Search Results

Background: A combination of walking, other moderate physical activity, and vigorous physical activity is recommended for achieving good health. Vigorous activity has unique health benefits but may be less accessible to disadvantaged people. To reduce health inequity, we need to understand the differences in physical activity participation among socioeconomic subgroups and whether this is changing over time. Methods: Data from the 2002 to 2015 Adult New South Wales Population Health Surveys (164,652 responses) were analyzed to investigate trends in walking, moderate and vigorous physical activity participation by socioeconomic status as measured by educational attainment. Analysis used age- and sex-adjusted multivariable linear models that accounted for complex survey design. Results: In 2002, the highest socioeconomic group spent 18.5 (95% confidence interval, 8.2–28.8) minutes per week more than the lowest socioeconomic group being vigorously active. By 2015, this gap had steadily increased to 41.4 (95% confidence interval, 27.6–55.1) minutes per week. Inequity between groups was also found for duration of moderate activity but not for time spent walking. Conclusions: Low participation in vigorous activity in the lowest socioeconomic group is likely driving increasing inequities in physical activity and widening participation gaps over time. Barriers preventing the most disadvantaged people in New South Wales from engaging in vigorous activity should be addressed urgently.

Purpose: To investigate differences in athletes’ knowledge, beliefs, and training practices during COVID-19 lockdowns with reference to sport classification and sex. This work extends an initial descriptive evaluation focusing on athlete classification. Methods: Athletes (12,526; 66% male; 142 countries) completed an online survey (May–July 2020) assessing knowledge, beliefs, and practices toward training. Sports were classified as team sports (45%), endurance (20%), power/technical (10%), combat (9%), aquatic (6%), recreational (4%), racquet (3%), precision (2%), parasports (1%), and others (1%). Further analysis by sex was performed. Results: During lockdown, athletes practiced body-weight-based exercises routinely (67% females and 64% males), ranging from 50% (precision) to 78% (parasports). More sport-specific technical skills were performed in combat, parasports, and precision (∼50%) than other sports (∼35%). Most athletes (range: 50% [parasports] to 75% [endurance]) performed cardiorespiratory training (trivial sex differences). Compared to prelockdown, perceived training intensity was reduced by 29% to 41%, depending on sport (largest decline: ∼38% in team sports, unaffected by sex). Some athletes (range: 7%–49%) maintained their training intensity for strength, endurance, speed, plyometric, change-of-direction, and technical training. Athletes who previously trained ≥5 sessions per week reduced their volume (range: 18%–28%) during lockdown. The proportion of athletes (81%) training ≥60 min/session reduced by 31% to 43% during lockdown. Males and females had comparable moderate levels of training knowledge (56% vs 58%) and beliefs/attitudes (54% vs 56%). Conclusions: Changes in athletes’ training practices were sport-specific, with few or no sex differences. Team-based sports were generally more susceptible to changes than individual sports. Policy makers should provide athletes with specific training arrangements and educational resources to facilitate remote and/or home-based training during lockdown-type events.