Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Preventive Medicine Reports logoLink to Preventive Medicine Reports
. 2022 Jul 5;28:101892. doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2022.101892

Differences in physical activity between weekdays and weekend days among U.S. children and adults: Cross-sectional analysis of NHANES 2011–2014 data

Quyen G To a,⁎, Robert Stanton b, Stephanie Schoeppe a, Thomas Doering a, Corneel Vandelanotte a
PMCID: PMC9260628  PMID: 35813401

Abstract

This study investigates differences in physical activity between weekdays and weekend days, and its associations with sociodemographic and anthropometric characteristics in the U.S population using the NHANES 2011–2014 data. Physical activity was measured using ActiGraph GT3X+. Raw acceleration data were converted to Monitor-Independent Movement Summary units (MIMS-units) that account for inter-device variability and eliminates non-human movement. The daily MIMS-units were averaged for weekdays and weekend days. Demographic characteristics were self-reported. Height and weight were objectively measured. The sample included 6611 adults aged ≥ 20 years and 3520 children aged between 6 and 19 years. The results show that more MIMS-units were registered on weekdays compared to weekend days for adults (652, 95%CI = 533, 770) and children (889, 95%CI = 702, 1076). Factors associated with physical activity in adults (gender, age, marital status, ethnicity, education level, and weight status) were similar for weekdays and weekend days. In children, physical activity was associated with ethnicity, weight status, and age. The level of differences in physical activity between weekdays and weekend days among adults was larger for men, Hispanic Americans, and those with lower education levels. Differences among children were similar across subgroups, except for those aged 16–19 years who had smaller level of difference compared to those aged 12–15 years. In conclusion, adults and children were more active on weekdays than weekend days. The effects of structured days (i.e., weekdays) on physical activity appeared to be similar across most child subgroups but more heterogeneous for adult subgroups. Interventions increasing physical activity opportunities during weekend days are warranted.

Keywords: Exercise, Pattern, MIMS, Correlate, Demographic, Anthropometric

1. Introduction

Physical activity is associated with multiple health benefits in adults and children. (Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee, 2018) While numerous studies have examined a range of sociodemographic, anthropometric, and behavioural factors associated with physical activity, (Bauman et al., 2012, To et al., 2020, Sterdt et al., 2014) fewer studies have investigated associations of these factors with physical activity separately during weekdays and weekend days. Examining physical activity by weekdays and weekend days is necessary to understand how activities at work or school impact overall physical activity and can help decide whether specific intervention strategies are needed for weekend days compared to weekdays.

Recently, the Structured Days Hypothesis has been proposed. (Brazendale et al., 2017) It stated that the presence of structure, routine, and regulation within a day can positively influence children and adolescents’ physical activity, eating, and sleep behaviours. That is during structured days, children’s time is filled with “favorable activities” (e.g., scheduled physical education/ physical activity events, and regulated school meals) leaving less time for unhealthy activities (e.g., unlimited screen time). While the Structured Days Hypothesis is supported by many studies which have found that physical activity levels of children and adolescents are higher on weekdays compared to weekend days, (Brooke et al., 2014, Collings et al., 2014, To et al., 2018, Konharn et al., 2012, Duncan et al., 2010, Zosel et al., 2022, Brazendale et al., 2021) some studies found no significant difference. (Steele et al., 2010, Wilkin et al., 2006) Another study found more activity on weekend days, compared to weekdays in Chinese children. (Wong et al., 2015, Trost et al., 2000) found that children were more active but adolescents were less active on weekend days. (Trost et al., 2000) A potential limitation of many studies is the use of self-reported measures, (Zosel et al., 2022) which may limit generalizability to the general population. Moreover, differences in physical activity during weekdays and weekend days were mostly investigated for some characteristics such as age, gender, and weight status but less commonly for other characteristics such as poverty status and ethnicity. (Collings et al., 2014, To et al., 2018, Konharn et al., 2012, Duncan et al., 2010, Steele et al., 2010, Wong et al., 2015).

Among adults, fewer studies were conducted with mixed results. One study among 50–81 years old in England found participants more active on weekdays. (Schrempft et al., 2019) Using the 2003–2006 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data, it was found that only 3.2% of participants aged ≥ 18 years followed the ‘weekend warrior pattern’ (i.e., moderate-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) higher on weekend days). (Evenson et al., 2015) However, no difference in total step counts between weekdays and weekend days was found among office-based workers in England. (Smith et al., 2015) Another study found that physical activity was higher on weekdays for those walking to work, but similar for those travelling by car. (Audrey et al., 2014) These studies, however, did not examine associations of physical activity with other factors such as sociodemographic characteristics by weekdays and weekend days. (Schrempft et al., 2019, Evenson et al., 2015, Smith et al., 2015, Audrey et al., 2014).

This study, therefore, investigated the differences in physical activity between weekdays and weekend days, and its associations with sociodemographic and anthropometric characteristics using the NHANES 2011–2014 data. The findings can help develop strategies specific for weekdays and weekend days to improve the effectiveness of physical activity interventions.

2. Methods

2.1. Study design

This study used NHANES survey data collected annually by the US National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). The survey uses a complex, four-stage, probability sampling method to select a nationally representative sample of approximately 5000 non-institutionalized participants across all ages from 15 counties each year. (Johnson et al., 2014) As physical activity was objectively measured using triaxial accelerometers in the NHANES 2011–2014, data from these years were used. Ethics approval was received from the NCHS Research Ethics Review Board (Protocol #2011–2017). Participants or their guardians provided informed consents for participation in the surveys.

2.2. Study population

Among 16,734 participants, physical activity monitor data were available for 14,693 (Fig. 1). Participants were excluded if they wore the device on dominant wrist (n = 119) or wrist placement was unknown (n = 11). (Belcher et al., 2021) The device was worn for 9 days; however, the first and ninth days were incomplete and not used. A modified definition of a valid day from (Belcher et al., 2021) was used. (Belcher et al., 2021) Days with ≥ 1380 valid minutes (23 h), <72 min of non-wear time (<5% of 24 h), and < 17 h of sleep wear were considered valid. Participants without ≥ 3 valid weekdays and 1 valid WE were excluded (n = 3205) from analyses. Pregnant women (n = 62) and people who needed special equipment to walk (n = 810) were also excluded resulting in a total sample of 6611 adults aged ≥ 20 years and 3520 children aged between 6 and 19 years (data for children < 6 years were unavailable).

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

Flowchart of participant selection.

2.3. Measures

Demographic characteristics were self-reported. These included age, gender, marital status, ethnicity, family income for the adult and child samples, and education and marital status for the adult sample. Age groups used in the NHANES were “6–11 years”, “12–15 years”, or “16–19 years” for children; and “20–39 years”, “40–59 years”, or “≥60 years” for adults. Gender was male or female. Marital status was grouped into either “in a relationship” or “not in a relationship”. Ethnicity was categorized into “Mexican American/other Hispanic”, “Non-Hispanic White”, “Non-Hispanic Black/others” (including non-Hispanic multi-racial), and “Non-Hispanic Asian”. Education levels were “high school or below” or “above high school” for adults. Poverty income ratio was calculated by dividing family income by the poverty guidelines specific to the survey year, family size and geographic location. A ratio < 1 means that the family income is below the poverty line. Poverty income ratio were used as a categorical variable with cut-offs of 0 – 1.3 for low, >1.3 – 3.5 for middle, and > 3.5 – 5 for high. (Ogden et al., 2018).

Height and weight were measured by trained staff. (NHANES, 2011) Body Mass Index (BMI) was calculated by dividing weight(kg) by height(m) squared. The 2000 CDC growth charts were used to determine weight status of children aged < 20 years as not overweight/obese (BMI < 85th percentile) or overweight/obese (BMI ≥ 85th percentile). Adults were classified as not overweight/obese if BMI < 25 or overweight/obese if BMI ≥ 25.

2.4. Physical activity measurement

Physical activity was measured using an ActiGraph GT3X+ (ActiGraph, Pensacola, FL). The device is water resistant and was worn continuously, even while bathing and sleeping on participants’ nondominant wrist using a wristband for 9 days. (NHANES, 2022) The device was set to record the magnitude of acceleration at 80 Hz sampling frequency. Raw acceleration data were converted to Monitor-Independent Movement Summary units (MIMS-units) that account for inter-device variability and eliminate non-human movement. (John et al., 2019) Details on development and validation of the MIMS-unit are published elsewhere. (John et al., 2019) Briefly, the algorithm interpolates data to a consistent sampling rate, extrapolates to extend maxed-out signals, bandpass filters acceleration signals unrelated to voluntary human movement, and aggregates processed signals from each axis into a sum of MIMS-units that represents the total amount of movement activity. A higher MIMS value indicates a higher level of overall physical activity. Although there are no cut-off points for classifying these values into moderate or vigorous physical activity, reference values for some common activities are provided in the method paper. (John et al., 2019) For example, for wrist-worn devices, walking at 4.8 km/h and running at 8.8 km/h had values of about 25 and 140 MIMS-units/minute, respectively. Accordingly, a difference of 250 MIMS-units would mean a difference of 10 min walking at 4.8 km/h per day in this study.

Time periods of wake wear, sleep wear, and non-wear were estimated in three steps. In the first step, signal features were extracted from each of 1.5 min of data and a machine learning algorithm was used to classify each 30 s of the data into wake wear, sleep wear, or non-wear. Second, periods with minimum durations (i.e., <3min for wake wear, <10 min for sleep and non-wear) were filtered based on information from the prior and subsequent periods. If the prior and subsequent periods were not in the same predicted category, the predicted category of the current period was reassigned to that of the adjacent period with the higher confidence value. Third, orientation changes were used to reclassify longer periods from non-wear to sleep and vice versa to reflect periodic changes in body reorientation on the bed during sleep. (NHANES, 2020).

2.5. Data analysis

SAS software v9.4 was used for analyses. In compliance with the NHANES analytic guideline, (Chen et al., 2018) 4-year sampling weights were recalculated by dividing the 2-year weights by 2. Additionally, the sampling weights were post-stratified to match the U.S. civilian non-institutionalized population based on age, gender, and ethnicity. As percentages of missing values were about 8% for poverty income ratio variable and < 1% for the other variables, no imputation of missing data or further adjustment to the sampling weights were conducted. Survey procedures in SAS were used to account for the complex survey design. The Taylor series linearization variance estimation method was used for all analyses.

The daily MIMS-units were averaged separately for valid weekdays and weekend days. PROC SURVEYMEANS was used to calculate weighted MIMS-units and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each subgroup on weekdays, weekend days, and difference between weekdays and weekend days. PROC SURVEYREG was used to compare weighted averages of MIMS-units between subgroups. Differences in MIMS-units between subgroups were presented separately for weekdays and weekend days. In addition, differences in MIMS-units between weekdays and weekend days were compared between subgroups. A bivariate model (Model 1) and a multivariable model (Model 2) controlling for age, gender, marital status, ethnicity, education level, poverty income threshold, and weight status in the adult sample or age group, gender, ethnicity, poverty income threshold, and weight status in the child sample were conducted. Due to multiple comparisons, Tukey-Kramer adjustment was applied to variables with more than two categories. All p-values were two-sided and considered statistically significant if < 0.05.

3. Results

For all sample characteristics, adults and children were more active on weekdays than weekend days (between 1.9% and 9.9% for adults, 3.3% and 7.6% for children) (Table 1, Table 2). Among adults, the largest difference between weekdays and weekend days was 1600 MIMS-units (95%CI = 1336, 1863) for Mexican Americans/Other Hispanics; and the smallest difference was 256 MIMS-unit (95%CI = 28, 485) for those with high poverty income threshold. Among children, the largest difference was 1210 MIMS-units (779, 1642) for those aged 12–15 years; and the smallest difference was 479 MIMS-units for those aged 16–19 years. Overall, the difference for adults was 652 (95%CI = 533, 770) and for children was 889 (95%CI = 702, 1076).

Table 1.

Weighted MIMS-units (95% confidence interval), difference between weekdays and weekend days, and percentage of difference over weekdays for adults.

n Weekday Weekend Difference %
Total 6611 13,991 (13849, 14134) 13,339 (13166, 13513) 652 (533, 770) 4.7%
Age 6611
20–39 years 2154 14,882 (14658, 15106) 14,268 (13977, 14558) 614 (367, 862) 4.1%
40–59 years 2343 14,334 (14120, 14548) 13,567 (13399, 13736) 767 (598, 935) 5.4%
≥60 years 2114 12,035 (11816, 12254) 11,507 (11221, 11792) 528 (381, 675) 4.4%
Gender 6611
Male 3259 13,671 (13446, 13897) 12,815 (12541, 13089) 857 (653, 1060) 6.3%
Female 3352 14,304 (14199, 14409) 13,851 (13674, 14028) 453 (308, 597) 3.2%
Marital status 6609
Not in a relationship 2653 13,857 (13692, 14022) 13,055 (12858, 13253) 802 (615, 989) 5.8%
In a relationship 3956 14,070 (13878, 14262) 13,505 (13309, 13700) 565 (397, 733) 4.0%
Ethnicity 6611
Non-Hispanic White 2687 13,494 (13342, 13646) 13,020 (12829, 13211) 473 (303, 644) 3.5%
Non-Hispanic Black/Others 1675 14,141 (13873, 14409) 13,492 (13227, 13757) 649 (444, 854) 4.6%
Non-Hispanic Asian 803 13,979 (13602, 14356) 13,711 (13399, 14023) 268 (28, 508) 1.9%
Mexican American/Other Hispanic 1446 16,092 (15852, 16331) 14,492 (14214, 14770) 1600 (1336, 1863) 9.9%
Education 6609
High school or below 2845 14,793 (14531, 15055) 13,652 (13418, 13886) 1141 (960, 1322) 7.7%
Above high school 3764 13,541 (13390, 13692) 13,162 (12984, 13340) 379 (246, 511) 2.8%
Poverty Income Threshold 6129
Low (0–1.3) 2005 14,585 (14324, 14847) 13,714 (13445, 13983) 872 (636, 1107) 6.0%
Middle (>1.3 – 3.5) 2160 14,114 (13864, 14364) 13,178 (12895, 13461) 936 (755, 1117) 6.6%
High (>3.5 – 5.0) 1964 13,477 (13308, 13646) 13,221 (12984, 13458) 256 (26, 485) 1.9%
Weight status 6589
Not overweight or obese 1997 14,404 (14156, 14653) 14,009 (13698, 14320) 395 (161, 629) 2.7%
Overweight or obese 4592 13,815 (13637, 13992) 13,055 (12874, 13235) 760 (666, 854) 5.5%
Open in a new tab

Table 2.

Weighted MIMS-units (95% confidence interval), difference between weekdays and weekend days, and percentage of difference over weekdays for children.

n Weekday Weekend Difference %
Total 3520 17,366 (17026, 17706) 16,477 (16103, 16851) 889 (702, 1076) 5.1%
Age 3520
6–11 years 1884 20,107 (19794, 20420) 19,181 (18872, 19490) 926 (683, 1169) 4.6%
12–15 years 858 16,006 (15614, 16398) 14,796 (14239, 15352) 1210 (779, 1642) 7.6%
16–19 years 778 14,659 (14205, 15113) 14,180 (13605, 14755) 479 (130, 828) 3.3%
Gender 3520
Boys 1773 17,466 (17055, 17878) 16,408 (15928, 16888) 1058 (787, 1330) 6.1%
Girls 1747 17,260 (16848, 17673) 16,549 (16126, 16972) 711 (504, 919) 4.1%
Ethnicity 3520
Non-Hispanic White 841 17,361 (16826, 17896) 16,564 (15993, 17135) 797 (484, 1110) 4.6%
Non-Hispanic Black/Others 1157 17,326 (16976, 17675) 16,340 (15963, 16716) 986 (713, 1259) 5.7%
Non-Hispanic Asian 373 16,117 (15626, 16609) 14,943 (14395, 15492) 1174 (697, 1651) 7.3%
Mexican American/Other Hispanic 1149 17,670 (17231, 18109) 16,705 (16275, 17135) 965 (725, 1205) 5.5%
Poverty Income Threshold 3291
Low (0–1.3) 1583 17,642 (17250, 18033) 16,871 (16462, 17280) 930 (693, 1166) 4.7%
Middle (>1.3 – 3.5) 1067 17,141 (16608, 17673) 16,162 (15602, 16722) 1123 (693, 1553) 7.1%
High (>3.5 – 5.0) 641 17,349 (16904, 17795) 16,525 (15925, 17125) 523 (202, 845) 3.6%
Weight status 3486
Not overweight or obese 2215 17,558 (17144, 17973) 16,666 (16230, 17103) 770 (507, 1033) 4.4%
Overweight or obese 1271 17,100 (16738, 17463) 16,172 (15745, 16599) 979 (583, 1374) 5.7%
Open in a new tab

Younger adults were significantly more active with a higher MIMS value on both weekdays and weekend days compared to older adults in the adjusted model (Model 2, Table 3). Women, adults in a relationship, Hispanics, and non-overweight adults were significantly more active on weekdays and weekend days. Those with an education level above high school were significantly less active on weekdays and weekend days compared to those with a high school degree or below. Although those at middle poverty income threshold were significantly more active compared to high poverty income threshold on weekdays, no significant difference was found between low vs. high poverty income threshold groups, or on weekend days.

Table 3.

Difference in MIMS-units on weekdays and weekend days, and weekdays vs. weekend days for adults.

 Weekday
 Weekend
 Weekday vs. Weekend
Model 1 Model 2a,b Model 1 Model 2a,b Model 1 Model 2a,b
Age
20–39 years vs. ≥ 60 years 2847*** (2549, 3146) 2651*** (2322, 2980) 2761*** (2342, 3180) 2699*** (2298, 3099) 86 (−252, 424) −48 (−425, 329)
40–59 years vs. ≥ 60 years 2299*** (1932, 2667) 2232*** (1867, 2597) 2060*** (1638, 2483) 2058*** (1625, 2492) 239 (−25, 502) 174 (−68, 415)
Gender
Female vs Male 632*** (428, 836) 730*** (521, 940) 1036*** (739, 1333) 1103*** (825, 1382) −404** (−662, −146) −373** (−633, −113)



Marital status
In a relationship vs. Not 213 (−21, 447) 485*** (235, 735) 449*** (266, 633) 710*** (532, 889) −236 (−504, 31) −226 (−472, 21)



Ethnicity
Hispanic vs. NH Asian 2113*** (1502, 2725) 1664*** (973, 2355) 781*** (239, 1270) 736* (137, 1335) 1332*** (870, 1794) 928*** (470, 1385)
Hispanic vs. NH Black/others 1951*** (1521, 2381) 1433*** (1042, 1825) 1000*** (541, 1459) 645** (153, 1138) 951*** (565, 1337) 788*** (415, 1162)
Hispanic vs. NH White 2598*** (2194, 3002) 1690*** (1272, 2109) 1472*** (1059, 1885) 842*** (325, 1358) 1126*** (685, 1567) 849*** (381, 1317)



Education
Above high school vs. High school/below −1252*** (−1561, −943) −1060*** (−1374, −746) −489*** (−712, −267) −579*** (−884, −274) −763*** (−955, −570) −482*** (−688, −275)



Poverty Income Threshold
Low vs. High 1109*** (702, 1515) 152 (−195, 499) 493* (15, 970) −81 (−630, 469) 616** (180, 1052) 233 (−256, 722)
Middle vs. High 637*** (328, 946) 304* (13, 594) −44 (−420, 333) −164 (−593, 265) 680*** (342, 1019) 468** (108, 828)



Weight status
Not overweight/obese vs. overweight/obese 589*** (284, 895) 555*** (276, 834) 955*** (628, 1281) 823*** (516, 1130) −365** (−572, −158) −268* (−485, −50)
Open in a new tab
a

complete cases used (n = 6107);

b

model 2 includes age group, gender, marital status, ethnicity, education level, poverty income threshold, and weight status.

*

p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

Differences in MIMS-units between weekdays and weekend days were significantly smaller for women compared to men, those with an education above high school level compared to those with a lower educational level, and those not overweight compared to overweight/obese adults; but significantly larger for Hispanic compared to Non-Hispanic Asians, Non-Hispanic Black/others, and Non-Hispanic White, and those with middle compared to high poverty income threshold.

Compared to children aged 16–19 years, those aged 6–11 years and 12–15 years were significantly more active on weekdays; however, the difference was only significant on weekend days for those aged 6–11 years (Table 4). Non-Hispanic Asian children were significantly less active than Non-Hispanic White, Non-Hispanic Black/others, and Hispanic on weekdays and weekend days. Non-overweight children were significantly more active on weekend days. There was no significant difference in MIMS-units between boys and girls, or among children with different poverty income threshold. Differences in MIMS-units between weekdays and weekend days were significantly larger for those aged 12–15 years compared to 16–19 years but not significant for other comparisons.

Table 4.

Difference in MIMS-units on weekdays and weekend days for children.

 Weekday
 Weekend
 Weekday vs. Weekend
Model 1 Model 2a,b Model 1 Model 2a,b Model 1 Model 2a,b
Age
6–11 years vs. 16–19 years 5447*** (4880, 6014) 5530*** (4970, 6091) 5001*** (4259, 5742) 5145*** (4343, 5948) 447 (−61, 954) 385 (−144, 914)
12–15 years vs. 16–19 years 1347*** (728, 1965) 1393*** (786, 2000) 615 (−237, 1468) 736 (−144, 1615) 731* (120, 1343) 657* (22, 1293)
Gender
Girls vs. boys −206 (−672, 260) −162 (−525, 200) 141 (−371, 653) 155 (−225, 536) −347* (−660, −34) −317 (−675, 40)



Ethnicity
NH White vs. NH Asian 1244** (296, 2191) 1309*** (508, 2111) 1620*** (650, 2591) 1769*** (759, 2780) −377 (−1179, 425) −460 (−1324, 404)
NH Black/others vs. NH Asian 1208*** (591, 1826) 1149*** (625, 1673) 1396*** (767, 2025) 1343*** (498, 2187) −188 (−808, 433) −194 (−939, 552)
Hispanic vs. NH Asian 1552*** (838, 2267) 1335*** (683, 1988) 1762*** (980, 2543) 1637*** (730, 2543) −21 (−532, 489) −302 (−1004, 401)



Poverty Income Threshold
Low vs. High 292 (−301, 885) 282 (−202, 766) 346 (−378, 1070) 349 (−168, 866) −54 (−657, 549) −66 (−704, 572)
Middle vs. High −209 (−786, 369) −94 (−657, 469) −363 (−1058, 332) −224 (−922, 474) 154 (−607, 916) 130 (−674, 934)



Weight status
Not OW/OB vs. OW/OB 458* (33, 883) 362 (−25, 749) 494* (44, 945) 383* (39, 727) −37 (−389, 316) −21 (−399, 357)
Open in a new tab
a

complete cases used (n = 3262);

b

Model 2 includes age group, gender, ethnicity, poverty income threshold, and weight status.

*

p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

4. Discussion

The findings showed that children were more active on weekdays than weekend days, which is consistent with previous studies. (Brooke et al., 2014, Collings et al., 2014, To et al., 2018, Konharn et al., 2012, Duncan et al., 2010, Zosel et al., 2022) The percentage of difference among children (5.1%) was also similar to that of 52 meta-analysed studies (5.1%). (Brooke et al., 2014) Adults were also found to be more active on weekdays than weekend days which is consistent with the findings from two previous studies. (Schrempft et al., 2019, Evenson et al., 2015) Other studies found no significant difference (Smith et al., 2015) or only significant for those walking to work (18.7% higher on weekdays). (Audrey et al., 2014) While there is lack of consensus for the minimal physical activity amount being clinically significant, (Loprinzi et al., 2016, Murakami et al., 2015) it is broadly agreed that any increase in physical activity leads to health benefits. (Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee, 2018) These results provide evidence supporting the Structured Days Hypothesis that children are more active on structured days when more physical activity opportunities, e.g., attending physical education classes or travelling to school, are available. (To et al., 2020, Aibar et al., 2014) Furthermore, the results may suggest that Structured Days Hypothesis could be extended to adults who may be more active during weekdays due to travelling to work and work-related activities. (Audrey et al., 2014, Van Domelen et al., 2011).

Generally, factors associated with adults’ physical activity (including age, gender, marital status, ethnicity, education level, and weight status) were consistent across weekdays and weekend days. Age group and weight status were inversely associated with physical activity, which is consistent with the previous findings. (Bauman et al., 2012) Moreover, the finding that Hispanic adults were more active than other ethnic groups is consistent with NHANES 2003–2004 data. (Gay and Buchner, 2014) This may be due to occupational physical activity as studies have found Hispanic American are likely to have more physically demanding jobs. (Gay and Buchner, 2014) However, the associations of physical activity with gender, education, and marital status were inconsistent with the review of reviews. (Bauman et al., 2012) In the present analysis, women were more active than men. This may be explained by the use of wrist-worn accelerometers that better captured household activities in which women usually engaged more than men. (Bianchi et al., 2012) As women’s physical activity preferences differ from men (i.e., women prefer less competitive and vigorous activities), (van Uffelen et al., 2017) it is also possible that these activities may be better recorded by wrist-worn accelerometers. Although recent research using wrist-worn accelerometers have shown similar findings, (Belcher et al., 2021, Doherty et al., 2017, Wennman et al., 2019) more research is needed to identify the reasons. Additionally, participants with at least high school education were more active compared to those with higher education levels. Similarly, this could be due to occupational physical activity as those with lower education levels were more likely to have blue-collar jobs that require a higher physical activity level. (Kirk and Rhodes, 2011, Smith et al., 2016, Vandelanotte et al., 2015) While a study in Poland found that single urban adults were more likely to meet the physical activity guidelines than married adults, (Puciato and Rozpara, 2021) this study and others have found those in a relationship were more active. (Sobal and Hanson, 2010, Pettee et al., 2006) Although the personal commitments associated with being in a relationship may reduce the time couples engaged in physical activity, being in a relationship may also mean an increase in social support that could result in a more healthier and active lifestyle. (Bauman et al., 2012, Schoeppe et al., 2018) Overall, the inconsistency could be due to differences in cultural context, sample characteristics, and the use of different measurement tools (especially self-report and older models of waist-worn accelerometers) among studies.

Some studies found no association between age and physical activity among children, (Sallis et al., 2000, Van der Horst et al., 2007) whereas two of three reviews found inverse associations among adolescents. (Sallis et al., 2000, Van der Horst et al., 2007, Biddle et al., 2005) In this study, age group was inversely associated with physical activity levels during weekdays. However, the difference between 12–15 years and 16–19 years was not significant during weekend days. This finding suggests that activity patterns during weekend days were more similar among teenagers compared to younger children. Moreover, physical activity was not associated with children’s gender and poverty status which is inconsistent with the findings from previous reviews. (Bauman et al., 2012, Sterdt et al., 2014) The reasons for this finding are unclear. However, one explanation could be due to the use of waist vs wrist-worn accelerometers. While many studies with waist-worn accelerometers showed that boys were more active than girls, (Cooper et al., 2015, Troiano et al., 2008) the findings from wrist-worn accelerometry data are mixed. One study in the U.S. using wrist-worn ActiGraph GT3X + data from the 2014 National Cancer Institute’s Family Life, Activity, Sun, Health, and Eating Study showed that MVPA, calculated by four out of five data processing techniques, was not significantly different between boys and girls. (Kim et al., 2017) Another ActiGraph GT3X study in Scotland found that while boys spent more time on vigorous-intensity physical activity, they spent much less time on light-intense physical activity, and no difference in time spent on moderate-intense physical activity. (McLellan et al., 2020) However, wrist-worn Actigraph GT3X+ and GT9X data from a study in Hunter region of New South Wales, Australia still found that boys were more active than girls. (McCarthy et al., 2021) Given the complexity of dealing with accelerometry data (e.g., various data processing methods and device brands) and differences in sample characteristics across studies, more studies are needed to determine which placement position is better. However, it is worth noting that wrist-worn devices were found to significantly increase compliance due to being more comfortable and less embarrassing to wear (McLellan et al., 2018, Fairclough et al., 2016) and could result in better estimates of physical activity. (Crouter et al., 2015).

In contrast to Asian adults whose activity level was comparable to that of non-Hispanic White and Black, in the child sample, Asians were the least active in both weekdays and weekend days, which is consistent with studies in California, USA (Allen et al., 2007) and London, England. (Brodersen et al., 2007) One explanation could be that in Asian cultures, children are expected to spend much time on academic learning, including attending tutoring classes after school and during weekend days (To et al., 2021, Dawson, 2010) and therefore, may have less time to be active. This explanation is supported by evidence that Asian’s participation rates in major sports in the USA are much lower than other ethnic groups. (Bushnell, 2022) Given a lack of studies among Asian children, more research is needed so that interventions could be designed and implemented to improve their physical activity.

The level of differences in physical activity levels between weekdays and weekend days was smaller for women compared to men which suggests that women may engage in additional physical activities (e.g., household chores) during weekend days. Moreover, the large differences between weekdays and weekend days among Hispanic Americans compared to other ethnic groups and among those with lower education levels provide some support for our above explanation about the contribution of occupational activity during weekdays to total amount of physical activity. (Kirk and Rhodes, 2011, Smith et al., 2016, Vandelanotte et al., 2015) However, further research is needed to confirm these observations and identify other factors that may affect these patterns.

In contrast, the level of differences in physical activity between weekdays and weekend days was not significantly different between subgroups of children with the exception that those aged 16–19 years had smaller difference between weekdays and weekend days than those aged 12–15 years. These results may suggest that physical activity patterns between weekdays and weekend days are similar across subgroups of children although the patterns among those aged 16–19 years may be more similar to adults as a result of their transition into adulthood. This may also suggest that except for the age group of 16–19 years, the effects of the structured days on physical activity are similar across multiple subgroups but more research on this topic is needed.

Although a large number of reviews have been conducted to identify physical activity correlates in children and adults, (Bauman et al., 2012, Sterdt et al., 2014) majority of the reviewed studies used self-reported physical activity questionnaires which are subject to recall bias. Additionally, the relationship between these factors and physical activity may change over time as society and lifestyle behaviours change, e.g., the widespread use of electronic devices in every population group, the increasingly popularity of work-life balance, increasing mechanization of blue-collar jobs, and smaller family size due to low birth rates. Therefore, further research using objective measures is still needed to identify these associated factors in the current context.

This study has a large sample representative of the U.S. population. Moreover, NHANES is one of the highest quality surveys ongoing in the U.S. for>20 years. Another strength is that physical activity was objectively measured by accelerometers. However, this study does not include variables that could help better understanding the findings, e.g., type of transport and occupation, and sport participation. Additionally, the MIMS-unit is a new measure with no cut-points available to classify activity intensity or meeting of physical activity guidelines. Consequently, interpreting the practical significance of these results at this moment may be difficult. However, MIMS-unit values provided in the method paper could be used to assist with interpretation of the results in the adult samples. (John et al., 2019) Reference values for children are not available.

In conclusion, adults and children were more active on weekdays than weekend days. Factors associated with physical activity in adults (gender, age, marital status, ethnicity, education level, and weight status) were consistent for weekdays and weekend days. In children, physical activity was associated with ethnicity (consistently for weekdays and weekend days), weight status (significantly on weekend days but marginally for weekdays), and age (difference between those 12–15 years and 16–19 years was not significant for weekend days). The level of differences in physical activity between weekdays and weekend days among adults was larger for men, Hispanic Americans, those with lower education levels; and among children was similar across the subgroups, except for those aged 16–19 years who had smaller level of difference compared to those aged 12–15 years. Further research on the effects of structured days on children and adults’ physical activity, and ethnic differences in physical activity for adults and children is needed. Interventions providing adults and children more opportunities to engage in physical activity during weekend days may be more efficient. In addition, targeting groups with lower physical activity levels such as overweight/obese adults and Asian children, may help reduce health disparities.

5. Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate: This study used public data from the NHANES which has been approved by the NCHS Research Ethics Review Board (Protocol #2011–2017). Participants or their guardians provided informed consents for participation in the surveys.

6. Consent for publication

Not applicable.

7. Availability of data and materials

The data are publicly available at https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/Default.aspx.

Funding

Not applicable.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Quyen G. To: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft. Robert Stanton: Writing – review & editing. Stephanie Schoeppe: Writing – review & editing. Thomas Doering: Writing – review & editing. Corneel Vandelanotte: Writing – review & editing.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

References

  1. Aibar A., Bois J.E., Zaragoza Casterad J., Generelo E., Paillard T., Fairclough S. Weekday and weekend physical activity patterns of French and Spanish adolescents. Eur. J. Sport Sci. 2014;14:500–509. doi: 10.1080/17461391.2013.829127. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Allen M.L., Elliott M.N., Morales L.S., Diamant A.L., Hambarsoomian K., Schuster M.A. Adolescent Participation in Preventive Health Behaviors, Physical Activity, and Nutrition: Differences Across Immigrant Generations for Asians and Latinos Compared With Whites. Am. J. Public Health. 2007;97:337–343. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2005.076810. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Audrey S., Procter S., Cooper A.R. The contribution of walking to work to adult physical activity levels: a cross sectional study. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Activity. 2014;11(1):37. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-11-37. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bauman A.E., Reis R.S., Sallis J.F., Wells J.C., Loos R.J.F., Martin B.W., et al. Correlates of physical activity: why are some people physically active and others not? Lancet. 2012;380:258–271. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60735-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Belcher B.R., Wolff-hughes D.L., Dooley E.E., Staudenmayer J., Berrigan D., Eberhardt M.S., Troiano R.P. US Population-referenced Percentiles for Wrist-Worn Accelerometer-derived Activity. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2021;53(11):2455–2464. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000002726. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bianchi S.M., Sayer L.C., Milkie M.A., Robinson J.P. Housework: Who Did, Does or Will Do It, and How Much Does It Matter? Soc. Forces. 2012;91:55–63. doi: 10.1093/sf/sos120. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Biddle S.J., Whitehead S.H., O’Donovan T.M., Nevill M.E. Correlates of participation in physical activity for adolescent girls: a systematic review of recent literature. J. Phys. Activity Health. 2005;2:423–434. [Google Scholar]
  8. Brazendale K., Beets M.W., Weaver R.G., Pate R.R., Turner-McGrievy G.M., Kaczynski A.T., Chandler J.L., Bohnert A., von Hippel P.T. Understanding differences between summer vs. school obesogenic behaviors of children: the structured days hypothesis. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Activity. 2017;14(1) doi: 10.1186/s12966-017-0555-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Brazendale K., Beets M.W., Armstrong B., Weaver R.G., Hunt E.T., Pate R.R., Brusseau T.A., Bohnert A.M., Olds T., Tassitano R.M., Tenorio M.C.M., Garcia J., Andersen L.B., Davey R., Hallal P.C., Jago R., Kolle E., Kriemler S., Kristensen P.L., Kwon S., Puder J.J., Salmon J.o., Sardinha L.B., van Sluijs E.M.F. Children’s moderate-to-vigorous physical activity on weekdays versus weekend days: a multi-country analysis. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Activity. 2021;18(1) doi: 10.1186/s12966-021-01095-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Brodersen N.H., Steptoe A., Boniface D.R., Wardle J. Trends in physical activity and sedentary behaviour in adolescence: ethnic and socioeconomic differences. Br. J. Sports Med. 2007;41:140. doi: 10.1136/bjsm.2006.031138. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Brooke H.L., Corder K., Atkin A.J., van Sluijs E.M.F. A Systematic Literature Review with Meta-Analyses of Within- and Between-Day Differences in Objectively Measured Physical Activity in School-Aged Children. Sports Med. 2014;44(10):1427–1438. doi: 10.1007/s40279-014-0215-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Bushnell, H., 2022 Why there are so few Asian Americans in major U.S. sports. 2021 [04/02/2022]; Available from: https://sports.yahoo.com/asian-americans-sports-athletes-stereotypes-bias-141443235.html.
  13. Chen, T.-C., Parker, J.D., Clark, J., Shin, H.-C., Rammon, J.R., Burt, V.L., 2018. National health and nutrition examination survey: estimation procedures, 2011–2014. [PubMed]
  14. Collings P.J., Wijndaele K., Corder K., Westgate K., Ridgway C.L., Dunn V., Goodyer I., Ekelund U., Brage S. Levels and patterns of objectively-measured physical activity volume and intensity distribution in UK adolescents: the ROOTS study. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Activity. 2014;11(1):23. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-11-23. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Cooper A.R., Goodman A., Page A.S., Sherar L.B., Esliger D.W., van Sluijs E.M.F., et al. Objectively measured physical activity and sedentary time in youth: the International children’s accelerometry database (ICAD) Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Activity. 2015;12:113. doi: 10.1186/s12966-015-0274-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Crouter S.E., Flynn J.I., Bassett D.R., Jr. Estimating physical activity in youth using a wrist accelerometer. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2015;47:944–951. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000000502. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Dawson W. Private tutoring and mass schooling in East Asia: reflections of inequality in Japan, South Korea, and Cambodia. Asia Pacific Educ. Rev. 2010;11:14–24. [Google Scholar]
  18. Doherty A., Jackson D., Hammerla N., Plötz T., Olivier P., Granat M.H., et al. Large Scale Population Assessment of Physical Activity Using Wrist Worn Accelerometers: The UK Biobank Study. PLoS ONE. 2017;12:e0169649. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0169649. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Duncan M.J., Nevill A., Woodfield L., Al-Nakeeb Y. The relationship between pedometer-determined physical activity, body mass index and lean body mass index in children. Int. J. Pediatr. Obes. 2010;5(5):445–450. doi: 10.3109/17477160903568421. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Evenson K.R., Wen F., Metzger J.S., Herring A.H. Physical activity and sedentary behavior patterns using accelerometry from a national sample of United States adults. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Activity. 2015;12:20. doi: 10.1186/s12966-015-0183-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Fairclough S.J., Noonan R., Rowlands A.V., Van Hees V., Knowles Z., Boddy L.M. Wear compliance and activity in children wearing wrist and hip-mounted accelerometers. Med. Sci. Sport Exercise. 2016;48:245–253. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000000771. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Gay J.L., Buchner D.M. Ethnic disparities in objectively measured physical activity may be due to occupational activity. Prev. Med. 2014;63:58–62. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.02.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. 23.National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). Physical Activity Monitor (PAM) Procedures Manual. 2011 [10/01/2022]; Available from: https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhanes/2011-2012/manuals/Physical_Activity_Monitor_Manual.pdf.
  24. John D., Tang Q., Albinali F., Intille S. An open-source monitor-independent movement summary for accelerometer data processing. J. Meas. Phys. Behav. 2019;2:268–281. doi: 10.1123/jmpb.2018-0068. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Johnson C.L., Dohrmann S.M., Burt V.L., Mohadjer L.K. National health and nutrition examination survey: sample design, 2011–2014. Vital Health Stat. 2014;2:1–33. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Kim Y., Hibbing P., Saint-Maurice P.F., Ellingson L.D., Hennessy E., Wolff-Hughes D.L., et al. Surveillance of youth physical activity and sedentary behavior with wrist accelerometry. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2017;52:872–879. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2017.01.012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Kirk M.A., Rhodes R.E. Occupation correlates of adults' participation in leisure-time physical activity: a systematic review. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2011;40:476–485. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2010.12.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Konharn, K., Santos, M.P., Ribeiro, J.C., 2012. Differences Between Weekday and Weekend Levels of Moderate-to-Vigorous Physical Activity in Thai Adolescents. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Health. 2012; 27:NP2157-NP66. [DOI] [PubMed]
  29. Loprinzi P.D., Loenneke J.P., Ahmed H.M., Blaha M.J. Joint effects of objectively-measured sedentary time and physical activity on all-cause mortality. Prev. Med. 2016;90:47–51. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.06.026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. McCarthy N., Hall A., Shoesmith A., Sutherland R., Hodder R., Campbell E., et al. Australian children are not meeting recommended physical activity levels at school: Analysis of objectively measured physical activity data from a cross sectional study. Prevent. Med. Rep. 2021;23 doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2021.101418. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. McLellan G., Arthur R., Buchan D.S. Wear compliance, sedentary behaviour and activity in free-living children from hip-and wrist-mounted ActiGraph GT3X+ accelerometers. J. Sports Sci. 2018;36:2424–2430. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2018.1461322. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. McLellan G., Arthur R., Donnelly S., Buchan D.S. Segmented sedentary time and physical activity patterns throughout the week from wrist-worn ActiGraph GT3X+ accelerometers among children 7–12 years old. J. Sport Health Science. 2020;9:179–188. doi: 10.1016/j.jshs.2019.02.005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Murakami H., Tripette J., Kawakami R., Miyachi M. “Add 10 Min for Your Health” The New Japanese Recommendation for Physical Activity Based on Dose-Response Analysis. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2015;65(11):1153–1154. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2014.10.080. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). Anthropometry Procedures Manual. 2011 [10/01/2022]; Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhanes/nhanes_11_12/Anthropometry_Procedures_Manual.pdf.
  35. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). 2011-2012 Data Documentation, Codebook, and Frequencies. 2020 [17/05/2022]; Available from: https://wwwn.cdc.gov/Nchs/Nhanes/2011-2012/PAXHD_G.htm.
  36. Ogden C.L., Carroll M.D., Fakhouri T.H., Hales C.M., Fryar C.D., Li X., Freedman D.S. Prevalence of Obesity Among Youths by Household Income and Education Level of Head of Household - United States 2011–2014. MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly Rep. 2018;67(6):186–189. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6706a3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Pettee K.K., Brach J.S., Kriska A.M., Boudreau R., Richardson C.R., Colbert L.H., et al. Influence of marital status on physical activity levels among older adults. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2006;38:541–546. doi: 10.1249/01.mss.0000191346.95244.f7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee. 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee Scientific Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services2018.
  39. Puciato D., Rozpara M. Physical activity and socio-economic status of single and married urban adults: a cross-sectional study. PeerJ. 2021;9:e12466. doi: 10.7717/peerj.12466. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Sallis J.F., Prochaska J.J., Taylor W.C. A review of correlates of physical activity of children and adolescents. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2000;32:963–975. doi: 10.1097/00005768-200005000-00014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Schoeppe S., Vandelanotte C., Rebar A.L., Hayman M., Duncan M.J., Alley S.J. Do singles or couples live healthier lifestyles? Trends in Queensland between 2005–2014. PLoS ONE. 2018;13:e0192584. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0192584. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Schrempft S., Jackowska M., Hamer M., Steptoe A. Associations between social isolation, loneliness, and objective physical activity in older men and women. BMC Public Health. 2019;19:74. doi: 10.1186/s12889-019-6424-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Smith L., Hamer M., Ucci M., Marmot A., Gardner B., Sawyer A., Wardle J., Fisher A. Weekday and weekend patterns of objectively measured sitting, standing, and stepping in a sample of office-based workers: the active buildings study. BMC Public Health. 2015;15(1) doi: 10.1186/s12889-014-1338-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Smith L., McCourt O., Sawyer A., Ucci M., Marmot A., Wardle J., et al. A review of occupational physical activity and sedentary behaviour correlates. Occup. Med. 2016;66:185–192. doi: 10.1093/occmed/kqv164. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Sobal J., Hanson K. Marital Status And Physical Activity In U. S. Adults. Int. J. Sociol. Fam. 2010;36:181–198. [Google Scholar]
  46. Steele R.M., van Sluijs E.MF., Sharp S.J., Landsbaugh J.R., Ekelund U., Griffin S.J. An investigation of patterns of children's sedentary and vigorous physical activity throughout the week. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Activity. 2010;7(1):88. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-7-88. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Sterdt E., Liersch S., Walter U. Correlates of physical activity of children and adolescents: A systematic review of reviews. Health Educ. J. 2014;73(1):72–89. [Google Scholar]
  48. To Q.G., Gallegos D., Do D.V., Tran H.T.M., To K.G., Wharton L., Trost S.G. The level and pattern of physical activity among fifth-grade students in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. Public Health. 2018;160:18–25. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2018.03.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. To Q.G., Gallegos D., Do D.V., Tran H.TM., To K.G., Wharton L., Trost S.G. Correlates of Physical Activity in Fifth-Grade Students in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. Sports Med. Health Sci. 2020;2(1):33–37. doi: 10.1016/j.smhs.2020.02.002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. To Q.G., Wharton L., Gallegos D., Stylianou M., Do D.V., To K.G., et al. School-based physical education: Physical activity and implementation barriers in Vietnamese elementary schools. Eur. Phys. Educ. Rev. 2020;26:587–606. [Google Scholar]
  51. To Q.G., Do D.V., To K.G., Gallegos D. After-school Tutoring, Electronic Device Availability, and Obesity among Fifth-Grade Students in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. Asia Pacific J. Public Health. 2021;33:93–99. doi: 10.1177/1010539520968465. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Troiano R.P., Berrigan D., Dodd K.W., Mâsse L.C., Tilert T., McDowell M. Physical activity in the United States measured by accelerometer. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2008;40:181–188. doi: 10.1249/mss.0b013e31815a51b3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Trost S.G., Pate R.R., Freedson P.S., Sallis J.F., Taylor W.C. Using objective physical activity measures with youth: how many days of monitoring are needed? Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2000;32:426–431. doi: 10.1097/00005768-200002000-00025. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Van der Horst K., Paw M., Twisk J.W., Van Mechelen W. A brief review on correlates of physical activity and sedentariness in youth. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2007;39:1241–1250. doi: 10.1249/mss.0b013e318059bf35. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Van Domelen D.R., Koster A., Caserotti P., Brychta R.J., Chen K.Y., McClain J.J., et al. Employment and physical activity in the U.S. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2011;41:136–145. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2011.03.019. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. van Uffelen J.G.Z., Khan A., Burton N.W. Gender differences in physical activity motivators and context preferences: a population-based study in people in their sixties. BMC Public Health. 2017;17:624. doi: 10.1186/s12889-017-4540-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Vandelanotte C., Short C., Rockloff M., Millia L.D., Ronan K., Happell B., et al. How Do Different Occupational Factors Influence Total, Occupational, and Leisure-Time Physical Activity? J. Phys. Activity Health. 2015;12:200–207. doi: 10.1123/jpah.2013-0098. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Wennman H., Pietilä A., Rissanen H., Valkeinen H., Partonen T., Mäki-Opas T., et al. Gender, age and socioeconomic variation in 24-hour physical activity by wrist-worn accelerometers: the FinHealth 2017 Survey. Sci. Rep. 2019;9:6534. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-43007-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Wilkin T.J., Mallam K.M., Metcalf B.S., Jeffery A.N., Voss L.D. Variation in physical activity lies with the child, not his environment: evidence for an ‘activitystat’ in young children (EarlyBird 16) Int. J. Obes. 2006;30(7):1050–1055. doi: 10.1038/sj.ijo.0803331. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Wong S.-S., Huang W.Y., He G. Longitudinal changes in objectively measured physical activity differ for weekdays and weekends among Chinese children in Hong Kong. BMC Public Health. 2015;15(1) doi: 10.1186/s12889-015-2618-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Zosel K., Monroe C., Hunt E., Laflamme C., Brazendale K., Weaver R.G. Examining adolescents’ obesogenic behaviors on structured days: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. J. Obes. 2022;46(3):466–475. doi: 10.1038/s41366-021-01040-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

The data are publicly available at https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/Default.aspx.

Articles from Preventive Medicine Reports are provided here courtesy of Elsevier

RESOURCES