Cited by 52Physical Activity and HealthBehavioral Health and InterventionsSports and Physical Education Studies

‘SnacktivityTM’ to increase physical activity: Time to try something different?

Open access
Sanders, James P., Biddle, Stuart J.H., Gokal, Kajal, Sherar, Lauren B., Skrybant, Magdalena, Parretti, Helen M., Ives, Natalie, Yates, Thomas +2 more·2021·Preventive Medicine

Abstract

Evidence demonstrates that participation in regular physical activity (PA) reduces the risk of morbidity and mortality. However, current PA guidelines are focused on weekly accumulation of 150 min of moderate intensity PA as a threshold. Although recent developments of this guidance have discussed the merits of short bouts of physical activity, guidance that sets large behavioural goals for PA has not been successful in supporting the public to become sufficiently physically active and a 'one-size fits all' approach to PA guidelines may not be optimal. A complementary 'whole day' approach to PA promotion (i.e. incorporating PA throughout the day) that could motivate the population to be more physically active, is a concept we have called 'Snacktivity™'. The Snacktivity™ approach promotes small or 'bite' size bouts (e.g. 2-5 min) of PA accumulated throughout the whole day. Snacktivity™ is consistent with the small change approach which suggest that behaviour change and habit formation are best achieved through gradual building of task self-efficacy, celebrating small successes. Snacktivity™ also offers opportunities to "piggyback" on to existing behaviours/habits, using them as prompts for Snacktivity™. Moreover, small behaviour changes are easier to initiate and maintain than larger ones. A plethora of evidence supports the hypothesis that Snacktivity may be a more acceptable and effective way to help the public reach, or exceed current PA guidelines. This paper outlines the evidence to support the Snacktivity™ approach and the mechanisms by which it may increase population levels of physical activity. Future research directions for Snacktivity™ are also outlined.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ypmed.2021.106851

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Physical activity snacks (short bouts of moderate to vigorous physical activity lasting 2-5 min) have benefits for BMI, preservation of skeletal muscle mass, muscle strength, cardiorespiratory fitness, and insulin resistance.

    “There are benefits for BMI [245], the preservation of skeletal muscle mass, muscle strength, cardiorespiratory fitness [246], and insulin resistance [247].”

    From Lifestyle Medicine for Obesity in the Era of Highly Effective Anti-Obesity Treatment (2025) · cites this paper as [246]

    Citation [246] attaches to skeletal muscle preservation, muscle strength, and cardiorespiratory fitness; the BMI and insulin-resistance claims have separate citations. In “Every minute counts,” the paper reports improved aerobic fitness after brief bouts of activity. In “How might Snacktivity™ work to improve population health?”, it proposes short muscle-strengthening activities, but does not report that these bouts preserve skeletal muscle mass or improve muscle strength. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 23 · Cited by 52

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee. 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee Scientific Report.; 2018. doi:10.1115/1.802878.ch1 · DOI

Authors
Sanders, J. P., Biddle, S. J. H., Gokal, K., Sherar, L. B., Skrybant, M., Parretti, H. M., Ives, N., Yates, T., Mutrie, N., & Daley, A. J.
Affiliations
  • Loughborough University (GB)
  • University of Southern Queensland (AU)
  • University of Warwick (GB)
  • University of East Anglia (GB)
  • University of Birmingham (GB)
  • University of Leicester (GB)
  • University of Edinburgh (GB)
Corresponding author
Daley, Amanda J.
Venue
Preventive Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-12
Volume
153
Pages
106851
ISSN
0091-7435 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3206942392
Cited by
52
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 8
FWCI
4.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Preventive Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UEA Digital Repository (University of East Anglia) (submittedVersion)
  • Loughborough University Research Repository (Loughborough University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
NIHR
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Life-span and Life-course Studies › Sports and Physical Education Studies
Keywords
physical activity promotion, physical activity guidelines, habit formation, behavior change, self-efficacy, physical activity thresholds
MeSH terms
Habits, Humans, Exercise, Self Efficacy, Sedentary Behavior

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