The association between time spent in sedentary behaviors and blood pressure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Interrupting prolonged sitting with brief bouts of light walking or simple resistance activities reduces resting blood pressure and plasma noradrenaline in type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE

Prolonged sitting is increasingly recognized as a ubiquitous cardiometabolic risk factor, possibly distinct from lack of physical exercise. We examined whether interrupting prolonged sitting with brief bouts of light-intensity activity reduced blood pressure (BP) and plasma noradrenaline in type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODS

In a randomized crossover trial, 24 inactive overweight/obese adults with T2D (14 men; mean ± SD; 62 ± 6 years) consumed standardized meals during 3 × 8 h conditions: uninterrupted sitting (SIT); sitting + half-hourly bouts of walking (3.2 km/h for 3-min) (light-intensity walking); and sitting + half-hourly bouts of simple resistance activities for 3 min (SRAs), each separated by 6-14 days washout. Resting seated BP was measured hourly (mean of three recordings, ≥20-min postactivity). Plasma noradrenaline was measured at 30-min intervals for the first hour after meals and hourly thereafter.

RESULTS

Compared with SIT, mean resting SBP and DBP were significantly reduced (P < 0.001) for both light-intensity walking (mean ± SEM; -14 ± 1/-8 ± 1 mmHg) and SRA (-16 ± 1/-10 ± 1 mmHg), with a more pronounced effect for SRA (P < 0.05 versus light-intensity walking). Similarly, mean plasma noradrenaline was significantly reduced for both light-intensity walking (-0.3 ± 0.1 nmol/l) and SRA (-0.6 ± 0.1 nmol/l) versus SIT, with SRA lower than light-intensity walking (P < 0.05). Mean resting heart rate was lowered by light-intensity walking (-3 ± 1 bpm; P < 0.05), but not SRA (-1 ± 1 bpm).

CONCLUSION

Interrupting prolonged sitting with brief bouts of light-intensity walking or SRA reduces resting BP and plasma noradrenaline in adults with T2D, with SRA being more effective. Given the ubiquity of sedentary behaviors and poor adherence to structured exercise, this approach may have important implications for BP management in patients with T2D.

The association between seven-day objectively measured habitual physical activity and 24 h ambulatory blood pressure: the SABPA study

Few studies have examined objective physical activity in relation to 24 h ambulatory blood pressure (BP). We aimed to assess the association of 7-day objectively measured habitual physical activity with ambulatory BP in a sample of African and Caucasian school teachers (n=216, age 49.7 years) from the sympathetic activity and blood pressure in Africans prospective cohort study. Hypertension (ambulatory systolic BP⩾130 and/or diastolic BP⩾80 mm Hg) was prevalent in 53.2% of the sample, particularly in black Africans. The hypertensive group spent significantly more awake time in sedentary activity (51.5% vs 40.8% of waking hours, P=0.001), as well as doing less light- (34.1% vs 38.9%, P=0.043) and moderate-intensity (14.0% vs 19.7%, P=0.032) activities compared with normotensives, respectively. In covariate adjusted models, light-intensity activity time was associated with lower 24 h and daytime ambulatory systolic BP (β=-0.15, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.26, -0.05, P=0.004; β=-0.14, CI: -0.24, -0.03, P=0.011) and diastolic BP (β=-0.14, CI: -0.25, -0.03, P=0.015; β=-0.13, CI: -0.24, -0.01, P=0.030), as well as resting systolic BP (β=-0.13, CI: -0.24, -0.01, P=0.028). Sedentary time was associated only with 24 h systolic BP (β=0.12; CI: 0.01, 0.22), which was largely driven by night-time recordings. Participants in the upper sedentary tertile were more likely to be 'non-dippers' (odds ratio=2.11, 95% CI: 0.99, 4.46, P=0.052) compared with the lowest sedentary tertile. There were no associations between moderate to vigorous activity and BP. In conclusion, objectively assessed daily light physical activity was associated with ambulatory BP in a mixed ethnic sample.

An evidence-update on the prospective relationship between childhood sedentary behaviour and biomedical health indicators: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Evidence for adverse health effects of excessive sedentary behaviour in children is predominantly based on cross-sectional studies, measuring TV viewing as proxy for sedentary behaviour. This systematic review and meta-analysis summarizes the evidence on the prospective relationship between childhood sedentary behaviour and biomedical health indicators, overall and stratified by type of sedentary behaviour (TV viewing, computer use/games, screen time and objective sedentary time). PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO and Cochrane were systematically searched till January 2015. Methodological quality of all included studies was scored, and a best evidence synthesis was applied. We included 109 studies of which 19 were of high quality. We found moderate-to-strong evidence for a relationship of overall sedentary time with some anthropometrics (overweight/obesity, weight-for-height), one cardiometabolic biomarker (HDL-cholesterol) and some fitness indicators (fitness, being unfit). For other health indicators, we found no convincing evidence because of inconsistent or non-significant findings. The evidence varied by type of sedentary behaviour. The meta-analysis indicated that each additional baseline hour of TV viewing (β = 0.01, 95%CI = [-0.002; 0.02]) or computer use (β = 0.00, 95%CI = [-0.004; 0.01]) per day was not significantly related with BMI at follow-up. We conclude that the evidence for a prospective relationship between childhood sedentary behaviour and biomedical health is in general unconvincing.

Where to Sit? Type of Sitting Matters for the Framingham Cardiovascular Risk Score

Background

Current evidence on associations of type-specific sedentary behavior with cardiovascular disease (CVD) is limited to mainly screen-time sedentary behavior (SB). We aimed to study the associations of type-specific and total time spent sitting with the Framingham 10-year cardiovascular disease risk score (Framingham score) in Finnish adults.

Methods

Data comprise the National FINRISK 2007 and 2012 health examination surveys with 10,185 participants aged 25–74 years, apparently free of CVD. Participants reported average daily time spent sitting in different locations: work-related sitting, at home in front of television (TV), at home in front of computer, in a vehicle, and elsewhere. Total SB time was calculated from these context-specific self-reports. Accelerometer-based sedentary time was assessed in 988 FINRISK 2012 participants. Framingham score was calculated using information on blood pressure and its medication, cholesterol levels, age, diabetes status, and smoking. Analyses were adjusted for age, study year, education, employment status, leisure time physical activity, and body mass index.

Results

Out of several type-specific sitting behaviors, only TV sitting showed systematic associations with the Framingham score in both genders. The lowest Framingham risk was found for TV sitting from 6 minutes to less than 1 hour daily. Of other types of sitting, computer sitting was inversely associated with the Framingham risk in men only. Total self-reported sitting time did not show significant associations with the Framingham score, but instead higher objectively assessed sedentary time showed higher Framingham risk in men.

Conclusions

TV sitting showed most systematic associations with CVD risk score. This suggests that of all types of SB, reducing TV sitting should be targeted for reducing CVD risk.

Examining Non-Linear Associations between Accelerometer-Measured Physical Activity, Sedentary Behavior, and All-Cause Mortality Using Segmented Cox Regression

Healthy adults are advised to perform at least 150 min of moderate-intensity physical activity weekly, but this advice is based on studies using self-reports of questionable validity. This study examined the dose-response relationship of accelerometer-measured physical activity and sedentary behaviors on all-cause mortality using segmented Cox regression to empirically determine the break-points of the dose-response relationship. Data from 7006 adult participants aged 18 or above in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey waves 2003-2004 and 2005-2006 were included in the analysis and linked with death certificate data using a probabilistic matching approach in the National Death Index through December 31, 2011. Physical activity and sedentary behavior were measured using ActiGraph model 7164 accelerometer over the right hip for 7 consecutive days. Each minute with accelerometer count <100; 1952-5724; and ≥5725 were classified as sedentary, moderate-intensity physical activity, and vigorous-intensity physical activity, respectively. Segmented Cox regression was used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) of time spent in sedentary behaviors, moderate-intensity physical activity, and vigorous-intensity physical activity and all-cause mortality, adjusted for demographic characteristics, health behaviors, and health conditions. Data were analyzed in 2016. During 47,119 person-year of follow-up, 608 deaths occurred. Each additional hour per day of sedentary behaviors was associated with a HR of 1.15 (95% CI 1.01, 1.31) among participants who spend at least 10.9 h per day on sedentary behaviors, and each additional minute per day spent on moderate-intensity physical activity was associated with a HR of 0.94 (95% CI 0.91, 0.96) among participants with daily moderate-intensity physical activity ≤14.1 min. Associations of moderate physical activity and sedentary behaviors on all-cause mortality were independent of each other. To conclude, evidence from this study supported at least 15 min per day of moderate-intensity physical activity and no more than 10.9 h per day of sedentary behaviors as recommendations to reduce all-cause mortality.

Acceptability and feasibility of a low-cost, theory-based and co-produced intervention to reduce workplace sitting time in desk-based university employees

BACKGROUND

Prolonged sedentary time is linked with poor health, independent of physical activity levels. Workplace sitting significantly contributes to sedentary time, but there is limited research evaluating low-cost interventions targeting reductions in workplace sitting. Current evidence supports the use of multi-modal interventions developed using participative approaches. This study aimed to explore the acceptability and feasibility of a low-cost, co-produced, multi-modal intervention to reduce workplace sitting.

METHODS

The intervention was developed with eleven volunteers from a large university department in the UK using participative approaches and "brainstorming" techniques. Main components of the intervention included: emails suggesting ways to "sit less" e.g. walking and standing meetings; free reminder software to install onto computers; social media to increase awareness; workplace champions; management support; and point-of-decision prompts e.g. by lifts encouraging stair use. All staff (n = 317) were invited to take part. Seventeen participated in all aspects of the evaluation, completing pre- and post-intervention sitting logs and questionnaires. The intervention was delivered over four weeks from 7th July to 3rd August 2014. Pre- and post-intervention difference in daily workplace sitting time was presented as a mean ± standard deviation. Questionnaires were used to establish awareness of the intervention and its various elements, and to collect qualitative data regarding intervention acceptability and feasibility.

RESULTS

Mean baseline sitting time of 440 min/workday was reported with a mean reduction of 26 ± 54 min/workday post-intervention (n = 17, 95 % CI = -2 to 53). All participants were aware of the intervention as a whole, although there was a range of awareness for individual elements of the intervention. The intervention was generally felt to be both acceptable and feasible. Management support was perceived to be a strength, whilst specific strategies that were encouraged, including walking and standing meetings, received mixed feedback.

CONCLUSIONS

This small-scale pilot provides encouragement for the acceptability and feasibility of low-cost, multi-modal interventions to reduce workplace sitting in UK settings. Evaluation of this intervention provides useful information to support participatory approaches during intervention development and the potential for more sustainable low-cost interventions. Findings may be limited in terms of generalisability as this pilot was carried out within a health-related academic setting.