Cited by 977Physical Activity and HealthContext-Aware Activity Recognition SystemsObesity, Physical Activity, Diet

Physical Activity in U.S. Adults

Tucker, Jared M., Welk, Gregory J., Beyler, Nicholas K.·2011·American Journal of Preventive Medicine

Abstract

Background To date, no study has objectively measured physical activity levels among U.S. adults according to the 2008 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans (PAGA).Purpose The purpose of this study was to assess self-reported and objectively measured physical activity among U.S. adults according to the PAGA.Methods Using data from the NHANES 2005-2006, the PAGA were assessed using three physical activity calculations: moderate plus vigorous physical activity ≥150 minutes/week (MVPA); moderate plus two instances of vigorous physical activity ≥150 minutes/week (M2VPA); and time spent above 3 METs ≥500 MET-minutes/week (METPA). Self-reported physical activity included leisure, transportation, and household activities. Objective activity was measured using Actigraph accelerometers that were worn for 7 consecutive days. Analyses were conducted in 2009-2010.Results U.S. adults reported 324.5 ± 18.6 minutes/week (M ± SE) of moderate physical activity and 73.6 ± 3.9 minutes/week of vigorous physical activity, although accelerometry estimates were 45.1 ± 4.6 minutes/week of moderate physical activity and 18.6 ± 6.6 minutes/week of vigorous physical activity. The proportion of adults meeting the PAGA according to M2VPA was 62.0% for self-report and 9.6% for accelerometry.Conclusions According to the NHANES 2005-2006, fewer than 10% of U.S. adults met the PAGA according to accelerometry. However, physical activity estimates vary substantially depending on whether self-reported or measured via accelerometer.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.amepre.2010.12.016

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tucker, J. M., Welk, G. J., & Beyler, N. K.
Affiliations
  • North Dakota State University (US)
  • Iowa State University (US)
  • Mathematica Policy Research (US)
Corresponding author
Tucker, Jared M.
Venue
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-04
Volume
40
Issue
4
Pages
454-461
ISSN
0749-3797 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1547422201
Cited by
977
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 49 · 2023: 45 · 2022: 53 · 2021: 64 · 2020: 69 · 2019: 133 · 2018: 74 · 2017: 106 · 2016: 77 · 2015: 86 · 2014: 85 · 2013: 62 · 2012: 33
FWCI
41.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Journal of Preventive Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Context-Aware Activity Recognition Systems
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Obesity, Physical Activity, Diet
Keywords
physical activity, Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans, moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, self-reported physical activity, accelerometer-measured activity, physical activity guidelines adherence, NHANES, adults, MET-minutes, leisure-time physical activity
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Data Collection, Health Surveys, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, United States, Exercise, Guidelines as Topic, Guideline Adherence, Young Adult, Actigraphy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review