Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Oct 29;17(21):7929.
doi: 10.3390/ijerph17217929.

The Relation between Domain-Specific Physical Behaviour and Cardiorespiratory Fitness: A Cross-Sectional Compositional Data Analysis on the Physical Activity Health Paradox Using Accelerometer-Assessed Data

Margo Ketels  1 , Charlotte Lund Rasmussen  2 , Mette Korshøj  3 , Nidhi Gupta  2 , Dirk De Bacquer  1 , Andreas Holtermann  2   4 , Els Clays  1
Affiliations

The Relation between Domain-Specific Physical Behaviour and Cardiorespiratory Fitness: A Cross-Sectional Compositional Data Analysis on the Physical Activity Health Paradox Using Accelerometer-Assessed Data

Margo Ketels et al. Int J Environ Res Public Health. .

Abstract

In contrast to leisure time physical activity (LTPA), occupational physical activity (OPA) does not have similar beneficial health effects. These differential health effects might be explained by dissimilar effects of LTPA and OPA on cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF). This study investigated cross-sectional associations between different physical behaviours during both work and leisure time and CRF by using a Compositional Data Analysis approach. Physical behaviours were assessed by two accelerometers among 309 workers with various manual jobs. During work time, more sedentary behaviour (SB) was associated with higher CRF when compared relatively to time spent on other work behaviours, while more SB during leisure time was associated with lower CRF when compared to other leisure time behaviours. Reallocating more time to moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) from the other behaviours within leisure time was positively associated with CRF, which was not the case for MVPA during work. The results of our study are in line with the physical activity health paradox and we call for further study on the interaction between LTPA and OPA by implementing device-worn measures in a longitudinal design. Our results highlight the need for recommendations to take into account the different effects of OPA and LTPA on CRF.

Keywords: CVD risk; FEPA; aerobic workload; cardiorespiratory fitness; compositional data; leisure time physical activity; occupational health; occupational physical activity; physically demanding jobs.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study, in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow chart of the recruitment of the study population.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Estimated difference in CRF (based on the physical fitness index) levels associated with one-to-remaining reallocations of different behaviours during work (a) and leisure-time (b) among 309 workers. X-axis represents the amount of minutes reallocated from a behaviour to remaining behaviours within each domain, Y-axis represents the change in CRF levels. * significant at p < 0.05. CRF = cardiorespiratory fitness; PFI = physical fitness index; SB = sedentary behaviour; LIPA = low-intensity physical activity; MVPA = moderate-to-vigorous physical activity. The confidence intervals of the estimates are presented in Supplementary Table S1.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Vasankari V., Husu P., Vähä-Ypyä H., Suni J., Tokola K., Halonen J., Hartikainen J., Sievänen H., Vasankari T. Association of objectively measured sedentary behaviour and physical activity with cardiovascular disease risk. Eur. J. Prev. Cardiol. 2017;24:1311–1318. doi: 10.1177/2047487317711048. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Li J., Siegrist J. Physical activity and risk of cardiovascular disease—A meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2012;9:391–407. doi: 10.3390/ijerph9020391. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Piepoli M.F., Hoes A.W., Agewall S., Albus C., Brotons C., Catapano A.L., Cooney M.-T., Corrà U., Cosyns B., Deaton C., et al. 2016 European Guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice: The Sixth Joint Task Force of the European Society of Cardiology and Other Societies on Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Clinical Practice (constituted by representatives of 10 societies and by invited experts) Developed with the special contribution of the European Association for Cardiovascular Prevention & Rehabilitation (EACPR) Eur. Heart J. 2016;37:2315–2381. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehw106. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Piercy K.L., Troiano R.P., Ballard R.M., Carlson S.A., Fulton J.E., Galuska D.A., Olson R.D. The physical activity guidelines for Americans. JAMA. 2018;320:2020–2028. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.14854. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Department of Health and Social Care . Physical Activity Guidelines: UK Chief Medical Officers’ Report. Department of Health and Social Care; London, UK: 2019.

Publication types