A Dose-Response Relationship between Types of Physical Activity and Distress

Abstract

This study aimed to examine whether a dose-response relationship exists between psychological distress and types of physical activity (total, occupational, and leisuretime). The study subjects (233 men and 313 women) were recruited for a study on cardiovascular disease in the Yangpyeong community located in South Korea. The type and characteristics of physical activity were measured with a modified version of the Stanford 5 city project's questionnaire by well-trained interviewers using a standard protocol. The Psychological Well-being Index-Short Form was used to assess psychological distress. Both the intensity and duration of time in either total physical activity or occupational physical activity (OPA) were not related to the distress score. However, a long duration of time (1 hr/day) in severely intensive (≥ ≥6 metabolic equivalent) OPA was related to a high distress score in men (14.1 for none vs. 19.7, pfor-trend=0.005), even after the adjustment for leisure-time physical activity (LTPA). A long duration in time (1 hr/day) in LTPA was related to a lower distress score in men independent of their OPA (16.7 for none vs. 13.1, p-for-trend=0.02). In conclusion, the dose-response relationship of physical activity on psychological distress appeared to differ among the different types of activities. The type of activity may be an important determinant of whether physical activity produces psychological benefits.

Associations of multiple physical activity domains with mental well-being

“…Similar findings were reported in a recent study whereby young Australian women showed positive associations between depression and occupational PA as measured by the IPAQ (McKercher et al, 2009). Also, analogously to our study, vigorous occupational PA was found to be negatively associated with mental well-being in male adults (Kim et al, 2008).…”

“…Several studies have reported associations between PA and mental well-being, stratified by gender (e.g., Bernaards et al, 2006;Kim et al, 2008;Strö hle et al, 2007;Wendel-Vos et al, 2004). These findings are mixed and inconclusive, with some studies reporting no gender differences (e.g., Bernaards et al, 2006;Stubbe, de Moor, Boomsma, & de Geus, 2007) or only minimal gender differences (e.g., Tessier et al, 2007), and others finding stronger associations in men (e.g., Bü ltmann et al, 2002;Kim et al, 2008) or in women (Tessier et al, 2007). Given these inconsistent findings, it is important to continue exploring the moderating effects of gender, particularly in relation to PA domains other than leisure-time (household, occupational, and transport) which have not been well-studied.…”

“…For instance, little is known about the magnitude and functional shape (linear or curvilinear) of the relationships of the dimensions of PA (frequency, duration, and intensity) with mental well-being. This is particularly true for PA domains other than leisure-time PA (Kim, Shin, Nam, Choi, & Kim, 2008;Teychenne et al, 2008b): namely, household, occupational and transport PA. It is also unknown how these other domains of PA might interact with leisure-time activity in the context of mental well-being.…”

Self-rated health according to amount, intensity and duration of leisure time physical activity

“…Although a dose-response relationship has been observed in studies with different measurements of effect (Haennel and Lemire, 2002;Kim et al, 2008;Lee and Skerrett, 2001;Lollgen et al, 2009;Martin et al, 2009;Mayer-Davis et al, 1998;Ohkawara et al, 2007;Thune and Furberg, 2001), there is still a controversy about whether or not this relationship is linear. On one hand, an inverse linear relationship has been seen between the amount of physical activity and all-cause death (Lee and Skerrett, 2001).…”

“…Various studies have reported a dose-response relationship between total physical activity and a lower risk of all-cause mortality (Lee and Skerrett, 2001;Lollgen et al, 2009), cardiovascular disease (Haennel and Lemire, 2002), cancer (Thune and Furberg, 2001), type 2 diabetes mellitus (Mayer-Davis et al, 1998), adiposity (Ohkawara et al, 2007), as well as better mental health (Kim et al, 2008) and quality of life (Martin et al, 2009).…”