4.1 Article

After-School Physical Activity and Eating Behaviors of Middle School Students in Relation to Adult Supervision

Journal

JOURNAL OF NUTRITION EDUCATION AND BEHAVIOR
Volume 44, Issue 4, Pages 326-334

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jneb.2011.08.002

Keywords

physical activity; accelerometer; eating behavior; childhood obesity; adult supervision

Funding

  1. District of Columbia Department of Transportation, Washington, DC

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: Examine after-school activity patterns, eating behaviors, and social environment of overweight and normal weight middle school students. Design: Eating and physical activity behaviors of 141 students, ages 10-14, were monitored. Students completed a diary documenting type of activity, location, adult supervision, accompanying participants, and eating habits from 3:00 PM-12:00 AM. Setting: Three middle schools, grades 6-8. Main Outcome Measures: Body mass index, estimated energy expenditure, eating behavior, active time, sedentary time, supervised time. Analysis: t tests, ANOVA, chi-square, correlation coefficients. Significance set at P < .05. Results: Children spent 76% of time sedentary, and 85% of sedentary time was under adult supervision (r = 0.76). Active time related to time with friends (r = 0.64) and family (r = 0.46). Children spent 40% of eating time consuming unhealthful food, and adults supervised 86% of children's eating. Overweight and normal weight children were similarly active (335 +/- 156 vs 373 +/- 194 counts per minute). Overweight girls spent more eating time (77%) eating healthfully than overweight boys (57%). Conclusions and Implications: Children should be given access to healthful food and encouraged to eat healthfully when alone and with friends. Adults should be more physically engaged with children. Children should be encouraged to eat under adult supervision and with their families.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available