4.6 Article

Screen time and physical activity during adolescence: longitudinal effects on obesity in young adulthood

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1479-5868-4-26

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NICHD NIH HHS [K01 HD044263, R01 HD041375, R01 HD039183] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The joint impact of sedentary behavior and physical activity on obesity has not been assessed in a large cohort followed from adolescence to adulthood. Methods: Nationally representative longitudinal data from Waves II ( 1995; mean age: 15.9) and III ( 2001; mean age: 21.4) of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health ( n = 9,155) were collected. Sex- stratified multivariate logistic regression analysis assessed the odds of obesity associated with Wave II MVPA and screen time, controlling for sociodemographic characteristics and change in MVPA and screen time from Wave II to III. Obesity was defined using body mass index ( BMI, kg/m(2)) International Obesity Task Force cut- points at Wave II and adult cut- points at Wave III ( BMI = 30). Results: In males, adjusted odds of prevalent obesity was strongly predicted by MVPA bouts [ OR ( 95% CI): OR6 vs. (I MVPA) (bouts) = 0.50 ( 0.40, 0.62); OR4 vs. 40 hrs screen time = 0.83 ( 0.69, 1.00)]. In females, greater MVPA bouts and lower screen time correlated with lower prevalent obesity [ OR ( 95% CI): OR6 vs. 1 MVPA bouts = 0.67 ( 0.49, 0.91); OR4 vs. 40 hrs screen time = 0.67 ( 0.53, 0.85)]. Longitudinally, adolescent screen time hours had a stronger influence on incident obesity in females [ OR ( 95% CI): OR4 vs. 40 hrs = 0.58 ( 0.43, 0.80)] than males [ OR ( 95% CI): OR4 vs. 40 hrs = 0.78 ( 0.61, 0.99)]. Longitudinal activity patterns were not predictive of incident obesity. Conclusion: Reducing screen time during adolescence and into adulthood may be a promising strategy for reducing obesity incidence, especially in females.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available