Browse

The first years of life are an optimal time for developing motor competence. However, the evidence regarding motor competence in early childhood is fragmented and needs to be clearly synthesized and presented. To establish effective evidence-based decision making in research, practice, and policy for the early years, this expert statement, on behalf of the International Motor Development Research Consortium, draws together what is currently known about 3- to 5-year-old children on (a) how skilled are children around the world, (b) the link between motor competence and healthy developmental outcomes, and (c) the capacity to improve children’s motor competence through intervention. This expert statement presents a summary of recent evidence for each of these specific points, followed by recommendations for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers.

Background: Although widely accessible digital technology (DT) provided multiple opportunities for young children’s play, learning, and development, it also raised parents and professionals’ concerns regarding its impact on children’s physical activity. This study aimed to identify practices involving DT that were valued by parents in helping their young child to be physically active. Methods: Participants were parents of ambulatory young children (less than 5 y of age) engaged with a playgroup. The study involved representatives from 3 service organizations, who compiled a list of digital resources related to using DT to promote children’s physical activity that were suitable to be shared and trialed by parents and young children. During a pretrial workshop, researchers, participants, and organization representatives collaboratively developed the intervention, which involved the delivery of selected resources by weekly email, over a 12-week period. Participants provided weekly feedback about their experiences and participated in a postintervention semistructured qualitative interview. Results: Thirteen families, with children aged between 15 and 36 months, completed the trial. Participants reported several valued practices to promote their children’s physical activity, including those where the child was active while engaging with DT, where child engagement with DT acted as a prompt for later physical activity, where DT assisted parents in planning physical activity, where DT assisted parents in integrating movement with learning and play, and where DT was used to reinforce the child’s enthusiasm for physical activity. Conclusions: Parents reported several valued practices where children were physically active, rather than sedentary, while using digital technology.

Background: Little is known on how the substitution of time spent in sedentary behavior (SB) patterns with time spent in physical activity impacts cardiovascular risk factors during adolescence. The study aimed to investigate how the substitution of time spent in SB and sedentary bouts with time spent in different physical activity intensities was associated with longitudinal changes in cardiovascular risk factors in analyses stratified by sex. Methods: This is a prospective cohort study with a mean follow-up period of 3.2 (±0.34) years, involving 109 (60 girls and 49 boys) Brazilian adolescents. Body mass index, waist circumference, and cardiorespiratory fitness were the cardiovascular risk factors considered. A cardiovascular risk score was calculated. Sedentary bouts, light physical activity (LPA), and moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) were measured by accelerometers. Multivariate linear regression models adopting the isotemporal substitution were used to analyze the association between substitution of 10 minutes per day of sedentary bouts with LPA and MVPA and risk factors. All analyses considered 5% significance levels. Results: Substitutions of SB, short and long bouts, with MVPA were associated with higher cardiorespiratory fitness in boys (β = 0.077; 95% confidence interval, 0.001 to 0.55; β = 0.076; 95% confidence interval, 0.003 to 0.154; and β = 0.084; 95% confidence interval, 0.001 to 0.167, respectively). No associations were observed when analyses involved substitution of sedentary bouts with LPA, adiposity, cardiovascular risk score, and girls. Conclusions: Substituting SB bouts with MVPA appears to favorably influence changes of cardiorespiratory fitness in boys during adolescence. Greater benefits appear to occur when longer sedentary bouts are substituted by MVPA.

Standing is a solution to reduce or break-up sedentary time (sitting/reclining/lying while awake); however, the measurable health benefits of standing are conflicting. A recent article in the Journal for the Measurement of Physical Behaviour has demonstrated that the thigh-worn activPAL inclinometer can distinguish between passive (no movement) and active (structured micromovements) standing using a machine learning model in lab-based and free-living environments. The predictive model extends beyond previous research by considering three-dimensional aspects of movement into the decision tree model. The ability to characterize these distinct postures is increasingly important to understand the physiological difference between passive and active standing. Notably, active standing, when stepping is not feasible, may be superior to passive standing for improving metabolic activity, reducing fatigue, and enhancing blood flow. Applied to free-living settings, active standing could help mitigate or attenuate some adverse cardiometabolic effects of stationary activity, thereby yielding positive cardiovascular outcomes. As standing gains recognition as a potentially important health behavior, distinguishing between passive and active standing offers a unique opportunity to clarify the health impacts of standing time, contributing to the evidence base. This evidence may contribute to more detailed activity guidelines and support public health initiatives to promote active standing. These advancements have the potential to enhance our understanding of standing behaviors’ health impacts and the possible divergent physiological effects of active versus passive standing.

Humanity is facing a polycrisis, including climate change, loss of biodiversity, and economic inequalities. This commentary examines the role of physical activity (PA) research in the context of climate change, highlighting 3 perspectives: PA as a victim, as a perpetrator, and as part of the solution. The first perspective conceptualizes PA as a victim of climate change, as heat waves, extreme weather events, and high ozone levels pose a threat to health-enhancing PA and sports; adaptation strategies are needed and potentially lifesaving. The second perspective describes PA as a perpetrator to climate change due to the significant carbon footprint of some forms of PA and sport. The third perspective focuses on PA as a solution to climate change, as some forms of PA—such as active transport and urban gardening—have both individual and planetary health benefits. In addition, PA provides health benefits in extreme situations by reducing stress and maintaining health in times of crisis. Each of these 3 perspectives can guide future research in the field of PA and health.

Background: This study aimed to identify patterns of overall, team, and individual sport participation and examine the prospective associations between these patterns and loneliness in young people. Methods: We analyzed data from 4241 young people, from waves 3 (8–9 y) to 9 (20–21 y) of the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children. We conducted latent class analyses to identify overall and team versus individual sport participation trajectories and used adjusted log-Poisson regression models to examine the associations between these trajectories and loneliness at wave 9. Results: Latent class analyses identified 4 distinct overall sport participation classes which were labeled: nonparticipants (24%), dropouts (42%), initiators (7%), and consistent participants (27%). Compared with nonparticipants, consistent participants had a lower risk of loneliness (risk ratios = 0.69; 95% CIs, 0.59–0.81). Latent class analyses also identified 4 distinct team versus individual sport participation classes: team and individual sport nonparticipants (38%), individual sport participants (14%), moderate team sport participants (14%), and high team sport participants (34%). Compared with the team and individual sport nonparticipants, the high team sports participants had a lower risk of loneliness (risk ratios = 0.70; 95% CIs, 0.53–0.92). Conclusions: Young people who continued participating in sport in general, and particularly in team sport, had a reduced risk of loneliness. Continued participation in sports should be promoted to improve a range of physical, mental, and social health benefits. Furthermore, team-based sport can provide additional health and well-being benefits, including reduced loneliness due to the group nature of participation.