Objectively-assessed and self-reported sedentary time in relation to multiple socioeconomic status indicators among adults in England: a cross-sectional study

Stamatakis, Emmanuel; Coombs, Ngaire; Rowlands, Alex V.; Shelton, Nicola; Hillsdon, Melvyn

doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006034

Cited by 50 publications

(59 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…TV watching typically accounts for a small portion of the time spent in total sedentary pursuits recorded by accelerometers [13, 15, 16]. Therefore, we would not anticipate high correlations between reported TV watching and total sedentary time from accelerometers and our results support this hypothesis (partial ρ = 0.11, p=0.0037; controlling for age and sex).…”

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 52%

The impact of lifestyle intervention on sedentary time in individuals at high risk of diabetes

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims/hypothesis The Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) lifestyle intervention successfully achieved its goal of increasing leisure physical activity levels. This current study examines whether the lifestyle intervention also changed time spent being sedentary and the impact of sedentary time on diabetes development in this cohort. Methods 3232 DPP participants provided baseline data. Sedentary behaviour was assessed via an interviewer-administered questionnaire and reported as time spent watching television specifically (or combined with sitting at work). Mean change in sedentary time was examined using repeated measures ANCOVA. The relationship between sedentary time and diabetes incidence was determined using Cox proportional hazards models. Results During the DPP follow-up (mean: 3.2 years), sedentary time declined more in the lifestyle than the metformin or placebo participants (p <0.05). For the lifestyle group, the decrease in reported mean television watching time (22 [95% CI 26, 17] min/day) was greater than in the metformin or placebo groups (p< 0.001). Combining all participants together, there was a significantly increased risk of developing diabetes with increased television watching (3.5% per h spent watching television), after controlling for age, sex, treatment arm and leisure physical activity (p< 0.01), which was attenuated when time-dependent weight was added to the model. Conclusions/interpretation In the DPP, the lifestyle intervention was effective at reducing sedentary time, which was not a primary goal. In addition, in all treatment arms, individuals with lower levels of sedentary time had a significantly lower risk of developing diabetes. Future lifestyle intervention programmes should emphasise reducing television watching and other sedentary behaviours in addition to increasing physical activity. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00004992

show abstract

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 52%

The impact of lifestyle intervention on sedentary time in individuals at high risk of diabetes

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, it is unclear whether these findings are driven by the sitting that TV viewing involves per se. TV time is a poor indicator of total SB14 15 and sitting time16 that is confounded by multiple aspects of socioeconomic circumstances,17 dietary factors3 6 and mental health 18. Such a breadth of confounding has not been fully accounted for by studies in the field.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sitting behaviour is not associated with incident diabetes over 13 years: the Whitehall II cohort study

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

WHAT ARE THE NEW FINDINGS The epidemiological literature on sitting and incident diabetes is very scant and rarely acknowledges the confounding role of adiposity  Occupational, non-TV leisure time at home, and total non-TV sitting were not associated with incident diabetes risk over 13 years of follow-up  TV time and total sitting were associated with diabetes but once baseline body mass index was taken into account these associations were attenuated HOW MIGHT IT IMPACT ON CLINICAL PRACTICE IN THE NEAR FUTURE Our finding provide little support for developing interventions that specifically target sitting to reduce diabetes risk. The weak evidence for associations we found may be partly due to the protective effect of relatively high amounts of daily walking and other moderate to vigorous physical activity in this cohort.

show abstract

“…For example, accelerometry data from the 2008 Health Survey for England found that on average, adults spent 8.5 hours per day in sedentary time, of which ≈4 hours per day was reported to be TV viewing. 41 In an Australian sample of ≈10 000 adults, the mean daily time self-reported watching TV was 2 hours for men and 1.8 hours for women. 54 A large US study, based on self-report, found more than half of all adults viewed >2 hours of TV per day.…”

Section: Self-report Assessmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…On the basis of objective measurement from accelerometers, adults spend an average of 6 to 8 hours per day in sedentary time, 6,7,18,[40][41][42] and adults >60 years of age average 8.5 to 9.6 hours per day in sedentary time. [43][44][45][46][47][48] 6 Other studies also concluded that older women were less sedentary than older men.…”

Section: Self-report Assessmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sedentary Behavior and Cardiovascular Morbidity and Mortality: A Science Advisory From the American Heart Association

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Epidemiological evidence is accumulating that indicates greater time spent in sedentary behavior is associated with all-cause and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in adults such that some countries have disseminated broad guidelines that recommend minimizing sedentary behaviors. Research examining the possible deleterious consequences of excess sedentary behavior is rapidly evolving, with the epidemiologybased literature ahead of potential biological mechanisms that might explain the observed associations. This American Heart Association science advisory reviews the current evidence on sedentary behavior in terms of assessment methods, population prevalence, determinants, associations with cardiovascular disease incidence and mortality, potential underlying mechanisms, and interventions. Recommendations for future research on this emerging cardiovascular health topic are included. Further evidence is required to better inform public health interventions and future quantitative guidelines on sedentary behavior and cardiovascular health outcomes. E vidence is accumulating that sedentary behavior might be associated with increased cardiovascular-specific and overall mortality. Insufficient physical activity predicts premature cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality and disease burden, such that the United States and other developed countries have issued physical activity guidelines, but these guidelines are specific to physical activity and do not include sedentary behavior.1 Sedentary behavior guidelines to reduce the risk of chronic diseases for adults have been developed in some countries, but they are broadly stated and nonquantitative. For example, Australia and the United Kingdom have public health guidelines stating that adults should minimize the amount of time spent being sedentary (sitting) for extended periods.2,3 Such broad public health guidelines for adults are likely appropriate, because evidence is still accumulating regarding the strength of the association, the evidence for causation (including understanding mechanisms), and the support for dose-response relationships that demonstrate sedentary behavior to be an independent risk factor for adverse health outcomes. Although at one time, excess sedentary behavior was considered to be at one end of the continuum of physical activity such that a person with no moderateto-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) was considered "sedentary," consensus is building that sedentary behavior is distinct from lack of MVPA. Even the word "sedentary," derived from the Latin "sedentarius" and defined as "sitting, remaining in one place," connotes a different set of behaviors than non-MVPA. 4 Thus, researchers studying MVPA, physical inactivity, and sedentary behavior are now viewing these behaviors as separate entities with their own unique determinants and health consequences. CLiniCAL STATEMEnTS And GUidELinESThis American Heart Association science advisory summarizes the existing evidence about sedentary behavior as a potential risk factor for CVD and...

show abstract

Objectively-assessed and self-reported sedentary time in relation to multiple socioeconomic status indicators among adults in England: a cross-sectional study

Cited by 50 publications

References 30 publications

The impact of lifestyle intervention on sedentary time in individuals at high risk of diabetes

The impact of lifestyle intervention on sedentary time in individuals at high risk of diabetes

Sitting behaviour is not associated with incident diabetes over 13 years: the Whitehall II cohort study

Sedentary Behavior and Cardiovascular Morbidity and Mortality: A Science Advisory From the American Heart Association

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About