Search Results

Background: Differences in accelerometer-measured sedentary behavior and different physical activity (PA) intensities between men and women have been poorly described. The authors examined gender differences in time-use activity composition and total volume of PA. Methods: A cross-sectional mail survey was conducted from 2013 to 2015 with a randomized sample of 6000 middle-aged (40–64 y) community-dwelling Japanese adults living in urban and regional cities. Participants wore Active style Pro HJA-350IT on their waist for 7 consecutive days. Gender differences in activity time use was examined using compositional data analysis to control for time spent in all activity measures. Results: In total, 757 participants (303 men, 52.3 [7.1] y) with valid data were included in the analysis. Women spent on average 12.6% less time in sedentary behavior and 23.4% more time in light-intensity PA than men, whereas no significant difference was found for moderate to vigorous PA. Women accumulated a significantly greater volume of PA than men (17.8 vs 15.0 metabolic equivalent of task h/d). Conclusions: Japanese middle-aged women showed higher levels of PA than men because they spent more time in light-intensity PA. Given the health benefits of light-intensity PA, evaluating only moderate to vigorous PA may lead to an underestimation of women’s participation in PA.

Background: Physical activity (PA) surveillance, policy, and research efforts need to be periodically appraised to gain insight into national and global capacities for PA promotion. The aim of this paper was to assess the status and trends in PA surveillance, policy, and research in 164 countries. Methods: We used data from the Global Observatory for Physical Activity (GoPA!) 2015 and 2020 surveys. Comprehensive searches were performed for each country to determine the level of development of their PA surveillance, policy, and research, and the findings were verified by the GoPA! Country Contacts. Trends were analyzed based on the data available for both survey years. Results: The global 5-year progress in all 3 indicators was modest, with most countries either improving or staying at the same level. PA surveillance, policy, and research improved or remained at a high level in 48.1%, 40.6%, and 42.1% of the countries, respectively. PA surveillance, policy, and research scores decreased or remained at a low level in 8.3%, 15.8%, and 28.6% of the countries, respectively. The highest capacity for PA promotion was found in Europe, the lowest in Africa and low- and lower-middle-income countries. Although a large percentage of the world’s population benefit from at least some PA policy, surveillance, and research efforts in their countries, 49.6 million people are without PA surveillance, 629.4 million people are without PA policy, and 108.7 million live in countries without any PA research output. A total of 6.3 billion people or 88.2% of the world’s population live in countries where PA promotion capacity should be significantly improved. Conclusion: Despite PA is essential for health, there are large inequalities between countries and world regions in their capacity to promote PA. Coordinated efforts are needed to reduce the inequalities and improve the global capacity for PA promotion.