Search

Objective: To investigate COVID-19's impact on college student health behaviors. Participants: 189 college students. Methods: Participants completed an online survey on behaviors relating to sleep, sedentary activities, and physical activity before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Comparisons utilized Students' dependent t-test or Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. Results: There was an increase in time to fall asleep (before: 23.4 ± 18.0 "vs." during: 42.8 ± 44.3 min·day[superscript -1], p < 0.001), time spent in bed (before: 7.8 ± 1.5 "vs." during: 8.5 ± 1.5 hr·day[superscript -1], p < 0.001), as well as shifts in later bed and awake time (p < 0.001). Total sedentary time increased during the pandemic (before: 9.0 ± 3.8 "vs." during: 9.9 ± 4.1 hr·day[superscript -1], p = 0.016); and time spent using a TV, computer, or phone (before: 3.1 ± 1.9 "vs." during: 4.2 ± 2.3 hr·day[superscript -1], p < 0.001). There was a significant decrease in moderate-vigorous activity (before: 123.8 ± 96.0 "vs." during: 108.9 ± 75.5 min·week[superscript -1], p = 0.028) and resistance training days (before: 2.4 ± 2.1 "vs." during: 1.7 ± 2.1 days·week[superscript -1], p < 0.001). Conclusions: COVID-19 negatively influenced health behaviors in college students.

This commentary argues that reducing sedentary behavior (SB) is an effective strategy for preventing cardiovascular disease (CVD) in young adults, particularly college-based young adults (CBYA). The average American, including CBYA, spends about 8 hours per day engaged in SB. CVDs are occurring at younger ages, and many young adults have asymptomatic CVD or CVD risk factors. College campuses provide an accessible and suitable environment for multilevel lifestyle interventions to promote healthy behaviors. The authors suggest that SB reduction is a prime target for intervention to reduce CVD risk in young adults. [Extracted from the article]

This study compared the acute and chronic impact of citrulline malate (CM) supplementation on muscle contractile properties and fatigue rate of the quadriceps. Eighteen recreationally trained males consumed both a placebo (PL) and CM treatment for two separate dosing periods. The first experimental testing session for each dosing period was considered the baseline day, the second session the acute day, and the third session the chronic day, which followed seven consecutive days of supplementation. All testing sessions included exercising on a cycle ergometer at 50%-60% of their max power output for 30 min followed by performing the Thorstensson test on an isokinetic dynamometer. A two-way (Supplement X Time) analysis of variance with repeated measures resulted in no significant interactions (p > .05) (PL: baseline day, acute day, chronic day vs. CM: baseline day, acute day, chronic day) for peak power (in watts) (469 ± 81, 490 ± 97, 502 ± 99 vs. 464 ± 85, 480 ± 103, 501 ± 81); peak torque (in newton meters) (150 ± 26, 157 ± 32, 161 ±31 vs. 149 ± 27, 156 ± 33, 161 ± 26); fatigue rate (in percentage) (57 ± 9, 57 ± 10, 58 ±9 vs. 57 ± 10, 56 ±9, 58 ±9); and heart rate (in beats per minute) (156 ± 17, 146 ± 13, 146 ±9 vs. 155 ±11, 146 ±11, 146 ± 9). The results of this study suggest that neither acute nor chronic supplementation of CM had an effect on recovery or fatigue rate of the quadriceps. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this study was to evaluate accuracy of seven commercial activity monitors in measuring steps in older adults with varying walking abilities and to assess monitor acceptability and usability. Forty-three participants (age = 87 ± 5.7 years) completed a gait speed assessment, two walking trials while wearing the activity monitors, and questionnaires about usability features and activity monitor preferences. The Accusplit AX2710 Accelerometer Pedometer had the highest accuracy (93.68% ± 13.95%), whereas the Fitbit Charge had the lowest (39.12% ± 40.3%). Device accuracy varied based on assistive device use, and none of the monitors were accurate at gait speeds <0.08 m/s. Barriers to monitor usability included inability to apply monitor and access the step display. Monitor accuracy was rated as the most important feature, and ability to interface with a smart device was the least important feature. This study identified the limitations of the current commercial activity monitors in both step counting accuracy and usability features for older adults. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Emerging research suggests using resistance exercises to interrupt prolonged sitting may increase physical activity and reduce fatigue, sleepiness, and muscular discomfort, yet it is unclear if these improvements occur in college students. Methods: Twenty-four students (age 23.1 ± 3.4 years, BMI 27.4 ± 5.0 kg∙m−2) completed two 7-day assessments of discomfort, physical fatigue, mental fatigue, and sleepiness while wearing an ActivPAL. Each week (CON vs REX) followed normal activities while completing assessments in the morning (M), mid-day (MD), and evening (E). During REX, hourly resistance exercise breaks (1 exercise per break, 8 breaks per day) for 2 sets of 15 repetitions. Paired t-tests evaluated difference in physical activity variables. Repeated measures ANOVA (0 between, 3 within) evaluated differences in discomfort, physical fatigue, mental fatigue, and sleepiness variables across treatment (CON vs. REX). Results: Comparison of physical activity resulted in no statistical significance between treatments for all outcomes (p ≥ 0.05). A main effect for treatment was observed for overall discomfort (CON: 2.97, REX: 1.72; p =.042) and for sleepiness (CON: 4.38, REX: 3.89; p =.011). Conclusion: Hourly simple resistance breaks resulted in no compensation in steps or sedentary time while reducing muscular discomfort and sleepiness in a relatively healthy and active population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Limited research examines the influence of sit-stand desks on ratings of discomfort, sleepiness, and fatigue. This study evaluated the time course of these outcomes over 1 day. Methods: Adults (N = 25) completed a randomized cross-over study in a laboratory with two 8-hour workday conditions: (1) prolonged sitting (SIT) and (2) alternating sitting and standing every 30 minutes (SIT-STAND). Sleepiness was assessed hourly. Discomfort, physical fatigue, and mental fatigue were measured every other hour. Linear mixed models evaluated whether these measures differed across conditions and the workday. Effect sizes were calculated using Cohen's d. Results: Participants were primarily white (84%) males (64%), with mean (SD) body mass index of 31.9 (5.0) kg/m2 and age 42 (12) years. SIT-STAND resulted in decreased odds of discomfort (OR = 0.37, P =.01) and lower overall discomfort (β = −0.19, P <.001, d = 0.42) versus SIT. Discomfort during SIT-STAND was lower in the lower and upper back, but higher in the legs (all Ps<.01, d = 0.26–0.42). Sleepiness (β = −0.09, P =.01, d = 0.15) and physical fatigue (β = −0.34, P =.002, d = 0.34) were significantly lower in SIT-STAND. Mental fatigue was similar across conditions. Conclusions: Sit-stand desks may reduce acute levels of sleepiness, physical fatigue, and both overall and back discomfort. However, levels of lower extremity discomfort may be increased with acute exposure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Identifying strategies to increase energy expenditure (EE) may help combat the harmful effects of sedentary behavior. This study examined EE during sitting, standing, and walking. Methods: Participants (N = 74) were randomized to 2 of the following activities: sitting using a laptop computer (SIT-C), sitting watching television (SIT-T), standing watching television (STAND), and walking at a self-selected pace ≤3.0 (mph) (WALK). Each activity lasted 15 minutes with a 3-minute transition period between activities. The experimental conditions were: SIT-C to STAND (N = 18), SIT-T to WALK (N = 18), STAND to SIT-C (N = 20), and WALK to SIT-T (N = 18). EE was measured using indirect calorimetry. Results: Based on the first activity performed, EE during WALK (55.92 ± 14.19 kcal) was significantly greater than SIT-C (19.63 ± 6.90 kcal), SIT-T (18.66 ± 4.01 kcal), and STAND (21.92 ± 5.08 kcal) (P < .001). Cumulative EE in SIT-T to WALK (74.50 ± 17.88 kcal) and WALK to SIT-T (82.72 ± 21.70 kcal) was significantly greater than EE in SIT-C to STAND (45.38 ± 14.78 kcal) and STAND to SIT-C (45.64 ± 9.69 kcal) (P < .001). Conclusion: Substituting periods of sitting or standing with walking significantly increases EE, but substituting periods of sitting with standing may not affect EE. Thus, the potential benefits of standing as opposed to sitting need further investigation beyond the role of EE. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Older adults are the most sedentary of all age groups, which is concerning given the association of sedentary time with adverse health outcomes. The purpose of this study was to pilot test a 12-week sedentary behavior intervention in older adults in independent living communities. Methods: Individuals older than 60 years, who could walk <100 feet, were recruited. The intervention targeted a reduction in sedentary behavior using an activity prompter and weekly behavioral group sessions. Sedentary time, steps/day, physical function, mobility, and blood pressure were measured. Twelve-week changes in outcomes were compared using paired t tests. Results:Twenty-one older adults (82.2±7.1 years) completed the study. Sedentary minutes accumulated in 30-minute bouts decreased (-27.7±12.9min/d, P=.0471). There were no changes in total number of sedentary minutes or steps/day. Physical function andmobility improved (all P,<05). The intervention strategywas feasible and acceptable among older adults in independent living communities. Conclusions: An intervention targeting a reduction in sedentary behavior is feasible and acceptable in older adults and shows promise for reducing minutes spent in bouts of prolonged sitting and for improving physical function andmobility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To investigate the acute cardiometabolic responses of a 7-minute bodyweight resistance exercise circuit (HICE) compared to a 7-minute high intensity interval training cycle protocol (HIIE). Methods: Twelve apparently healthy and active young adults were enrolled in a randomized crossover study (HICE vs HIIE). The 12 HICE exercises used a 30:5 second exercise to rest ratio, followed by a 3-minute cool-down and was replicated in the HIIE cycle protocol. Following each protocol, subjects were seated for the next hour. Measurements included blood pressure (BP) heart rate, blood glucose and triglycerides, taken prior to exercise, immediately after, 15, 30, 45, and 60-minutes post-exercise. Blood glucose and triglycerides were only taken, immediately after and at 60-minutes. General mixed linear modeling was used to analyze the data and Cohen's d was calculated for effect size. Post hoc analysis of individual time points used Bonferroni adjustment. Results: There was no significant difference in overall systolic BP between HIIE and HICE (p = 0.168). However, there was a significant difference in overall diastolic BP resulting a higher response in HIIE (p = 0.002). Immediately after exercise exhibited significant (p = 0.001) and trending, respectfully, higher values in diastolic BP for HIIE. The overall post-exercise heart rate was lower for HIIE vs HICE (p < 0.001). Blood glucose and Triglycerides had no overall difference between the two protocols (p = 0.104). Conclusion: The HICE protocol had a similar cardiometabolic response post-exercise to HIIE but did have a reduction in diastolic BP post-exercise. However, post-exercise heart rate was higher. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The Stand Back study evaluated the feasibility and effects of a multicomponent intervention targeting reduced prolonged sitting and pain self-management in desk workers with chronic low back pain (LBP).Methods: This randomised controlled trial recruited 27 individuals with chronic LBP, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) >10% and desk jobs (sitting ≥20 hours/week). Participants were randomised within strata of ODI (>10%-<20%, ≥20%) to receive bimonthly behavioural counselling (in-person and telephone), a sit-stand desk attachment, a wrist-worn activity-prompting device and cognitive behavioural therapy for LBP self-management or control. Self-reported work sitting time, visual analogue scales (VAS) for LBP and the ODI were assessed by monthly, online questionnaires and compared across intervention groups using linear mixed models.Results: Baseline mean (SD) age was 52 (11) years, 78% were women, and ODI was 24.1 (10.5)%. Across the 6-month follow-up in models adjusted for baseline value, work sitting time was 1.5 hour/day (P<0.001) lower comparing intervention to controls. Also across follow-up, ODI was on average 8 points lower in intervention versus control (P=0.001). At 6 months, the relative decrease in ODI from baseline was 50% in intervention and 14% in control (P=0.042). LBP from VAS was not significantly reduced in intervention versus control, though small-to-moderate effect sizes favouring the intervention were observed (Cohen's d ranged from 0.22 to 0.42).Conclusion: An intervention coupling behavioural counselling targeting reduced sedentary behaviour and pain self-management is a translatable treatment strategy that shows promise for treating chronic LBP in desk-bound employees.Trial Registration Number: NCT0224687; Pre-results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]