Physical activity and sedentarism among seniors in France, and their impact on health.

BACKGROUND: In the context of the ageing of the French population, physical activity becomes a principal means for maintaining good health. International organisations are thus giving increasing importance to physical activity in programmes of disease-prevention. In parallel with these concerns, studies have shown the impact of sedentary activities (in particularly as a result of the seated position and screen time) on health.
OBJECTIVE: To show the links between physical activity, sedentarism and health indicators and to identify the socio-demographic variables by which they are influenced (particularly gender). STUDY
DESIGN: This is a transversal epidemiological study conducted among the French population between 2014 and 2016 by Santé publique France, the national public health agency.
METHODS: The RPAQ (Recent Physical Activity Questionnaire) was used to measure the physical activity and sedentary lifestyle of individuals. The analyses focus on the behaviours among the population of older adults (55-74 years old, n = 1155).
RESULTS: A third of French older adults does not meet the WHO recommended physical activity levels, particularly so among women. The results of this survey point to significant links between health indicators (especially overweight and obesity) and the physical activity level and sedentarity of older adults. From the age of 60, energy expenditure linked to physical activity increases before decreasing from the age of 65. Older adults spend almost 6 hours per day in sedentary activities. The combinations between physical activity and sedentarism highlight four profiles of older adults. The most active profile is the one with the best health indicators.
CONCLUSION: The links between health, sedentarity and physical activity are unequivocal: people who achieve the WHO recommendations for physical activity and spend less than 7 hours each day in sedentary activities are those who also have the best health indicators. These results vary with sociographic characteristics and reveal significant links with health indicators.

1. Introduction

Physical activity (PA) is a growing element in public policies insofar as scientific research has demonstrated its protective role in the prevention of non-communicable diseases. “Physical activity is defined as any bodily movement produced by skeletal muscles that require energy expenditure” [1]. It thus covers many forms of activity, ranging from sport to forms of personal travel and domestic and leisure activities. Any attempt to measure an individual’s overall activity must take into consideration all of these components. This is all the more the case if we take into account public health recommendations expressed in terms of an individual’s total volume of activity. Thus, for adults, as for older adults, it is recommended to “do at least 150 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic physical activity throughout the week or at least 75 minutes of vigorous-intensity aerobic physical activity throughout the week, or an equivalent combination of moderate- and vigorous-intensity activity” [2]. The literature as a whole bears out the positive effects of physical activities on the different health dimensions [3]. Those individuals who do not meet these recommendations are considered physically inactive, which is a risk factor in the development of non-communicable diseases, such as coronary heart disease, type 2 diabetes or certain cancers [4-10].

Sedentary behaviour (SB) is defined as “any waking behaviour characterised by an energy expenditure of less than or equal to 1.5 METs (Metabolic Equivalent Task) while in a sitting or reclining posture”[11]. It is thus possible to be physically active by means of regular physical activity while being sedentary through long periods of very low energy expenditure, particularly due to prolonged sitting. A sedentary lifestyle is also– independently of PA– a risk factor in non-communicable diseases [12-18]. In order to enjoy greater health benefits, it is therefore necessary for individuals to be both physically active and to limit their sedentary behaviours. These recommendations remain valid throughout life and are even more important with advancing age, which is generally associated with increasing vulnerability [19].

Getting the public to be active, older adults in particular, is an important issue in the social and cultural context of our ageing societies [20]. Many studies on this theme have appeared in recent years in the form of books [21-23] and special issues of journals (Ageing & Society 2012; Sport, Athleticism, Activity 2012; Gerontology and Society 2018). These studies point to the positive effect on health of being physically active in old age [24] in tandem with the limitation of sedentary behaviours. Moreover, analysis of texts from leading international organisations [25] reveals that, for the past twenty years, PA has been considered a central plank in the prevention of the detrimental effects of ageing alongside the growing importance of the conception of active ageing as a model [26, 27]. This subject is of interest to most governments and affects all aspects of collective life.

Many studies show that PA can play an important role in the prevention and mitigation of many of the deteriorations associated with biological ageing [28]. PA has become one of the key arms in the fight against ageing and is a pillar in governmental strategies to improve health throughout life [2, 29]. International surveys reveal a continuous decline in the level of activity with advancing age, in particular once retirement age is reached, of which the average age is 62.7 years in France. Statistics demonstrate that the levels of PA among the older adults are very low, which may suggest that individuals would be less likely to take up a PA or remain physically active as they age for a variety of reasons related to individual behaviours and social determinants [30]. Thus, PA levels among older adults are insufficient to ensure good health is maintained [31, 32]. Studies exist in social psychology that encourage French older adults to practise PA as part of specific programmes [33], and others that measure the effects of programmes on different health indicators [34, 35], but no study exists on the general measurement of PA and sedentarism in this particular age group. This article has the objective of analysing activity levels among French senior citizens in terms of both physical activity (domestic, leisure and sports) and sedentary behaviours (seated professional activity and screen time). Rates of physical activity and sedentarism will be cross-referenced to highlight four profiles of seniors.

2. Materials and methods

2.1 Data source

The data in this article are taken from the “health study on environment, bio-monitoring, physical activity and nutrition” (Esteban) carried out between April 2014 and March 2016 by Santé Publique France, the national public health agency.

2.1.1 Institutional review board statement

The Esteban study was approved by the Consultation Committee for the Protection of Participants in Biomedical Research of “Ile-de-France IX” (no. 2012-A00459-34); the computer processing of these data obtained authorization from the Council of State (Council of State decree n°2013–742 published in the official journal on 14 August 2013) after approval of the French National Information and Citizen Freedom.

2.1.2 Informed consent statement

Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Esteban is a cross-sectional epidemiological study that is representative of the French population as a whole. Its objectives were to estimate the levels of exposure to environmental substances, and to monitor chronic diseases and nutrition-related matters (food consumption, nutritional status, physical activity and sedentary lifestyle) of the French. The study protocol included a questionnaire (self-administered in the presence of a researcher), a dietary survey and a health examination. These studies received the approval of the Advisory Committee on Information Treatment in the field of Health Research (CCTIRS), the French Data Protection Authority (Cnil) and the Personal Protection Committee (CPP). All participants signed informed consents.

The sample, given by a three-stage stratified random sample design, was composed of 2678 adults aged between 18 and 74, representative of the French population. This article focuses on the analysis of people aged 55 to 74 (n = 1155) for whom sedentary behaviour and physical activity can be central factors with regard to poor health. The total population numbers just over 15 million people in France.

2.2 Measuring PA and sedentary behaviours (SB)

The RPAQ (Recent Physical Activity Questionnaire) [36, 37] was used. This questionnaire enables assessment of the daily physical activity and sedentary behaviours of adults during the previous four weeks. It includes questions on physical leisure and sports activities (frequency and duration), and activities performed in the home (television, computer, climbing stairs, etc.) and at work (quantity and type of work, home-work journeys, etc.). In the Esteban study, additional questions were asked on household activities (housework, gardening, DIY, etc.). Data analysis was carried out taking into account the duration and frequency of each activity, and its intensity expressed in terms of its metabolic equivalent (Metabolic Equivalent Task– MET). An energy expenditure score has been determined for each activity [38]. Several indicators were created: the energy expenditure score in relation to physical activities (expressed in METs minutes/week), the duration of sedentary activities (expressed in hours per day), the overall level of physical activity in relation to the achievement or not of the WHO recommendations (Table 1) and the overall level of sedentarism (Table 2).

Table 1

Levels of physical activity from the WHO.

Low	Absence of PA or level of PA that does not allow recommendations to be achieved
Moderate	3 days or more per week of vigorous-intensity PA of at least 25 minutes/day
	OR 5 days or more per week of moderate-intensity PA of at least 30 minutes/day
	OR 5 days or more per week of moderate- or vigorous-intensity PA that allows a minimum of 600 METs minutes/week to be achieved
Intense	3 days or more per week of vigorous-intensity PA that allows a minimum of 1500 METs minutes/week to be achieved
	OR moderate- or vigorous-intensity PA each day of the week that allows a minimum of 3000 METs minutes/week to be achieved

Table 2

Levels of sedentarism (based on the number of hours spent daily on sedentary activities (<1.6 METs)) from the French national observatory for physical activity and Sedentary Behaviours (SB).

Low sedentarism	Duration of the sedentary activities (< 1.6 METs) < 3 hours/day
Moderate sedentarism	Duration of the sedentary activities (< 1.6 METs) 3–7 hours/day
High sedentarism	Duration of the sedentary activities (< 1.6 METs) > 7 hours/day

2.3 Socio-demographic data and health

The survey also includes a socio-demographic dataset collected during a face-to-face interview. These relate to the family situation (whether living in a couple or not, with or without children), educational level (lower than, higher than or equal to the French high-school diploma), profession and socio-professional category (SPC) and whether the individual performs a professional or voluntary activity.

Several types of health data were also collected as part of a health examination, in particular a measure of body mass index (BMI), the reporting of a long-term illness (ALD: it is a major or long-term illness for whose health costs the State accepts responsibility), the perceived state of health, the presence of chronic pathologies such as diabetes, hypercholesterolemia or cardiovascular diseases, and the consumption of tobacco and alcohol.

2.4 Statistical analysis

The set of analyses was performed on data weighted and adjusted using the Stata 14® software. The complex sampling design [39] as factored in particularly when estimating the variances and 95% confidence intervals [CI 95%] using Stata 14’s “svyset” function. The Wald and Pearson’s chi-squared tests were used to determine the existence of a significant association between two variables. The following significance thresholds were used: *p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001.

3. Results and discussion

3.1 Presentation of the study population

Table 3 gives the characteristics of the study population composed of 1155 adults aged between 55 and 74. This sample is made up of 51.7% females and 48.3% males with a mean age of 63.0 years. Almost all the older adults lived without their children (96.6%) and the great majority lived as part of a couple (80.4% of the men and 68.3% of the women). One third had an educational diploma equal to or higher than a high-school leaver’s diploma (baccalauréat) and the socio-professional category (SPC) that was most represented was that of employees, intermediate occupations and workers, which is representative of the data for the French population aged 50 or more (INSEE, continuous survey employment, 2019). Almost 4 older adults out of 10 regularly performed a professional and/or voluntary activity.

Table 3

Socio-demographic and health data of the study population (55–74 years)–Esteban study 2014–2016.

	Total n = 1155	Men n = 509	Women n = 646	p*
Breakdown (%)		48.3	51.7
Age (mean, sd)	63.0 (0.2)	62.7 (0.3)	63.3 (0.3)	ns
Living in a couple (%)	74.1	80.4	68.3	<0.001
Living with children (%)	3.4	5.5	1.4	<0.001
Educational diploma ≥ high-school (%)	33.0	35.2	30.9	ns
SPC (%)
Farmers	2.4	3.3	1.6	<0.001
Craftsmen, tradesmen	6.3	9.1	3.7
Managers and higher grade prof.	10.5	15.7	5.7
Intermediate occupations	27.0	31.6	22.7
Employees	32.3	14.8	48.6
Workers	19.2	24.7	13.9
Don’t know	2.3	0.8	3.8
Professional or voluntary activity (%)	39.5	41.7	37.4	ns
BMI (%)
Underweight <18.5	1.9	2.0	1.8	<0.001
Normal [18.5–25.0]	39.5	30.5	47.9
Overweight [25.0–30.0]	37.0	45.8	28.7
Obese ≥ 30.0	21.6	21.7	21.6
ALD (%)	26.9	31.8	22.4	<0.01
Chronic health problem (%)	49.5	49.2	49.8	ns
Functional limitations (%)
Strongly limited	7.2	7.4	7.1	ns
Limited, but not strongly	20.6	17.1	24.0
Perceived health (%)
Very good	20.9	23.8	18.2	0.05
Good	50.4	49.0	51.6
Reasonable	24.0	24.7	23.5
Bad	4.2	2.2	6.1
Very bad	0.4	0.3	0.5
Don’t know	0.1	0	0.1
Daily consump. of tobacco (%)	13.1	18.1	8.5	<0.001
High alcohol consumption (%)	6.9	13.1	1.2	<0.001

* p = value of the difference between men and women

With regard to the health data, the majority of the sample were overweight, among whom 21.6% were obese. Three men and two women out of 10 stated that they were being treated for a long-term illness and nearly half reported that they suffered from a chronic problem (49.5%). One in four people said they were faced by functional limitations in their daily life, 7.2% of which were major, a situation that can lead to becoming overweight and unhealthy eating behaviours [40]. However, few reported feeling in poor health (only 4.6%), with the great majority saying they were in good or very good health (71.3%). Lastly, more men than women reported risky behaviours as 18.1% stated that they smoked tobacco everyday (against 8.5% of women) and 13.1% reported high alcohol consumption (compared with 1.2% of women).

3.2 Physical activity levels vary with gender

The results show that more than one in three older adults do not meet the WHO recommendations for physical activity (Table 4): those concerned are 28.0% of men and 42.5% of women between the ages of 55 and 74. These figures are comparable internationally. Currently, the incidence of physical inactivity in the adult population is 36.8% in Western countries around the world (31.2% for men and 42.3% for women [41]), and particularly so for the seniors [30–32, 42]. The level of vigorous-intensity physical activity (this corresponds to 3 or more days of vigorous PA per week, making it possible to achieve a minimum of 1500 METs minutes/week; or a moderate or vigorous PA each day of the week, giving a minimum of 3000 METs minutes/week) is also low for this age category (11.0% for men and 3.7% for women).

Table 4

Physical activity levels for those aged 55–74.

	Total	Men	Women	p*
Those meeting WHO recomm. levels (%)	64.5	72.0	57.5	<0.001
Level of physical activity (%)
Low (below recommended levels)	35.5	28.0	42.5	<0.001
Moderate	57.3	61.0	53.8
Intense	7.2	11.0	3.7
Energy expenditure due to PA in METs minutes/week	3136.7	4314.5	2037.0	<0.001

* p value of the difference between men and women

The mean energy expenditure for domestic PA was 2495.5 METs minutes/week for men and 1760.0 METs minutes/week for women. The expenditure concerning active transport (these data only concern those people who stated they used active transport (walking, cycling) to go to work: older adults who do not use these methods are not taken into consideration here) was 106.4 METs minutes/week for the men and 47.7 METs minutes/week for the women who use these methods of active transport. Lastly, the mean energy expenditure for sports and leisure PA was 2201.4 METs minutes/week for men and 1469.8 METs minutes/week for women (Table 5).

Table 5

Energy expenditure for men and women for different types of PA.

Type of physical activity	Activities	Mean METs minutes/week		p*
		Men	Women
Domestic physical activities	Housework	418.1	1228.5	<0.001
	Gardening	981.6	400.4	<0.001
	DIY	1129.0	166.9	<0.001
	Total	2527.9	1795.7	<0.001
Methods of active transport	Walking	39.6	39.1	ns
	Cycling	66.8	8.6	ns
	Total	106.4	47.7	ns
Sports and leisure physical activities (only the most commonly practised activities are included in the table)	Walking	862.3	864.9	ns
	Cycling	404.4	89.7	<0.001
	Gymnastics, fitness	180.0	209.1	ns
	Water sports	97.7	177.0	ns
	Mountain sports	170.7	17.4	<0.01
	Hunting and fishing	136.8	1.1	<0.01
	Running	75.2	15.0	<0.001
	Dancing	28.0	49.8	ns
	Golf	54.4	12.0	ns
	Racquet sports	36.0	8.1	ns
	Martial arts	37.3	4.8	ns
	Bowls and bowling	35.2	1.6	<0.01
	Body building	19.1	5.2	<0.05
	Team sports	20.4	0.18	ns
	Total leisure Pas	2201.4	1469.8	<0.001

Among women, this score did not alter substantially with age (it increased up to the age of 63). In contrast, there is a clear increase among men from the age of 61 (Fig 1). This increase in practice among men in their 60s has been observed in other studies in France [43]; it might be supposed that the lack of change in women’s activity levels is due to the fact that they stop work earlier than men and that there is some form of continuity in their lifestyle.

Fig 1

Energy expenditure in METs minutes/week based on the cumulation of PA (sports and leisure physical activities, active transport, domestic physical activities) by gender.

The increase among men between 55 and 63 years may be related to their leaving the world of work and to the consequent increase in their free time that they use for recreation and PA, as has been shown to occur in studies of lifestyle among older adults once they retire [44]. However, in the Esteban study, no difference is seen in the level of PA among older adults whether or not they pursue a professional/voluntary activity.

As they approach the age of 70, however, a deterioration in their state of health [45] might explain the decrease in their practice of PAs. Several studies have shown that the primary reason given by older adults for the non-practice of PAs is linked to health problems [43].

In addition to having an impact on the overall levels of PA, gender is an important discriminating factor in the activities performed. Regarding domestic activities, men put significantly more effort into gardening and DIY activities, whereas women are significantly more involved in household activities (Table 5). In sports and physical activities (SPAs), the results evince trends already seen in the national survey on the physical and sports practice of the French [46], such as the group of SPAs most practised by the French– walking, cycling and water sports– with this latter category preceded by gymnastics and fitness activities. Men are more involved in cycling, mountain sports, hunting, fishing and running, while women more specifically practice gymnastics, fitness activities and water sports.

3.3 A PA level linked to methods of transport, job type and state of health

The results show that there is a significant link between the most commonly used methods of transport (the data used here refer to active transport used for other than work-home journeys) and the level of PA (p<0.01). More specifically, individuals who meet the WHO recommended PA levels are more likely to walk or cycle to work than others, particularly among women (p>0.05). Reciprocally, the use of a motor vehicle is more frequent among those people with a low PA level.

Social milieu is also a strong indicator of PA practice. Considered with regard to the level of education and SPC, this observation is confirmed here. The higher the level of education, the higher the levels of moderate- and vigorous-intensity PA (p<0.05). The SPCs of managers and intermediate occupations have the highest average scores for energy expenditure related to sports and leisure PA, while the lowest scores are those of craftsmen and farmers. These data provide confirmation of both French and international studies on the subject.

The results of this survey also point to significant links between health indicators and the PA level of older adults. First, individuals who report they are in very good health are more likely to practise vigorous-intensity PA; conversely, those who consider themselves to be in poor health mostly have a low level of PA (p<0.001). The greater the deterioration in perceived health, the greater the increase in low PA level. This observation is also found in the study on the impact of PA on the health of older adults [47]. Note that research has shown that it is more the nature of the activities that influences perceived health than the quantity of energy actually expended [48].

PA recommendations are most frequently met in the “normal” category of BMI (18.5–24.9). It is in the “overweight” and, even more so, the “obese” categories that the percentage of those meeting PA recommendations is lowest, particularly so among women. Moreover, people with ALD have the lowest levels of PA (p<0.05). For those who suffer from chronic problems, 57.6% of those individuals with low PA are affected compared with 38.3% of those with high PA (p<0.05). If these figures to some extent confirm the protective role played by PA on health [49], they may also suggest that a person suffering from ALD or a chronic problem is less able to perform vigorous-intensity PA. In this sense, LaMonte et al. [50] show that even a low PA level contributes to good health, something that the WHO also recommends.

4. Almost 6 hours per day spent in sedentary activities

4.1 Screens: An activity popular among older adults

The battle against a sedentary lifestyle has become a major concern for public health authorities [51]. In addition to the lack of physical activity, sedentarism is a risk factor for non-communicable diseases [12, 14, 18, 52]. The PA of the seniors is not exempt from this trend, which affects all sections of the French population [53]. In the Esteban survey, 88.9% of the older adults evaluated had a moderate or high degree of sedentary lifestyle and 28.3% spent more than 7 hours per day in sedentary activities irrespective of gender. More specifically, older adults spent an average of 5:50 hours per day in sedentary activities, including 5:04 hours in front of a screen (Table 6). The time spent in front of a screen includes the time before a television, games console and computer (though not as part of a professional activity).

Table 6

Time spent each day on sedentary activities by gender.

Activities	Time spent each day on sedentary activities			p*
	Average	Men	Women
Television	3h39	3h32	3h46	ns
Computer (non-professional activity)	1h18	1h24	1h12	ns
Video games	0h07	0h03	0h11	ns
Other non-screen sedentary activities	0h46	0h51	0h41	ns

4.2 The influence of professional/voluntary activity on the degree of sedentarism

People who exercise a professional/voluntary activity spend 6:18 hours per day in sedentary activities, compared to 5:32 for those who do not. A hasty interpretation of this might lead to the conclusion that doing a professional/voluntary activity generates an increase in sedentarism. This is true when the professional/voluntary activity is sedentary and performed seated, which is the commonest situation (Table 7). However, while maintaining such an activity can help increase a sedentary lifestyle in some people, we should not forget the benefits associated with maintaining an activity with advancing age. Indeed, numerous studies have shown the health benefits of carrying out a regular professional or voluntary activity. Many ways exist to encourage older adults to become volunteers [54] and the resulting effects benefit both all of society [55] and the individual, through the maintenance of social contact in particular [56]. It is therefore necessary to find a right balance between these various activities through limiting the overall daily time spent in sedentary activities and acting more specifically on free or leisure time.

Table 7

Time spent each day on sedentary activities broken down by type of work (for people in a professional/voluntary activity, n = 477, i.e. 39.5% of the respondents).

	Type of work	Nos.	Time spent each day on sedentary activities
People with a professional/voluntary activity	Sedentary	267	8h07
	Standing	141	4h29
	Manual activity	61	4h47
	Intense manual activity	8	4h48
	Average	477	6h18
People with no professional activity		651	5h32
Average for the whole population		1128	5h50

The degree of sedentarism is also linked to SPC. For people who are still working, it is those in the categories of managers, intermediate occupations and employees who spend the most time in sedentary activities, a long way ahead of farmers (Table 8). This distinction is a reflection of their working conditions: managers spend most of their working time seated [57] and therefore have a very high level of sedentarism.

Table 8

Time spent each day on sedentary activities by SPC.

SPC	% of the total population	Time spent each day on sedentary activities
		People still working	People no longer working
Farmers	2.4	3h07	5h02
Craftsmen, tradesmen and business leaders	6.3	5h28	5h49
Managers and higher-grade professionals	10.5	7h12	5h46
Intermediate occupations	27.0	6h35	5h22
Employees	32.3	6h19	5h24
Workers	19.2	5h21	5h23
Don’t know	2.3	5h59	6h43
Total	100	6h18	5h32

Note that ceasing a professional activity brings significant change for these SPCs: those in the grouping mentioned above reduce the time they spend on sedentary activities (especially managers) while farmers increase that time by almost 2 hours per day.

Whereas an increase in sedentarism among young people is of great concern, in particular due to the screen time [58], the problem takes another form among older adults. As mentioned above, nearly one in three older adults experiences a high degree of sedentarism. Although this does not appear to impact perceived health, the results reveal that there is a higher prevalence of obesity (BMI>30) among those people who experience a high level of sedentarism (36.1% vs. 6.5% among those people with a low level of sedentarism).

5. Profiles

5.1 Differences in behaviours between men and women

Men’s and women’s behaviours differ significantly, as has been shown. Women practise fewer risky behaviours, but they are less active than men. Men are more active in sports and leisure activities [59] and use more active methods of transport. At home, women focus more on domestic activities, which require less expenditure of energy than the gardening or DIY activities preferred by men. Thus, men have a higher energy expenditure and attain health recommendations more often than women, as shown by Moschny et al. [60].

5.2 The 4 profiles, different combinations of PA and sedentary behaviours (SB)

The results have been presented on PA, then on the sedentary lifestyle of older adults. These analyses have made it possible to detail the behaviours of older adults while also revealing the influence of certain sociographic variables on activity levels and, even more so, on the nature of the activities performed. Given the influence of physical inactivity and sedentarism in the development of non-communicable diseases, and of the independence of these two risk factors, it is also interesting to study the distribution of these behaviours within specific profiles. There is no doubt that vigorous-intensity PA does not compensate for a high level of sedentarism and that the health risks are cumulative. The study by Chau et al. [12] also shows that every hour spent sitting over 7 hours per day increases the mortality rate by 5%, all causes combined (regardless of the compensation effect of physical activity).

The profiles are defined by the different combinations of the two dimensions: the degree of physical activity (the fulfilment or not of the recommended values) and the degree of sedentarism (more or less than 7 hours of sedentary activities per day). The clearly predominant profile in the 55–74 age group represents those people who are physically active and non-sedentary (50.3%, Table 9).

Table 9

PA & SB profiles of the 55–74 age group.

	PA & SB profiles	Description	% of total (95% CI)	Extrapolation (95% CI)
Profile 1	Inactive and sedentary	PA level less than recommendations and duration of sedentary activities > 7h per day	14.1 [11.5–17.2]	2,232,887 [1,821,149–2,723,805]
Profile 2	Inactive and not sedentary	PA level less than recommendations and duration of sedentary activities < = 7h per day	21.4 [18.4–24.7]	3,388,921 [2,913,839–3,911,512]
Profile 3	Active and sedentary	PA level meets recommendations and duration of sedentary activity > 7h per day	14.2 [11.8–17]	2,248,723 [1,868,657–2,692,134]
Profile 4	Active and not sedentary	PA level meets recommendations and duration of sedentary activity < = 7h per day	50.3 [46.5–54.2]	7,965,814 [7,363,777–8,583,155]
	Total		100%	15,836,080

The three tables below allow a comparison to be made of the behaviours and their effects on health of the four PA & SB profiles. More specifically, the categories have been compared with domestic activities, sports and leisure activities (Table 10), sedentary activities (Table 11) and health data (Table 12).

Table 10

Energy expenditure linked to PA by PA & SB profiles.

	Mean METs minutes/week
Types of activities	Inactive and sedentary (P1)	Inactive and not sedentary (P2)	Active and sedentary (P3)	Active and not sedentary (P4)
Domestic physical activities	1160.5	1189.1	2510.6	2732.7
Sporting and leisure physical activities	746.5	781.7	2190.1	2464.0

Table 11

Daily time spent on sedentary activities by PA & SB profiles.

	Inactive and sedentary (P1)	Inactive and not sedentary (P2)	Active and sedentary (P3)	Active and not sedentary (P4)
Time spent each day on sedentary activities	9h19	4h37	9h06	4h28

Table 12

Health data by PA & SB profiles.

	All	Inactive and sedentary (P1)	Inactive and not sedentary (P2)	Active and sedentary (P3)	Active and not sedentary (P4)	p*
Perceived health (%) *						<0.05
Good	95.4	92.6	91.7	97.9	97.0
Poor	4.6	7.4	8.3	2.1	3.0
ALD (%)						ns
Yes	26.9	31.0	32.8	19.3	25.4
Chronic problem						ns
Yes	49.5	60.1	55.9	46.0	44.8
Overweight and obese						ns
Yes (BMI > = 25)	58.6	64.1	62.7	59.7	55.0
Functional limitations ***						<0.001
Yes	27.9	45.0	33.9	17.3	23.5
Tobacco						ns
Daily smoker	13.1	16.7	12.3	16.9	11.5
Former smoker	32.8	23.5	32.6	41.0	33.2
Non-smoker	54.1	59.8	55.1	42.1	55.3
Alcohol						ns
Consumption > the marker value (more than 20 grammes per day for women and 30 grammes for men)	7.0	8.8	6.1	3.7	7.9
Consumption < = marker value	85.6	83.0	81.4	92.2	86.2
Non-drinker	7.4	8.2	12.5	4.1	5.9

5.3 The physically inactive…

This section concerns those people who are physically inactive, that is to say those who do not meet the minimum WHO recommendations in terms of physical activity. Unsurprisingly, they report very low volumes of physical activity, particularly in the “walking– swimming– cycling” set of activities (Table 10).

5.3.1…and sedentary (14.1% of older adults)

A very significant link exists between this category and the fact of having a professional/voluntary activity (46.2% vs. 39.5% on average, p<0.01). The activity is predominantly performed in a seated position. The individuals in question prefer to move around using motor vehicles. Much of their sedentary lifestyle is due to the time they spend seated watching television, a very strong characteristic of this profile, the effects of which are harmful to health [61]. These individuals perform few domestic or sporting activities, except for a little walking. This profile reports the worst health data (Table 12), with prevalence of chronic problems, functional limitations and being overweight that are rising sharply. There is also a high rate of currently smokers (16.7%).

5.3.2 …and non-sedentary (21.4% of older adults)

This category is the most feminized (67.3% vs. 51.7% on average, p<0.001). The frequency of individuals having a professional/voluntary activity is close to the average, but this profile specifically includes people who exercise their activity standing (90%, p<0.001), which is a factor in the decrease in their level of sedentarism. Aside from their physical inactivity, these people are not sedentary because they spend very little time in front of screens and are very active in certain domestic activities, such as washing-up and doing the laundry. These people are those whose perceived health is the worst and whose objective health indicators are not good, in particular regarding ALD (32.8%).

5.4 The physically active

The physically active are older adults who practise moderate or vigorous-intensity physical activity, in accordance with health recommendations, and who form the majority in the sample. These people thus have higher than average PA scores: 4700 METs minutes/week for the “physically active and sedentary” profile and 5197 METs minutes/week for the “physically active and non-sedentary” profile.

5.4.1 …and sedentary (14.2% of older adults)

This profile has the highest proportion of older adults who practise a professional activity. They achieve the WHO recommendations for PA by performing domestic activities such as DIY, gardening and cutting the grass, and by walking and rambling. Nevertheless, in spite of having a satisfactory PA level, the time they spend each day in sedentary activities is very high (9:06 hours on average, Table 11), which is detrimental to maintaining good health. The data demonstrate that this group have good perceived health although the majority of them are overweight (59.7%). They suffer less from functional limitations (as ALD), which enables them to continue to practise physical activities in the home and in sports. In consequence, they maintain an adequate general state of health.

5.4.2 …and non-sedentary (50.3% of older adults)

This profile, the most numerous among older adults, is also the most masculinized (55.7% vs. 48.3% on average, p<0.001). This category has the highest score of people without a professional activity (65.5% vs. 60.5% on average, p<0.01), suggesting that their extra free time is devoted to active leisure pursuits. More specifically, they are people who garden a lot and practise many physical and sports activities, including walking, rambling, swimming and even floor exercises. In addition to being very active physically, this category spends the least time in sedentary activities and in front of screens. The effects on their health are unequivocal: while this profile perceives its health to be very good, the objective data suggest the same.

6. Conclusion

The results of this study show that half of the population of seniors is both active and non-sedentary (profile 4), an encouraging figure. Only a third of French older adults are physically inactive (profiles 1 and 2, Table 9), echoing a meta-analysis carried out in 122 countries that shows that 31.1% of adults in the world are inactive and that 41.5% of adults spend 4 or more hours seated each day [62].

Two results are particularly striking: first, the differences between men and women, and second, the impact of physical activity and sedentarism on the BMI.

The effects on health are unequivocal: people who achieve the WHO recommendations for physical activity and spend less than 7 hours each day in sedentary activities have the best health indicators (profile 4).

The pandemic has had a major impact on seniors’ behaviours: physical activity has diminished and sedentarism increased [63]. It would be of interest to measure whether the levels of activity and sedentarism have returned to their values measured before the health crisis.

10 Mar 2022

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Carlos Bueno Junior

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”).

For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research.

3. Please modify the title to ensure that it is meeting PLOS’ guidelines (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-title). In particular, the title should be "specific, descriptive, concise, and comprehensible to readers outside the field" and in this case we feel it is not informative and specific about your study's scope and methodology.

4. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 6 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Please, consider and answer in detail ALL comments from both reviewers.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Some linguistic corrections:

- in Table 5 and elsewhere, please use 'housework' or 'domestic work' rather than housekeeping

- unsure of use of 'point up' (denotes emphasis. 'point to' would suffice here

- Getting the public (no plural), or if you want to emphasise multiplicity, then use different population groups

- Avoid the use of 'the elderly' - Seniors or older adults is preferable

- use full stops for decimal points (not commas).

Requiring clarification:

- unsure what you mean by 'parent population' - total population?

- Reference to questionnaire administered face-to-face and self-administered. This isn't clear. Was the questionnaire delivered to people by someone who waited while respondents filled in it themselves. Or was the questionnaire in two parts, one part administered by a researcher and the other self-completed?

- what do you mean by 'complex sampling design'?

- I cannot find a special issue of Ageing in Society 2012. There is no journal with this title. However I think that Ageing & Society published a digital special issue on later life and physical activity. Is this what you mean?

Comments about the text:

- There is no reference to increasing recognition that the WHO PA recommendations are being discussed in the PA literature with a need identified to expand them with requirements to engage in strength/resistance, as well as balance and aerobic work. This reference might be useful 10.1136/bjsports-2018-100451

- I think the construction of a PA & SB typology should be signposted as an objective of the analysis. This typology enables you to integrate PA and SB into a more fine-grained understanding of older adults' practices and risks. This makes your analysis distinctive and should be promoted more forcefully in the discussion as well.

- Your discussion should return to gender differences - your findings appear to reflect the gendering of behaviours and dispositions as normative which culminate in greater or lesser propensity to PA & SB as men and women age. This is important.

- You claim in your conclusion that a third of older adults are sedentary - did you combine Type 1 and Type 2 (ie not PA & SB + not PA and not SB) to arrive at this claim? I wasn't sure. Please make explicit.

- You almost dismiss the finding that just over half are active and non-sedentary. That's quite an encouraging finding and perhaps should be highlighted as much as the disappointing % of non active, at risk older adults.

Reviewer #2: The study provides population-based estimates of self-reported physical activity and sedentary behaviour among older adults in France, and explores some of the potential sociodemographic and health correlates. The data are fairly recent (2014-2016), but things have likely become very different in recent years due to the Covid pandemic. This has been overlooked in the Discussion.

English language editing is recommended – especially consistency of tense.

Lack of page numbers make it difficult to locate comments/ suggestions

There are some referencing errors: eg in the paragraph “Screens: an activity popular among adults” there is a superscript reference as well as within-square-bracket references.

Abstract:

Study design unclear – longitudinal, cross-sectional?

Aim – very broad, without any actual aim/research question/hypothesis

Results – what does the P value refer to – women vs men? Results are not very informative.

Significant links with health indicators? Unclear which ones, in which way.

Conclusion – cause and effect cannot be determined by these data and analyses

Main paper:

Intro – PA definition is any movement, but then look at guidelines which are exclusively based on MVPA/VPA

Need reference for “these recommendations remain valid throughout life and are even more important with advancing age, which is generally associated with increasing vulnerability”

How were MET values for the physical activities from the survey determined?

Statistics: Presentation of study population descriptive statistics should be the first section of Results.

Results: Comparison with other studies/populations and discussion of potential mechanisms should occur in Discussion, or rename this section “Results and Discussion”

Change in PA over age – Authors say this is likely due to the deterioration in health, but there are no results presented to show deterioration in health with age.

Fig 1 Legend is in French language.

Throughout paper text and Tables: when presenting p values, unless p<0.001, please present exact values rather than “ns” or <0.01.

The wording “highest level of low PA” is a bit confusing. Suggest “lowest levels of PA”

Overall comment on Results: a lot of repetition of what is already presented in the Tables.

Conclusion – again, can’t say that you have measured effects on health. From the Results, there appears to only be one health indicator associated with sedentarism, which is obesity. I suggest the authors sharpen their aims so that they can present a clearer conclusion (and more concisely present Results) to address their aims/research questions.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

22 May 2022

Response to Reviewers:

We would like to begin by thanking the experts warmly for their valuable criticism. We have taken all their remarks into account in our revised version.

Responses to each comment can be found in the document entitled "Response to Reviewers".

The authors remain at your disposal for any questions you may have.

Yours sincerely

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

27 Jul 2022

Physical activity and sedentarism among seniors in France, and their impact on health

PONE-D-21-09609R1

Dear Dr. Jérémy Pierre,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Carlos Bueno Junior

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors have responded to my and Reviewer 2's comments and suggestions. I am satisfied that the paper is now of the appropriate standard for publication. Please correct mispelling of Bengsbo et al reference. Bengsbo, not Bangsbo.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Dorothea Dumuid

**********

1 Aug 2022

PONE-D-21-09609R1

Physical activity and sedentarism among seniors in France, and their impact on health

Dear Dr. Pierre:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Carlos Bueno Junior

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE