Changes in sedentary behaviour in European Union adults between 2002 and 2017

Abstract: Background: Sedentary behaviour (SB) has been identified as an important mortality risk factor. Health organizations have recognised SB as a public health challenge with major health, social, and economic consequences. Researchers have alerted the need to develop specific strategies, to monitor, prevent, and reduce SB. However, there is no systematic analysis of the SB changes in European Union adults. We aimed to examine SB changes between 2002 and 2017 in the European Union (EU) adult population. Methods: SB prevalence (>4h30mins of sitting time/day) of 96,004 adults as a whole sample and country-by-country was analysed in 2002, 2005, 2013, and 2017 of the Sport and Physical Activity EU Special Eurobarometers’ data. The SB question of a modified version of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire was considered. SB prevalence between countries and within years was analysed with a χ2 test, and SB between genders was analysed with the Z-Score test for two population proportions. Results: An association between the SB prevalence and the years was found (p < 0.001), with increases for the whole sample (2002: 49.3%, 48.5–50.0 95% confidence interval (CI); 2017: 54.5%, 53.9–55.0 95% CI) and men (2002: 51.2%, 50.0–52.4 95% CI; 2017: 55.8%, 55.0–56.7 95% CI) and women (2002: 47.6%, 46.6–48.7 95% CI; 2017: 53.4%, 52.6–54.1 95% CI) separately. The adjusted standardised residuals showed an increase in the observed prevalence versus the expected during 2013 and 2017 for the whole sample and women and during 2017 for men. For all years, differences were observed in the SB prevalence between countries for the whole sample, and men and women separately (p < 0.001). Besides, the SB prevalence was always higher in men versus women in the overall EU sample (p < 0.001). Conclusions: SB prevalence increased between 2002 and 2017 for the EU as a whole and for both sexes separately. Additionally, differences in SB prevalence were observed for all years between EU countries in the whole sample and both sexes separately. Lastly, SB was consistently higher in men than women. These findings reveal a limited impact of current policies and interventions to tackle SB at the EU population level

Replacing sitting with light-intensity physical activity throughout the day versus 1 bout of vigorous-intensity exercise : similar cardiometabolic health effects in multiple sclerosis : a randomised cross-over study

Purpose Persons with Multiple Sclerosis (PwMS) are physically inactive and spend more time in sedentary behaviours than healthy persons, which increases the risk of developing cardiometabolic diseases. In this randomised crossover study, the cardiometabolic health effects of replacing sitting with light-intensity physical activity (LIPA) and exercise (EX) were investigated. Materials and methods Twenty-eight mildly disabled PwMS performed four 4-day activity regimens in free-living conditions; CONTROL (habitual activity), SIT, LIPA, and EX. Plasma glucose and insulin (oral glucose tolerance test), plasma lipids, inflammation, resting heart rate, blood pressure, body weight, and perceived exertion were measured (clinical-trials.gov: NCT03919058). Results CONTROL: 9.7 h sitting/day, SIT: 13.3 h sitting/day, LIPA: 8.3 h sitting, 4.7 h standing, and 2.7 h light-intensity walking/day, and EX: 11.6 h sitting/day with 1.3 h vigorous-intensity cycling. Compared to SIT, improvements (p < 0.001) after LIPA and EX were found for insulin total area under the curve (-17 019 +/- 5708 and -23 303 +/- 7953 pmol/L*min), insulin sensitivity (Matsuda index +1.8 +/- 0.3 and +1.9 +/- 0.4) and blood lipids (triglycerides: -0.4 +/- 0.1 and -0.5 +/- 0.1 mmol/L; non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol: -0.3 +/- 0.1 and -0.5 +/- 0.1 mmol/L), with no difference between LIPA and EX. Perceived exertion was higher after EX compared to LIPA (Borg score [6-20]: +2.6 +/- 3.3, p = 0.002). Conclusion Replacing sitting with LIPA throughout the day exerts similar cardiometabolic health effects as a vigorous-intensity exercise in PwMS

The Effectiveness of Sedentary Behaviour Reduction Workplace Interventions on Cardiometabolic Risk Markers: A Systematic Review

Background Sedentary behaviour is a risk factor for type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Objectives The aims of this work were to systematically review the effects of workplace sedentary behaviour reduction interventions on cardiometabolic risk markers (primary aim) and identify the active behaviour change techniques (BCTs) by which these interventions work (secondary aim). Methods A systematic search of 11 databases for articles published up to 12 April 2019 yielded a total of 4255 unique titles, with 29 articles being identified for inclusion. Interventions were rated as very promising, quite promising or non-promising based on their effects on cardiometabolic risk markers compared with baseline and/or a comparison arm. Interventions were coded for BCTs used. To assess the relative effectiveness of BCTs, a promise ratio was calculated as the frequency of a BCT appearing in all promising interventions divided by its frequency of appearance in all non-promising interventions. Results A narrative synthesis included 29 published studies of varying study design and comprised of 30 interventions. Risk of bias was high for blinding and allocation concealment, moderate for random sequence generation, and low for outcome assessment. Nine interventions were very promising, 11 were quite promising, 10 were non-promising, and 10 active control groups did not experience cardiometabolic changes. Significant sedentary behaviour reductions were present in all but five studies where cardiometabolic risk markers improved. The BCTs of social comparison, problem solving, demonstration of the behaviour, goal setting (behaviour), behaviour substitution, and habit reversal, demonstrated moderate to high promise ratios. Conclusions Workplace interventions show promise for improving cardiometabolic risk markers. The BCTs with the greatest promise of cardiometabolic risk marker improvements included social comparison, those related to individual habits, and behaviour goals