4.6 Article

Delayed sleep timing is associated with low levels of free-living physical activity in normal sleeping adults

期刊

SLEEP MEDICINE
卷 15, 期 12, 页码 1586-1589

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.sleep.2014.07.010

关键词

Sleep timing; Chronotype; Sleep quality; Accelerometry; Physical activity; Obesity

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01HL091352, T32DK007559]
  2. St. Luke's/Roosevelt Pilot and Feasibility Grant
  3. NewYork Obesity Research Center Grant [P30DK26687]
  4. Columbia University's CTSA grant from NCATS/NIH [UL1 TR000040]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective and Background: We and others have reported that experimentally induced short sleep does not affect resting metabolic rate and leads to increased laboratory-measured 24-h energy expenditure. Here, we aimed to determine if sleep timing and/or quality are related to physical activity (PA) levels. Methods: Measures of PA via waist actigraphy, sleep diary, and sleep quality questionnaires were collected over a 7-18-day period in 22 adults (mean age +/- standard deviation (SD): 35.8 +/- 4.6 years, and mean body mass index +/- SD: 23.8 +/- 1.1 kg/m(2)) who were on their habitual sleep-wake and activity schedules. Results: During the recording period, mean (+/- SD) bedtime and wake times were 00: 17 +/- 1:07 h (range: 22:02-02: 07 h) and 08: 20 +/- 1: 14 h (range: 06:30-10:11 h), respectively. After controlling for sleep duration, later bedtime, wake time, and midpoint of sleep were associated with less time spent in moderate-to-vigorous PA (p = 0.013, p = 0.005, and p = 0.007, respectively), and increased time in sedentary PA (p = 0.016, p = 0.013, and p = 0.013, respectively). Conclusions: Current results suggest that even relatively small alterations in sleep timing may influence PA. However, causality cannot be inferred from this cross-sectional study. Clinical intervention studies should be conducted to assess the relationship between sleep timing and energy balance. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据