Background Globally, significant efforts have focused on increasing physical activity and reducing sedentary behaviour in youth and adults across a range of settings (e.g., schools, workplaces, community, and home). Despite this, interventions have had varied efficacy and typically have failed to sustain changes in behaviours over time. One explanation that has been put forth to explain the mixed success of interventions is activity compensation. However, little is known about activity compensation, including whether compensation occurs, and perceptions and potential mechanisms of activity compensation. Understanding activity compensation would assist in tailoring and targeting of potential intervention strategies. The primary aim of this review was to synthesise research that has investigated activity compensation in youth and adults. The secondary aim was to identify potential reasons for and/or awareness of compensatory changes that may have occurred. Methods An electronic search of the EBSCOhost (via Academic Search Complete, CINAHL Complete, Education Source, Health Source: Nursing/Academic Edition, PsycINFO, SPORTdiscus with Full Text), MEDLINE Complete, Global Health, EMBASE, Scopus and Web of Science databases up to May 2021 was conducted. Quality assessment of included quantitative studies used a modified compensation-specific McMaster Quality Assessment Tool. Results A total of 44 studies met the inclusion criteria (22 = adult populations; 22 = youth populations) and were classified as (1) quantitative (n = 31); (2) combination of quantitative and behavioural (n = 11); (3) behavioural only (n = 1); and (4) qualitative (n = 1). Of the 42 studies that included a quantitative component, 11 (26%) reported compensation occurred. Within the 13 studies examining specific behaviours, 35 behaviours were assessed, and evidence of compensation was inconsistent. Compensation mechanisms included fatigue, time constraints, lack of motivation, drive to be inactive, fear of overexertion, and autonomous motivation. Conclusion Little evidence of compensation was reported in the included quantitative studies; however, inconsistencies between studies makes comparisons difficult. There was considerable variability in the types of behaviours assessed in quantitative studies, and few studies examined potential compensatory mechanisms. Future research, using compensation specific study designs, methods, and analytic techniques, within different population sub-groups, should address these evidence gaps.

No abstract

PurposePrevious research has focused on device-based measures of activity compensation, with little understanding of how children perceive potential compensatory responses to activity or inactivity, or whether these change after periods of activity or inactivity. The aim of this study was (a) to explore the alignment between children’s self-reported usual compensation and compensation recall after experimental conditions and (b) to examine sex differences.MethodsIn total, 360 children (47% boys) participated in at least one of three experimental conditions over 6 wk: (a) restricted physical activity (PA; indoor play), (b) imposed moderate- to vigorous-intensity PA (MVPA; sports class), and (c) imposed light-intensity PA (LPA; standing lesson). Before the first condition, children reported their “usual compensation” behavior to examples of restricted/imposed PA, and 2–3 d after each experimental condition, they completed a recall measure of their compensation after the condition. Multilevel regression models were conducted to determine whether children’s perceptions of “usual compensation” score were associated with recalled compensation score after imposed or restricted PA. Additional models were fitted for sex-specific associations.ResultsOverall and among girls, the usual compensation score was positively associated with the compensatory recall score for the additional MVPA and LPA conditions (P < 0.0005; e.g., they thought they would usually compensate for additional MVPA and then perceived that they compensated after additional MVPA). A negative association was seen in the restricted activity condition among girls (P = 0.03). All associations in the boys’ analyses were statistically nonsignificant.ConclusionsThese findings suggest some alignment between children’s self-reported usual compensation and compensation recall after imposed changes to routine activity. Future research should consider device-measured comparisons and identify characteristics of children at risk of activity compensation in future interventions.