4.5 Article

Are Canadians meeting the guidelines for moderate and vigorous leisure-time physical activity?

Journal

APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY NUTRITION AND METABOLISM
Volume 34, Issue 4, Pages 707-715

Publisher

CANADIAN SCIENCE PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1139/H09-060

Keywords

Canada's Physical Activity Guide to Healthy Active Living; physical activity; leisure time; energy expenditure

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The purpose of this study was to determine the proportion of Canadian adults (aged 18-55 years) who met the guidelines for moderate and vigorous physical activity set out in Canada's Physical Activity Guide to Healthy Active Living. Leisure-time physical activity energy expenditure from moderate-and vigorous-intensity activities was calculated using data from the National Population Health Surveys (1994-1998) and the Canadian Community Health Surveys (2001-2007). The prevalence was estimated for no leisure-time physical activity, meeting only the moderate guideline, meeting both the moderate and vigorous guidelines, and meeting the guidelines through a combination of moderate and vigorous activities. Logistic regression was used to determine the odds of meeting the guidelines by various demographic characteristics. The prevalence of no activity did not change appreciably over time, ranging from 6.5% to 10%, depending on the survey year. Reporting of no activity was more prevalent among older adults, those in lower income groups, and those with a body mass index (BMI) >= 30 kg.m(-2). Overall, 65% of adults met the guidelines for physical activity in 2007, which has increased from 54% in 1994-1995. Men, younger adults, those with a higher income, and those with a lower BMI more often met the guidelines. Among all subgroups, meeting the guidelines was most often accomplished through participation in moderate-intensity activities. These findings should be considered when designing and implementing public health interventions that promote participation in daily physical activity.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available