Revisiting the ‘Physical Activity Paradox’ in a Chinese Context: Occupational Physical Activity and Mortality in 142,302 Urban Working Adults from the China Kadoorie Biobank Study

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mengyun Luo ◽  
Nidhi Gupta ◽  
Andreas Holtermann ◽  
Manos Stamatakis ◽  
Ding Ding
2012 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. 1130-1137 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lydia Kwak ◽  
Maria Hagströmer ◽  
Michael Sjostrom

Background:To be able to draw any conclusions regarding the health effects of occupational physical activity (OPA), more information is needed regarding valid measures to assess OPA. Aims were to compare OPA as assessed with the International Physical Activity Questionnaire long version (IPAQ-L) with OPA assessed with an accelerometer and to assess the contribution of OPA to total PA.Methods:Working adults (n = 441; mean age = 49.4 yrs; 44% males) wore an accelerometer for 7 days in free-living situations and completed the IPAQ-L. Comparisons were made between IPAQ-L-work and accelerometer data limited to working time (Moderate and Vigorous PA (accelerometer-MVPA-work) and average intensity). Subgroup analyses were performed.Results:Spearman correlation was r = .46 (P < .01) between IPAQ-L-work and accelerometer-MVPA-work. Correlations ranged from r = .27 to r = .55 in respectively obese and overweight subjects. The contribution of IPAQ-L-work to IPAQ-total was 24.7%.Conclusions:The IPAQ-L work domain is a moderately good measure of time spent on MVPA at work and can be used to assess the contribution of OPA to total PA. This study provides valuable information regarding the use of the IPAQ-L in assessing work domain specific PA, and underscores the importance of assessing OPA, as it can contribute for a substantial part to total PA.


2021 ◽  
Vol 63 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Noritoshi Fukushima ◽  
Masaki Machida ◽  
Hiroyuki Kikuchi ◽  
Shiho Amagasa ◽  
Toshio Hayashi ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Stephanie A. Prince ◽  
Charlotte Lund Rasmussen ◽  
Aviroop Biswas ◽  
Andreas Holtermann ◽  
Tarnbir Aulakh ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Although it is generally accepted that physical activity reduces the risk for chronic non-communicable disease and mortality, accumulating evidence suggests that occupational physical activity (OPA) may not confer the same health benefits as leisure time physical activity (LTPA). It is also unclear if workers in high OPA jobs benefit from LTPA the same way as those in sedentary jobs. Our objective was to determine whether LTPA and leisure time sedentary behaviour (LTSB) confer the same health effects across occupations with different levels of OPA. Methods Searches were run in Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, ProQuest Public Health and Scopus from inception to June 9, 2020. Prospective or experimental studies which examined the effects of LTPA or LTSB on all-cause and cardiovascular mortality and cardiovascular disease, musculoskeletal pain, diabetes, metabolic syndrome, arrhythmias and depression among adult workers grouped by OPA (low OPA/sitters, standers, moderate OPA/intermittent movers, high OPA/heavy labourers) were eligible. Results were synthesized using narrative syntheses and harvest plots, and certainty of evidence assessed with GRADE. Results The review includes 38 papers. Across all outcomes, except cardiovascular mortality, metabolic syndrome and atrial fibrillation, greater LTPA was consistently protective among low OPA, but conferred less protection among moderate and high OPA. For cardiovascular mortality and metabolic syndrome, higher levels of LTPA were generally associated with similar risk reductions among all OPA groups. Few studies examined effects in standers and none examined effects of LTSB across OPA groups. Conclusions Evidence suggests that LTPA is beneficial for all workers, but with larger risk reductions among those with low compared to high OPA jobs. This suggests that, in our attempts to improve the health of workers through LTPA, tailored interventions for different occupational groups may be required. More high-quality studies are needed to establish recommended levels of LTPA/LTSB for different OPA groups. Protocol registration PROSPERO #CRD42020191708.


Author(s):  
Rubina Mulchandani ◽  
Ambalam M. Chandrasekaran ◽  
Roopa Shivashankar ◽  
Dimple Kondal ◽  
Anurag Agrawal ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Adults in urban areas spend almost 77% of their waking time being inactive at workplaces, which leaves little time for physical activity. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to synthesize evidence for the effect of workplace physical activity interventions on the cardio-metabolic health markers (body weight, waist circumference, body mass index (BMI), blood pressure, lipids and blood glucose) among working adults. Methods All experimental studies up to March 2018, reporting cardio-metabolic worksite intervention outcomes among adult employees were identified from PUBMED, EMBASE, COCHRANE CENTRAL, CINAHL and PsycINFO. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used to assess bias in studies. All studies were assessed qualitatively and meta-analysis was done where possible. Forest plots were generated for pooled estimates of each study outcome. Results A total of 33 studies met the eligibility criteria and 24 were included in the meta-analysis. Multi-component workplace interventions significantly reduced body weight (16 studies; mean diff: − 2.61 kg, 95% CI: − 3.89 to − 1.33) BMI (19 studies, mean diff: − 0.42 kg/m2, 95% CI: − 0.69 to − 0.15) and waist circumference (13 studies; mean diff: − 1.92 cm, 95% CI: − 3.25 to − 0.60). Reduction in blood pressure, lipids and blood glucose was not statistically significant. Conclusions Workplace interventions significantly reduced body weight, BMI and waist circumference. Non-significant results for biochemical markers could be due to them being secondary outcomes in most studies. Intervention acceptability and adherence, follow-up duration and exploring non-RCT designs are factors that need attention in future research. Prospero registration number: CRD42018094436.


2005 ◽  
Vol 118 (4) ◽  
pp. 1004-1009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cheryl Vigen ◽  
Leslie Bernstein ◽  
Anna H. Wu

2016 ◽  
Vol 51 (5) ◽  
pp. 637-646 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah A. Sliwa ◽  
Aviva Must ◽  
Flavia C. Peréa ◽  
Rebecca J. Boulos ◽  
Christina D. Economos

2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 249-257 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristian Ujka ◽  
Rosa Maria Bruno ◽  
Luca Bastiani ◽  
Eva Bernardi ◽  
Paolo Sdringola ◽  
...  

2003 ◽  
Vol 35 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. S20
Author(s):  
D A. Bemben ◽  
M L. Griffith ◽  
M G. Bemben ◽  
M K. Dinger

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document