Background: Facebook may be a useful tool to provide a social support group to encourage increases in physical activity. This study examines the efficacy of a Facebook social support group to increase steps/day in young women. Methods: Female college freshmen (N = 63) were randomized to one of two 8-week interventions: a Facebook Social Support Group (n = 32) or a Standard Walking Intervention (n = 31). Participants in both groups received weekly step goals and tracked steps/day with a pedometer. Women in the Facebook Social Support Group were also enrolled in a Facebook group and asked to post information about their steps/day and provide feedback to one another. Results: Women in both intervention arms significantly increased steps/day pre-to postintervention (F (8,425) = 94.43, P < .001). However, women in the Facebook Social Support Group increased steps/day significantly more (F (1,138) = 11.34, P < .001) than women in the Standard Walking Intervention, going from 5295 to 12,472 steps/day. Conclusions: These results demonstrate the potential effectiveness of using Facebook to offer a social support group to increase physical activity in young women. Women in the Facebook Social Support Group increased walking by approximately 1.5 miles/day more than women in the Standard Walking Intervention which, if maintained, could have a profound impact on their future health.

IntroductionThe objective of this study was to assess change in sitting and physical activity behavior in response to a workplace intervention to disrupt prolonged sitting time.MethodsSixty office workers were randomized to either a Stand group (n = 29), which received hourly prompts (computer-based and wrist-worn) to stand up, or a Step group (n = 31), which received the same hourly prompts and an additional prompt to walk 100 steps or more upon standing. An ActivPAL monitor was used to assess sitting and physical activity behavior on the same 3 consecutive workdays during baseline and intervention periods. Mixed-effect models with random intercepts and random slopes for time were performed to assess change between groups and across time.ResultsBoth groups significantly reduced duration of average sitting bouts (Stand group, by 16%; Step group, by 19%) and the number of sitting bouts of 60 minutes or more (Step group, by 36%; Stand group, by 54%). The Stand group significantly reduced total sitting time (by 6.6%), duration of the longest sitting bout (by 29%), and number of sitting bouts of 30 minutes or more (by 13%) and increased the number of sit-to-stand transitions (by 15%) and standing time (by 23%). Stepping time significantly increased in the Stand (by 14%) and Step (by 29%) groups, but only the Step group significantly increased (by 35%) the number of steps per workday. Differences in changes from baseline to intervention between groups were not significant for any outcome.ConclusionInterventions that focus on disrupting sitting time only in the workplace may result in less sitting. When sitting time disruptions are paired with a physical activity prompt, people may be more likely to increase their workday physical activity, but the effect on sitting time may be attenuated.

Objective: This study took the form of an intervention examining change in physical activity and quality of experience among students in an introductory health course who were asked to wear a Fitbit activity monitor throughout the semester. Method: College students ( N = 56) took part in this controlled trial. Students enrolled in an introductory health course (Education + Fitbit; n = 24) were asked to purchase a Fitbit and wear it throughout the semester. This activity monitor purchase replaced the textbook requirement to reduce the financial burden for students. Change in objectively measured physical activity within this group was compared to students enrolled in a traditional introductory health course (Education Only; n = 14) and students enrolled in an introductory humanities course (Control; n = 18). To assess objectively measured physical activity, all participants wore a sealed pedometer for one week at the beginning and end of the semester. Students in the Education + Fitbit group also provided written feedback on their experience with the Fitbit. Results: A 2 × 3 repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed a significant interaction between time and group, F(2, 53) = 3.957, p = .025. Post hoc analysis of this interaction indicated that students in the Education + Fitbit group significantly increased ( p = .014) objectively measured physical activity by 1,078 steps/day, whereas physical activity in Education Only and Control groups did not significantly change. Qualitative data demonstrated that student experiences with the Fitbit were resoundingly positive. Conclusion: Replacing a textbook requirement with requiring a commercially available activity monitor in an introductory health course may be an effective and enjoyable strategy to increase physical activity among US college students.

Background The purpose of this study was to determine the responsiveness of two motion sensors to detect change in sedentary behaviour (SB) and physical activity (PA) during an occupational intervention to reduce sitting time. Methods SB and PA were assessed using a hip-worn Actigraph GTX3 (AG) and a thigh-worn activPAL (AP) during three consecutive workdays throughout baseline and intervention periods. Mean scores at baseline and intervention were estimated by hierarchical linear models (HLM) with robust SEs, adjusting for random variance of average scores between participants. Change scores (mean baseline minus mean intervention) were calculated for each device. Response to change was assessed for each device using the standardised response mean. Results 67 adults (45±11 years; 29.3±7.7 kg/m2) wore the acceleration-based motion sensors for 8.3 (SD=1.2) and 8.3 (SD=1.1) h during the baseline and intervention periods, respectively. HLM showed that AP sitting/lying time (−16.5 min, −5%), AP stepping (+7.5 min, 19%), AP steps/day (+838 steps/day, +22%), AP sit-to-stand transitions (+3, +10%), AG SB (−14.6 min, −4%), AG lifestyle moderate-intensity PA (LMPA, +4 min, +15%) and AG MPA (+3 min, 23%) changed significantly between the baseline and the intervention period. Standardised response means for AP sitting/lying time, stepping, steps/day, sit-to-stand transitions and AG SB, LMPA and MPA were above 0.3, indicating a small but similar responsiveness to change. Conclusions Responsiveness to change in SB and PA was similar and comparable for the AP and AG, indicating agreement across both measurement devices.

The purpose of the study was to determine the relationship between sedentary behavior (SB), physical activity (PA), and body fat (total, abdominal) or body size (body-mass index [BMI], waist circumference [WC]) in community-dwelling adults 50 yr old and over. This study included 232 ambulatory adults (50–87 yr, 37.4% ± 9.6% body fat [BF]). Average daily time spent in SB (<100 counts/min) and light (100–759 counts/min), lifestyle-moderate (760–1,951 counts/min), walking-moderate (1,952–5,724cts/min), and vigorous-intensity (≥5,725 counts/min) PA were determined by accelerometer and corrected for wear time. BF was measured with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. SB was positively related to measures of BF. Measures of SB, PA, and gender accounted for 55.6% of the variance in total BF, 32.4% of the variance in abdominal fat, and 28.0% of the variance in WC. SB, PA, and age accounted for 27.1% of the variance in BMI. Time spent in SB should be considered when designing obesity interventions for adults 50 yr old and over.