CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 61Physical Activity and HealthCardiovascular and exercise physiologyContext-Aware Activity Recognition Systems

Confusion and Conflict in Assessing the Physical Activity Status of Middle-Aged Men

Open access
Thompson, Dylan, Batterham, Alan M., Markovitch, Daniella, Dixon, Natalie C., Lund, Adam J. S., Walhin, Jean-Philippe·2009·PLoS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0004337PMC PMC2629570
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Physical activity (including exercise) is prescribed for health and there are various recommendations that can be used to gauge physical activity status. The objective of the current study was to determine whether twelve commonly-used physical activity recommendations similarly classified middle-aged men as sufficiently active for general health. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We examined the commonality in the classification of physical activity status between twelve variations of physical activity recommendations for general health in ninety men aged 45-64 years. Physical activity was assessed using synchronised accelerometry and heart rate. Using different guidelines but the same raw data, the proportion of men defined as active ranged from to 11% to 98% for individual recommendations (median 73%, IQR 30% to 87%). There was very poor absolute agreement between the recommendations, with an intraclass correlation coefficient (A,1) of 0.24 (95% CI, 0.15 to 0.34). Only 8% of men met all 12 recommendations and would therefore be unanimously classified as active and only one man failed to meet every recommendation and would therefore be unanimously classified as not sufficiently active. The wide variability in physical activity classification was explained by ostensibly subtle differences between the 12 recommendations for thresholds related to activity volume (time or energy), distribution (e.g., number of days of the week), moderate intensity cut-point (e.g., 3 vs. 4 metabolic equivalents or METs), and duration (including bout length). CONCLUSIONS: Physical activity status varies enormously depending on the physical activity recommendation that is applied and even ostensibly small differences have a major impact. Approximately nine out of every ten men in the present study could be variably described as either active or not sufficiently active. Either the effective dose or prescription that underlies each physical activity recommendation is different or each recommendation is seeking the same prescriptive outcome but with variable success.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0004337

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • Estimates of active time ranged from 818 ± 88 min (Apple, Total Active Time) to 70 ± 59 min (Fitbit, Active Minutes).

    “Estimates ranged from 818 ± 88 min (Apple, “Total Active Time”) to 70 ± 59 min (Fitbit, “Active Minutes”) illustrating that individuals already attempting to establish physical activity status against a plethora of physical activity benchmarks [49] may easily be confused by such variable estimates for ostensibly similar outcomes.”

    From Assessment of laboratory and daily energy expenditure estimates from consumer multi-sensor physical activity monitors (2017) · cites this paper as [49]

  • Depending on the specific criteria used from physical activity guidelines and the analytical decisions made, it is possible to describe the same individual as 'active' but also 'inactive'.

    “For example, depending on the specific criteria used from physical activity guidelines, and the analytical decisions made, it is possible to describe the same individual as “active” but also “inactive” (i.e., failing to meet physical activity recommendations) (Thompson et al. 2009).”

    From Is immunosenescence influenced by our lifetime “dose” of exercise? (2016) · cites this paper as Thompson et al. 2009

  • Using precise and sensitive activity monitors might seem robust, but there are a number of considerations when interpreting this information.

    “Although using precise and sensitive activity monitors might seem robust, there are a number of considerations when interpreting this information (Thompson and Batterham 2013; Thompson et al. 2009).”

    From Is immunosenescence influenced by our lifetime “dose” of exercise? (2016) · cites this paper as Thompson et al. 2009

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 45 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [11]American College of Sports Medicine 2008 Exercise is Medicine: Calling on every physician to assess and review every patients physical activity program at every visit. Indianapolis: ACSM. http://www.exerciseismedicine.org Accessed 19/02/08, 2007

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Thompson, D., Batterham, A. M., Markovitch, D., Dixon, N. C., Lund, A. J. S., & Walhin, J.-P.
Affiliations
  • University of Bath (GB)
  • Teesside University (GB)
Corresponding author
Thompson, Dylan
ORCID
Venue
PLoS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2009-02-02
Volume
4
Issue
2
Pages
e4337
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0004337
PMC
PMC2629570
OpenAlex
W2023864386
Cited by
61
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 7
FWCI
3.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • TeesRep (Teesside University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • The University of Bath Online Publications Store (The University of Bath) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Economic and Social Research Council (ES/G007470/1)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Cardiovascular and exercise physiology
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Context-Aware Activity Recognition Systems
Keywords
physical activity guidelines, middle-aged men, accelerometry, heart rate monitoring, metabolic equivalents, bout duration, exercise prescription, health guidelines
MeSH terms
Conflict, Psychological, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Motor Activity, Health Behavior, Exercise, Body Mass Index

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