BACKGROUND: Physical inactivity is a risk factor for obesity, cardiovascular disease, hypertension, and other chronic diseases that are increasingly prevalent in the U.S. and worldwide. Time at work represents a major portion of the day for employed people. PURPOSE: To determine how employment status (full-time, part-time, or not employed) and job type (active or sedentary) are related to daily physical activity levels in American adults. METHODS: Cross-sectional data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) were collected in 2003-2004 and analyzed in 2010. Physical activity was measured using Actigraph uniaxial accelerometers, and participants aged 20-60 years with ≥4 days of monitoring were included (N=1826). Accelerometer variables included mean counts/minute during wear time and proportion of wear time spent in various intensity levels. RESULTS: In men, full-time workers were more active than healthy nonworkers (p=0.004), and in weekday-only analyses, even workers with sedentary jobs were more active (p=0.03) and spent less time sedentary (p<0.001) than nonworkers. In contrast with men, women with full-time sedentary jobs spent more time sedentary (p=0.008) and had less light and lifestyle intensity activity than healthy nonworkers on weekdays. Within full-time workers, those with active jobs had greater weekday activity than those with sedentary jobs (22% greater in men, 30% greater in women). CONCLUSIONS: In men, full-time employment, even in sedentary occupations, is positively associated with physical activity compared to not working, and in both genders job type has a major bearing on daily activity levels.
BACKGROUND: Physical inactivity is a risk factor for obesity, cardiovascular disease, hypertension, and other chronic diseases that are increasingly prevalent in the U.S. and worldwide. Time at work represents a major portion of the day for employed people. PURPOSE: To determine how employment status (full-time, part-time, or not employed) and job type (active or sedentary) are related to daily physical activity levels in American adults. METHODS: Cross-sectional data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) were collected in 2003-2004 and analyzed in 2010. Physical activity was measured using Actigraph uniaxial accelerometers, and participants aged 20-60 years with ≥4 days of monitoring were included (N=1826). Accelerometer variables included mean counts/minute during wear time and proportion of wear time spent in various intensity levels. RESULTS: In men, full-time workers were more active than healthy nonworkers (p=0.004), and in weekday-only analyses, even workers with sedentary jobs were more active (p=0.03) and spent less time sedentary (p<0.001) than nonworkers. In contrast with men, women with full-time sedentary jobs spent more time sedentary (p=0.008) and had less light and lifestyle intensity activity than healthy nonworkers on weekdays. Within full-time workers, those with active jobs had greater weekday activity than those with sedentary jobs (22% greater in men, 30% greater in women). CONCLUSIONS: In men, full-time employment, even in sedentary occupations, is positively associated with physical activity compared to not working, and in both genders job type has a major bearing on daily activity levels.
Authors: Charles E Matthews; Kong Y Chen; Patty S Freedson; Maciej S Buchowski; Bettina M Beech; Russell R Pate; Richard P Troiano Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2008-02-25 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: G A King; E C Fitzhugh; D R Bassett; J E McLaughlin; S J Strath; A M Swartz; D L Thompson Journal: Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord Date: 2001-05
Authors: Genevieve N Healy; David W Dunstan; Jo Salmon; Ester Cerin; Jonathan E Shaw; Paul Z Zimmet; Neville Owen Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2007-05-01 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Richard P Troiano; David Berrigan; Kevin W Dodd; Louise C Mâsse; Timothy Tilert; Margaret McDowell Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Sari Stenholm; Annemarie Koster; Heli Valkeinen; Kushang V Patel; Stefania Bandinelli; Jack M Guralnik; Luigi Ferrucci Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2015-08-18 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Jennifer A Schrack; Vadim Zipunnikov; Jeff Goldsmith; Jiawei Bai; Eleanor M Simonsick; Ciprian Crainiceanu; Luigi Ferrucci Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2013-12-14 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Ryan E R Reid; Katerina Jirasek; Tamara E Carver; Tyler G R Reid; Kathleen M Andersen; Nicolas V Christou; Ross E Andersen Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2018-03 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Antonio Alberto Lopes; Brett Lantz; Hal Morgenstern; Mia Wang; Brian A Bieber; Brenda W Gillespie; Yun Li; Patricia Painter; Stefan H Jacobson; Hugh C Rayner; Donna L Mapes; Raymond C Vanholder; Takeshi Hasegawa; Bruce M Robinson; Ronald L Pisoni Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2014-10-02 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Isabel Iguacel; Juan M Fernández-Alvira; Karin Bammann; Charalambos Chadjigeorgiou; Stefaan De Henauw; Regina Heidinger-Felső; Lauren Lissner; Nathalie Michels; Angie Page; Lucia A Reisch; Paola Russo; Ole Sprengeler; Toomas Veidebaum; Claudia Börnhorst; Luis A Moreno Journal: Int J Public Health Date: 2017-10-24 Impact factor: 3.380
Authors: Charles E Matthews; Sarah Kozey Keadle; Pedro F Saint-Maurice; Steven C Moore; Erik A Willis; Joshua N Sampson; David Berrigan Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2018-07-19 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Kathryn R Martin; Annemarie Koster; Rachel A Murphy; Dane R Van Domelen; Ming-yang Hung; Robert J Brychta; Kong Y Chen; Tamara B Harris Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2014-06-24 Impact factor: 5.562