Little is known about the association between physical activity and lung function in childhood. We conducted a survey including parental reports of the child’s participation in physical activity and measurements of lung function. The associations between physical activity and lung function were estimated by linear regression analysis adjusting for potential confounders in 2,537 children (9 to 10 years). Using the linear model in exploring the effect of physical activity on lung function with those who were physical active less than once a week as the reference category, showed that forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) was highest among those who were physical active ≥ 4 times a week also when adjusting for potential confounders (p = .02). FEV1 increased with 70 ml. A similar pattern was present for forced vital capacity (FVC; p = .002). The present study suggested that lung function was highest in highly physical active children age 9 to 10 years. The implications are that exercise may influence lung function, but these findings need to be confirmed using a longitudinal study design.
Sveinung Berntsen, Torbjørn Wisløff, Per Nafstad and Wenche Nystad
Maïté Verloigne, Nicola D. Ridgers, Mai Chinapaw, Teatske Altenburg, Elling Bere, Sveinung Berntsen, Greet Cardon, Johannes Brug, Ilse De Bourdeaudhuij, Wendy Van Lippevelde and Lea Maes
There are currently no studies available reporting intervention effects on breaking up children’s sedentary time. This study examined the UP4FUN intervention effect on objectively measured number of breaks in sedentary time, number of sedentary bouts (> 10 mins) and total and average amount of time spent in those sedentary bouts among 10- to 12-year-old Belgian children. The total sample included 354 children (mean age: 10.9 ± 0.7 years; 59% girls) with valid ActiGraph accelerometer data at pre- and posttest. Only few and small intervention effects were found, namely on total time spent in sedentary bouts immediately after school hours (4-6PM; β = -3.51mins) and on average time spent in sedentary bouts before school hours (6-8.30AM; β = -4.83mins) and immediately after school hours in favor of children from intervention schools (β = -2.71mins). Unexpectedly, girls from intervention schools decreased the number of breaks during school hours (8.30AM-4PM; β = -23.45breaks) and increased the number of sedentary bouts on a weekend day (β = +0.90bouts), whereas girls in control schools showed an increase in number of breaks and a decrease in number of bouts. In conclusion, UP4FUN did not have a consistent or substantial effect on breaking up children’s sedentary time and these data suggest that more intensive and longer lasting interventions are needed.