Infographic: The 'weekend warrior' physical activity pattern and mortality.

Infographic: The 'weekend warrior' physical activity pattern and mortality

The “weekend warrior” physical activity pattern: how little is enough?

The “weekend warrior” physical activity pattern: how little is enough

Is the time right for quantitative public health guidelines on sitting? A narrative review of sedentary behaviour research paradigms and findings

Sedentary behaviour (SB) has been proposed as an ’independent’ risk factor for chronic disease risk, attracting much research and media attention. Many countries have included generic, non-quantitative reductions in SB in their public health guidelines and calls for quantitative SB targets are increasing. The aim of this narrative review is to critically evaluate key evidence areas relating to the development of guidance on sitting for adults. We carried out a non-systematic narrative evidence synthesis across seven key areas: (1) definition of SB, (2) independence of sitting from physical activity, (3) use of television viewing as a proxy of sitting, (4) interpretation of SB evidence, (5) evidence on ’sedentary breaks’, (6) evidence on objectively measured sedentary SB and mortality and (7) dose response of sitting and mortality/cardiovascular disease. Despite research progress, we still know little about the independent detrimental health effects of sitting, and the possibility that sitting is mostly the inverse of physical activity remains. Unresolved issues include an unclear definition, inconsistencies between mechanistic and epidemiological studies, over-reliance on surrogate outcomes, a very weak epidemiological evidence base to support the inclusion of ’sedentary breaks’ in guidelines, reliance on self-reported sitting measures, and misinterpretation of data whereby methodologically inconsistent associations are claimed to be strong evidence. In conclusion, public health guidance requires a consistent evidence base but this is lacking for SB. The development of quantitative SB guidance, using an underdeveloped evidence base, is premature; any further recommendations for sedentary behaviour require development of the evidence base and refinement of the research paradigms used in the field

Does Strength-Promoting Exercise Confer Unique Health Benefits? A Pooled Analysis of Data on 11 Population Cohorts With All-Cause, Cancer, and Cardiovascular Mortality Endpoints

Public health guidance includes strength-promoting exercise (SPE) but there is little evidence on its links with mortality. Using data from 11 cohorts we examined the associations between SPE (gym-based and own bodyweight strength activities) and all-cause, cancer, and cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality. Multivariable-adjusted Cox regression examine the associations between SPE (any, low/high volume, adherence to SPE guideline) and mortality. The core sample comprised 80,306 adults aged ≥30 years corresponding to 5,763 any cause deaths (681,790 person years). Following exclusions for prevalent disease/events in the first 24 months, participation in any SPE was favorably associated with all cause (0.77, 95% confidence interval: 0.69 to 0.87) and cancer mortality (0.69, 0.56 to 0.86). Adhering only to the SPE guideline of (≥2 sessions/week) was associated with cancer (0.66, 0.48 to 0.92) and all-cause (0.79, 0.66 to 0.94) mortality; adhering only to the aerobic guideline (150 minutes/week of moderate or 75 minutes/week of vigorous intensity or equivalent combinations) was associated with all-cause (0.84, 0.78 to 0.90) and CVD (0.78, 0.68 to 0.90) mortality. Adherence to both guidelines was associated with all-cause (0.71, 0.57 to 0.87), and cancer (0.70, 0.50 to 0.98) mortality. Our results support promoting adherence to the strength exercise guidelines over and above the generic physical activity targets

Association of “Weekend Warrior” and other leisure time physical activity patterns with risks for all-cause, cardiovascular disease, and cancer mortality

Importance: More research is required to clarify relationships between physical activity and health in ‘weekend warriors’ who do all their exercise in one or two sessions per week. Objective: The main objective was to investigate associations between the weekend warrior and other physical activity patterns and the risks of all-cause, cardiovascular disease (CVD), and cancer mortality. Design: Health Survey for England and Scottish Health Survey with prospective linkage to mortality records. Setting: Eight general population household-based surveys. Participants: 63,591 adults; 45.9% male; 58.6±11.9 years (mean±SD). Exposures: Self-reported leisure-time physical activity, with activity patterns defined as ‘inactive’ (not reporting any moderate- or vigorous-intensity activities), ‘insufficiently active’ (reporting <150 min·wk-1 in moderate- and <75 min·wk-1 in vigorous-intensity activities), ‘weekend warrior’ (reporting ≥150 min·wk-1 in moderate- or ≥75 min·wk-1 in vigorous-intensity activities from one or two sessions), and ‘regularly active’ (reporting ≥150 min·wk-1 in moderate- or ≥75 min·wk-1 in vigorous-intensity activities from three or more sessions). The insufficiently active were also characterized by physical activity frequency. Main outcomes and measures: All-cause, CVD, and cancer mortality ascertained from death certificates. Results: There were 8,802 deaths from all causes, 2,780 from CVD, and 2,526 from cancer during 561,159 person-years of follow-up. Compared with the inactive, all-cause mortality hazard ratio was 0.66 (95% CI: 0.62, 0.72) in the insufficiently active who reported one or two sessions per week, 0.70 (0.60, 0.82) in weekend warriors, and 0.65 (0.58, 0.73) in the regularly active. Compared with the inactive, CVD mortality hazard ratio was 0.60 (0.52, 0.69) in the insufficiently active who reported one or two sessions per week, 0.60 (0.45, 0.82) in weekend warriors, and 0.59 (0.48, 0.73) in the regularly active. Compared with the inactive, cancer mortality hazard ratio was 0.83 (0.73, 0.94) in the insufficiently active who reported one or two sessions per week, 0.82 (0.63, 1.06) in weekend warriors, and 0.79 (0.66, 0.94) in the regularly active. Conclusions and relevance: Weekend warrior and other leisure-time physical activity patterns characterized by one or two sessions per week may be sufficient to reduce all-cause, CVD and cancer mortality risks regardless of adherence to prevailing physical activity guidelines

Correlation Between Accelerometer-Assessed and Self-Reported Moderate-to-Vigorous Physical Activity by Cutpoint, Women’s Health Study, 2011–2014.

<p>Correlation Between Accelerometer-Assessed and Self-Reported Moderate-to-Vigorous Physical Activity by Cutpoint, Women’s Health Study, 2011–2014.</p

Difference Between Accelerometer-Assessed and Self-Reported Minutes per Week of Moderate-to-Vigorous Physical Activity by Cutpoint, Women’s Health Study, 2011–2014

<p>Difference Between Accelerometer-Assessed and Self-Reported Minutes per Week of Moderate-to-Vigorous Physical Activity by Cutpoint, Women’s Health Study, 2011–2014</p

Approximate 15-year incidence random survival forest estimates for examination year 2000, 45-year-old man by fitness and fatness measures (see Fig 1).

<p>Approximate 15-year incidence random survival forest estimates for examination year 2000, 45-year-old man by fitness and fatness measures (see <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0157703#pone.0157703.g001" target="_blank">Fig 1</a>).</p

Baseline characteristics of the aerobics center longitudinal study cohort 1979–2005.

<p>Baseline characteristics of the aerobics center longitudinal study cohort 1979–2005.</p

Characteristics of participants by cancer type; the Women’s Health Accelerometry Collaboration.

Characteristics of participants by cancer type; the Women’s Health Accelerometry Collaboration.</p