Who is meeting the strengthening physical activity guidelines by definition: A cross-sectional study of 253 423 English adults?

Abstract

The current UK physical activity guidelines recommend that adults aged 19 to 65 years perform activity to strengthen muscle and bone a minimum of twice weekly. The number of adults meeting strengthening activity guidelines is lower than for aerobic activity, but estimates vary between studies partly due to differences in how muscle-strengthening activity is defined. We aimed to provide estimates for strengthening activity prevalence in English adults based on a nationally representative sample of n = 253,423 18-65-year-olds. We attempted to quantify the variation in estimates attributable to differences in the way strengthening activity is defined. Finally, we aim to provide a brief descriptive epidemiology of the factors associated with strengthening activity. Adults met guidelines for aerobic activity if they reported the activity equivalent to >150 min/week moderate-intensity exercise. Respondents met strengthening guidelines if they reported at least two bouts per week of strengthening activity. We defined strengthening activity, first, according to criteria used in the Health Survey for England (HSE). Second, we counted bouts of strengthening activities for which we could find evidence of health-related benefits (Evidence). Third, we included bouts of strengthening activity as defined in current UK physical activity guidelines (Guideline). Two-thirds (67%) of adults met guidelines for aerobic activity (69% of men, 65% of women). Less than one-third (29% of men and 24% of women) met guidelines for the HSE definition of strengthening activity. Under the Evidence definition, 16% of men and 9% of women met strengthening guidelines. Using the most-stringent definition (Guideline) just 7.3% of men and 4.1% of women achieved the recommendations for strengthening activity. We found females and older adults (50–65 years) were less likely to meet guidelines for aerobic, strengthening, and combined aerobic plus strengthening activity. The prevalence of meeting activity guidelines was lower in adults from more deprived areas (compared with the least deprived); Adults with lower academic qualifications (Level 1) were less likely to meet activity guidelines than those educated to Level 4 (Degree Level) or higher. Having a limiting disability was associated with a lower prevalence of meeting activity guidelines. Associations between socio-demographic measures and the prevalence of adults meeting activity guidelines were stronger for strengthening activity than for aerobic 51(or combined aerobic plus strengthening) activity Compared with aerobic activity, fewer adults engage in strengthening activity regardless of how it is defined. The range in estimates for how many adults meet strengthening activity guidelines can be explained by variations in the definition of ‘strengthening’ that are used and the specific sports or activities identified as strengthening exercise. When strengthening activity is included, the proportion of English adults meeting current physical activity guidelines could be as high as 1 in 3 but possibly as low as just 1 in 20. A harmonized definition of strengthening activity, that is aligned with physical activity guidelines, is required to provide realistic and comparable prevalence estimates.

A systematic review of randomized controlled trials concerning degenerative meniscus tears

“…Therefore, our goal should not only be to treat the patient, but also to change his lifestyle to a more active one. Many works confirm that a small number of adults meet physical activity guidelines [23,24].…”

Adherence to aerobic and muscle-strengthening activities guidelines: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 3.3 million participants across 32 countries

“…After removing duplicates and screening titles, 67 studies were assessed for eligibility based on full text. A total of 21 studies were finally included in the present meta-analysis 8 9 21–39. The PRISMA flow diagram illustrating the number of studies excluded at each stage of the systematic review and meta-analysis is shown in figure 1.…”

“…Studies were conducted in Australia,21 Austria,30 32 Bulgaria,26 Croatia,26 Cyprus,26 Czechia,26 Denmark,26 Estonia,26 Finland,22 26 France,26 Germany,25 26 Greece,26 Hungary,26 Iceland,26 Ireland,26 Italy,26 Latvia,26 Lithuania,26 Luxemburg,26 Malta,26 The Netherlands,26 31 Norway,26 Poland,26 Portugal,26 Romania,26 Slovakia,26 Slovenia,26 South Korea,24 33 36 Spain,26 Sweden,26 the UK26 and the USA 8 9 23 27 29 35 38 39. Sources of information included the National Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey,21 Regional Health and Well-being Study,22 US Behavioural Risk Factor Surveillance System surveys,23 27 Korea National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey,24 36 German Health Update Survey,25 European Health Interview Survey,26 National Youth Physical Activity and Nutrition Study,39 Youth Risk Behaviour Survey,9 Health Survey for England study,28 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey,29 35 Austrian Health Interview Surveys,30 32 Dutch Health Survey/Lifestyle Monitor by Statistics Netherlands,31 National Health Insurance Service of South Korea,33 Active Lives Survey34 37 37 and the NHIS 8 38. Aerobic and MSA were self-reported in most studies, although one study29 directly measured aerobic physical activity through accelerometers.…”

“…All studies were deemed to be at low risk of bias, presenting scores ranging between 0 and 2 points. The main sources of bias were related to the reliability and validity of the study instrument that measured physical activity,22 24–26 28 30 34 37 39 or to response rates lower than 75% 22 23 28 33 35. A summary of the risk of bias scoring is shown in online supplemental eTable 2.…”

Effect of Elite Sport on Physical Activity Practice in the General Population: A Systematic Review

“…2,3 However, the majority of the population worldwide does not reach PA recommendations, especially when strengthening activities are considered. [4][5][6][7][8] PA can be practiced in many ways, including active transportation, work, gardening, housework, active forms of recreation, and sports, and can be promoted using a variety of strategies. 9,10 In addition to PA-friendly environments, 11 PA can be efficiently promoted in daily settings, such as health care systems, 12 schools, 13 and sport clubs.…”