activity recommendation is different or each recommendation is seeking the same prescriptive outcome but with variable success.Keywords
This publication has 35 references indexed in Scilit:
- Physical Activity in the United States Measured by AccelerometerMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 2008
- Randomised controlled trial of home-based walking programmes at and below current recommended levels of exercise in sedentary adultsJournal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 2007
- Changes in leisure time physical activity and risk of all-cause mortality in men and women: The Baltimore Longitudinal Study of AgingPreventive Medicine, 2007
- Assessment of physical activity and energy expenditure in epidemiological research of chronic diseasesEuropean Journal of Epidemiology, 2007
- Accuracy of the Actiheart for the assessment of energy expenditure in adultsEuropean Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2007
- Very short intermittent vs continuous bouts of activity in sedentary adultsPreventive Medicine, 2006
- Reliability and validity of the combined heart rate and movement sensor ActiheartEuropean Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2005
- Providing Sedentary Adults with Choices for Meeting Their Walking GoalsPreventive Medicine, 1999
- "Forming inferences about some intraclass correlations coefficients": Correction.Psychological Methods, 1996
- Physical activity and public health. A recommendation from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American College of Sports MedicineJAMA, 1995