Advertisement

Sport Sciences for Health

, Volume 13, Issue 1, pp 157–164 | Cite as

Perceived and objectively measured physical activity in high school students: is there any link between aerobic fitness, psychological responses and acute exercise?

  • Matteo VandoniEmail author
  • Cosme F. Buzzachera
  • Sara Ottobrini
  • Luca Correale
  • Paola Borrelli
  • Francesca Gigli Berzolari
  • Erwan Codrons
Original Article

Abstract

Background and aim

The purpose of this study was to compare the amount of physical activity and sedentary time from the self-administered, long version of the IPAQ with an objective measure of them using an accelerometer in a high school student’s sample. The present study also examined whether the amount of physical activity and sedentary time is related to aerobic fitness or psychological responses to acute exercise.

Methods

Thirty adolescents from an Italian high school wore accelerometers for five days and completed the IPAQ questionnaire. Criterion-related validity was determined by Spearman correlations between IPAQ questionnaire scores and minutes of accelerometer-measured sedentary time, moderate and vigorous activities. Participants also completed a maximal graded exercise test to assess aerobic fitness, expressed as \( \dot{V} \)O2max, and psychological responses (i.e., perceived exertion and affective valence) to acute exercise.

Results

Spearman correlation coefficients between IPAQ questionnaire scores and minutes of accelerometer-measured sedentary time and moderate activities were low (ρ = −0.19 and ρ = 0.23, respectively) and not statistically significant (p values > 0.05), but not for vigorous activities (ρ = 0.62; p < 0.05). No significant correlation was found between minutes of accelerometer-measured sedentary time, moderate, and vigorous activity and aerobic fitness or psychological responses to acute exercise (p values > 0.05).

Conclusion

This study identifies prolonged time spent being sedentary each day and poor perception of individual sedentary time and moderate activities among high school students, irrespective of aerobic fitness and psychological responses to acute exercise. Interventions to minimize sedentary time are recommended to ensure that the school environment does not adversely affect long-term health.

Keywords

Physical activity Youth Validity Questionnaire Accelerometer 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and conform to the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000.

Informed consent

The subjects were informed about the aims and the procedures and signed a written consent form.

References

  1. 1.
    Galfo M, D’Addezio L, Censi L, Roccaldo R et al (2014) Screen-based sedentary behaviours in geographic areas with different levels of childhood overweight and obesity: the Italian ZOOM8 study. Epidemiol Biostat Public Health 11(3):e1–11Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Andersen LB, Riddoch C, Kriemler S, Hills A (2005) Physical activity and cardiovascular risk factors in children. Br J Sports Med 45(11):871–876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Strong WB, Malina RM, Blimke CJR, Daniels SR et al (2005) Evidence based physical activity for school-age youth. J Pediatr 146(6):732–737CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Williams SL, Mummery WK (2015) We can do that! Collaborative assessment of school environments to promote healthy adolescent nutrition and physical activity behaviours. Health Educ Res 30(2):272–284CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dyrstad SM, Hansen BH, Holme IM, Andersen SA (2014) Comparison of self-reported versus accelerometer-measured physical activity. Med Sci Sports Exerc 46(1):99–106CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Corder K, Ekelund U, Steele RM, Wareham NJ et al (2008) Assessment of physical activity in youth. J Appl Physiol 105(3):977–987CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hagströmer M, Bergman P, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Ortega FB et al (2008) Concurrent validity of a modified version of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ-A) in European adolescents: the Helena study. Int J Obes 32(suppl 5):S42–S48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ottevaere C, Huybrechts I, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Sjöström M et al (2011) Comparison of the IPAQ-A and Actigraph in relation to VO2max among European adolescents: the HELENA study. J Sci Med Sport 14(4):317–324CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mannocci A, Di Thiene D, Del Cimmuto A, Masala D et al (2010) International Physical Activity Questionnaire: validation and assessment in an Italian sample. Ital J Public Health 7(4):369–376Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Twisk JWR, Kemper HCG, Van Mechelen W (2000) Tracking of activity and fitness and the relationship with cardiovascular disease risk factors. Med Sci Sports Exerc 32(8):1455–1461CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Johnson MS, Figueroa-Colon R, Herd SL, Fields DA et al (2000) Aerobic fitness, not energy expenditure, influences subsequent increase in adiposity in black and white children. Pediatrics 106(4):e50CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dencker M, Bugge A, Hermansen B, Andersen LB (2010) Objectively measured daily physical activity related to aerobic fitness in children and adolescents. J Sports Sci 28(2):139–145CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dencker M, Andersen LB (2011) Accelerometer-measured daily physical activity related to aerobic in children and adolescents. J Sports Sci 29(9):887–895CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Williams DM, Dunsiger S, Ciccolo JT, Lewis BA et al (2008) Acute affective response to a moderate-intensity exercise stimulus predicts physical activity participation 6 and 12 months later. Psychol Sport Exerc 9(3):231–245CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Guidetti L, Buzzachera CF, Emerenziani GP, Meucci M et al (2015) Psychophysiological responses to Salsa dance. PLoS One 10(4):e0121465CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cameron N (1996) The methods of auxological anthropometry. In: Science Springer (ed) Human growth. Plenum Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Duke PM, Litt IF, Gross RT (1980) Adolescents’ self-assessment of sexual maturation. Pediatrics 66(6):918–920PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Crouter SE, Churilla JR, Bassett DR (2008) Accuracy of the Actiheart for the assessment of energy expenditure in adults. Eur J Clin Nutr 62(6):704–711CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Takken T, Stephens S, Balemans A, Tremblay MS et al (2010) Validation of the Actiheart activity monitor for measurement of activity energy expenditure in children and adolescents with chronic disease. Eur J Clin Nutr 64(12):1494–1500CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    McLain JJ, Abraham TL, Brusseau TA, Tudor-Locke C (2008) Epoch length and accelerometer outputs in children: comparison to direct observation. Med Sci Sports Exerc 40(12):2080–2087CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Trost SG, Loprinzi PD, Moore R, Pfeiffer KA (2011) Comparison of accelerometer cut points for predicting activity intensity in youth. Med Sci Sports Exerc 43(7):1360–1368CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Evenson KR, Cattellier D, Gill K, Ondrak KS et al (2008) Calibration of two objective measures of physical activity for children. J Sports Sci 26(14):1557–1565CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Midglay AW, McNaughton LR, Polman R, Marchant D (2006) Criteria for determination of maximal oxygen uptake: brief critique and recommendations for future research. Sports Med 37(12):1019–1028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Caiozzo VJ, Davis JA, Ellis JF, Azus L et al (1982) A comparison of gas exchange indices used to detect the anaerobic threshold. J Appl Physiol 53(5):1184–1189PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nieman DC, Austin MD, Benezra L, Pearce S et al (2006) Validation of Cosmed’s Fitmate™ in measuring oxygen consumption and estimating resting metabolic rate. Res Sports Med 14(2):89–96CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Noble BJ, Robertson RJ (1996) Perceived exertion. Human Kinetics, ChampaignGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Borg GAV (1982) Psychophysical bases of perceived exertion. Med Sci Sports Exerc 14(5):377–381CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Chen MI, Fan X, Moe ST (2002) Criterion-related validity of the Borg ratings of perceived exertion scale in healthy individuals: a meta-analysis. J Sports Sci 20(11):873–899CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hardy CJ, Rejeski WJ (1989) Not what, but how one feels: the measurement of affect during exercise. J Sport Exerc Psychol 11(1):304–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Van Landuyt LM, Ekkekakis P, Hall EE, Petruzzello SJ (2000) Throwing the mountains into the lakes: on the perils of nomothetic conceptions of the exercise-affect relationship. J Sport Exerc Psychol 22(3):208–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lang PJ (1980) Behavioural treatment and bio-behavioural assessment: computer applications. In: Sodowski JB, Johnson JH, Williams TA (eds) Technology in mental health care delivery systems. Ablex, NorwoodGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Russell JA (1980) A circumplex model of affect. J Pers Soc Psychol 39:1161–1178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ekelund U, Sepp H, Brage S, Becker W et al (2005) Criterion-related validity of the last 7-day, short form of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire in Swedish adults. Public Health Nutr 9(2):258–265Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lachat CK, Verstraeten R, Khanh LNB, Hagströmer M et al (2008) Validity of two physical activity questionnaires (IPAQ and PAQA) for Vietnamese adolescents in rural and urban areas. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 5:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Shephard RJ (2003) Limits to the measurement of habitual physical activity by questionnaires. Br J Sports Med 37(3):197–206CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Gutin B, Yin Z, Humphries MC, Barbeau P (2005) Relations of moderate and vigorous physical activity to fitness and fatness in adolescents. Am J Clin Nutr 81(4):746–750PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ward DS, Evenson KR, Vaughn A, Rodgers AB et al (2005) Accelerometer use in physical activity: best practices and research recommendations. Med Sci Sports Exerc 37(suppl 11):S582–S588CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Trost SG, Pate RR, Freedson PS, Sallis JF et al (2000) Using objective physical activity measures with youth: how many days of monitoring are needed? Med Sci Sports Exerc 32(2):426–431CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Trost SG (2007) Measurement of physical activity in children and adolescents. Am J Lifestyle Med 1(3):299–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Clemes SA, Deans NK (2012) Presence and duration of reactivity to pedometers in adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc 44(6):1097–1101CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Vandoni M, Correale L, Del Bianco M, Marin L et al (2016) Does reactivity to accelerometers occur in a single trial?. J Health Psychol, Brief report in a sample of young adults. doi: 10.1177/1359105316628758 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratory of Adapted Motor Activity (LAMA), Department of Public Health, Experimental and Forensic MedicineUniversity of PaviaPaviaItaly
  2. 2.Laboratory of Exercise Physiology, Department of Physical EducationNorth University of ParanáLondrinaBrazil
  3. 3.Unit of Biostatistics and Clinical Epidemiology, Department of Public Health, Experimental and Forensic MedicineUniversity of PaviaPaviaItaly

Personalised recommendations