Despite the many clear benefits of an active lifestyle, lack of physical activity is a significant health problem in the college population. A key issue in physical activity research is developing an understanding of motivation. Although physical activity takes many forms, most research designed to enhance motivation for and adherence to physical activity focuses on exercise behavior and ignores sport participation. In this study, the authors compare motivations for sport participation versus exercise among college students. Results indicate that participants were more likely to report intrinsic motives, such as enjoyment and challenge, for engaging in sport, whereas motivations for exercise were more extrinsic and focused on appearance and weight and stress management. The findings suggest that motives for sport participation are more desirable than those for exercise and may facilitate improved adherence to physical activity recommendations.

BackgroundPhysical activity tracking wearable devices have emerged as an increasingly popular method for consumers to assess their daily activity and calories expended. However, whether these wearable devices are valid at different levels of exercise intensity is unknown.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to examine heart rate (HR) and energy expenditure (EE) validity of 3 popular wrist-worn activity monitors at different exercise intensities.MethodsA total of 62 participants (females: 58%, 36/62; nonwhite: 47% [13/62 Hispanic, 8/62 Asian, 7/62 black/ African American, 1/62 other]) wore the Apple Watch, Fitbit Charge HR, and Garmin Forerunner 225. Validity was assessed using 2 criterion devices: HR chest strap and a metabolic cart. Participants completed a 10-minute seated baseline assessment; separate 4-minute stages of light-, moderate-, and vigorous-intensity treadmill exercises; and a 10-minute seated recovery period. Data from devices were compared with each criterion via two-way repeated-measures analysis of variance and Bland-Altman analysis. Differences are expressed in mean absolute percentage error (MAPE).ResultsFor the Apple Watch, HR MAPE was between 1.14% and 6.70%. HR was not significantly different at the start (P=.78), during baseline (P=.76), or vigorous intensity (P=.84); lower HR readings were measured during light intensity (P=.03), moderate intensity (P=.001), and recovery (P=.004). EE MAPE was between 14.07% and 210.84%. The device measured higher EE at all stages (P<.01). For the Fitbit device, the HR MAPE was between 2.38% and 16.99%. HR was not significantly different at the start (P=.67) or during moderate intensity (P=.34); lower HR readings were measured during baseline, vigorous intensity, and recovery (P<.001) and higher HR during light intensity (P<.001). EE MAPE was between 16.85% and 84.98%. The device measured higher EE at baseline (P=.003), light intensity (P<.001), and moderate intensity (P=.001). EE was not significantly different at vigorous (P=.70) or recovery (P=.10). For Garmin Forerunner 225, HR MAPE was between 7.87% and 24.38%. HR was not significantly different at vigorous intensity (P=.35). The device measured higher HR readings at start, baseline, light intensity, moderate intensity (P<.001), and recovery (P=.04). EE MAPE was between 30.77% and 155.05%. The device measured higher EE at all stages (P<.001).ConclusionsThis study provides one of the first validation assessments for the Fitbit Charge HR, Apple Watch, and Garmin Forerunner 225. An advantage and novel approach of the study is the examination of HR and EE at specific physical activity intensities. Establishing validity of wearable devices is of particular interest as these devices are being used in weight loss interventions and could impact findings. Future research should investigate why differences between exercise intensities and the devices exist.

Physically active classroom lessons provide a buffer to prevent the steep reduction in TOT experienced after a period of inactivity in all children, especially those who are overweight.

Background-Although schools are an ideal location to conduct interventions that target children, the emphasis on standardized testing makes it difficult to implement interventions that do not directly support academic instruction. In response, physically active academic lessons have been developed as a strategy to increase physical activity while also addressing core educational goals. Texas I-CAN! is one incarnation of this approach.

Although 30 min of either moderate-intensity treadmill exercise or quiet rest is sufficient to improve the mood and well-being of patients with MDD, exercise appears to have a greater effect on the positively valenced states measured.