Elsevier

Preventive Medicine

Volume 53, Issues 1–2, July–August 2011, Pages 48-52
Preventive Medicine

A physically active occupation does not result in compensatory inactivity during out-of-work hours

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2011.04.018Get rights and content

Abstract

Aim

To examine differences in non-occupational physical activity behaviour in workers who engage in high and low occupational physical activity.

Design

Cross-sectional survey of 112 otherwise comparable volunteers in active (56 walking postal delivery workers) or inactive (56 administrative postal workers) occupations in Glasgow (Scotland) in 2007.

Methods

Twenty four-hour physical activity (steps and time standing, walking and sedentary) patterns were measured using activPAL™ for seven days. Comparisons were made during 8-hour work-shifts, during non-work hours on work-days and during the 2 non-work days.

Results

Age and body mass index of delivery and office staff, respectively, were (means (SD)) 38 (9) years versus 40 (7) years and 26.3 (3) kg m 2 versus 27.4 (4) kg m 2. Delivery staff spent substantially longer time than office staff upright (6.0 (1.1) h versus 3.9 (1.5) h) and walking (3.1 (0.7) h versus 1.6 (0.7) h) and amassed more steps (16,035 (4264) versus 6709 (2808)) during 8-hour work-shifts and over 24 h on work days. During non-work hours of work-days and during non-work days, there were no significant differences in physical activity between the groups. The results were unchanged when the 15 women were excluded.

Conclusion

Having a more active occupation is not associated with more inactivity during non-work hours.

Highlights

► We examine association between occupational and non-occupational physical activity. ► Workers who engage in high and low occupational physical activity were compared. ► We found that the physically active workers were more active only during work. ► The active occupation group did not engage in more inactivity during non-work hours. ► There is no greater compensatory inactivity with a more active occupation.

Introduction

The contribution of physical inactivity to common diseases and mortality is well known (UK Department of Health, Physical Activity, Health Improvement and Prevention, 2004). Time spent inactive has negative health effects which remain even if the same individual also takes some exercise (Bey and Hamilton, 2003, Healy et al., 2008). Inactivity costs the UK tax payer £8.2 billion a year (UK Department of Health, Physical Activity, Health Improvement and Prevention, 2004). Worryingly, efforts to increase physical activity (PA) through population-directed health promotion have largely failed, with PA falling: the average UK adult walked only 192 mi/year in 2003 compared to 255 mi in 1975/76 (Department for Transport, 2005).

Opportunities for PA, or inactivity, arise during transport, occupation, house work and in leisure time. Fewer people use active transport, and service-based economies imply fewer jobs requiring PA. Labour-saving technologies, reliance on motorised transport and home entertainments that mitigate against manual work, walking, cycling and sports, and workplace policies are not reducing sedentary time or increasing activity (Health Development Agency, 2004). Reduced occupational PA has not led to compensatory increases during leisure-time (Fox and Hillsdon, 2007, Jans et al., 2007, Parsons et al., 2009, Wolin and Bennett, 2008). Self-reported data suggest that blue-collar workers engaged in less leisure-time PA (Burton and Turrell, 2000, Caban-Martinez et al., 2007, Salmon et al., 2000). Among New Zealanders, active transport and passive recreation increased steps at work (Schofield et al., 2005) while among Dutch workers, greater occupational activity was associated with lower transportation PA (Proper and Hildebrandt, 2006).

How occupational activity influences total PA is unclear. Workers in occupations with more upright activity might compensate by sitting more during leisure time, and those with more sedentary work might compensate with more leisure-time activity. However, there may be job selection, whereby overall active and fitter individuals choose more physically active jobs. Alternatively, people in active occupations become adapted to PA and those in inactive occupations to sedentariness.

The present study investigated whether individuals with physically active jobs compensate with inactivity or remain more active than sedentary workers, after work and during non-work days.

Section snippets

Methods

A cross-sectional study was designed to compare the 24-hour PA patterns of adults with either physically active or inactive occupations in 2007. Walking delivery postal workers (active group) and office-bound administrative postal workers (inactive group) were recruited by local advertising, without incentive from Royal Mail Group, Glasgow, Scotland. Free-living PA was measured over 7 days (including 2 non-work days) using the activPAL™ monitor (PAL Technologies Ltd., Glasgow, UK).

The staff

Results

The 2 occupational groups were of comparable age and BMI: mean (SD) 38 (9) years for delivery staff and 40 (7) years for office staff, 26.3 (3) kg m−2 for the delivery staff and 27.4 (4) kg m−2 for the office staff.

Discussion

The present study employed novel technology to measure objectively a range of parameters of PA and inactivity under free-living conditions, over 7 days. Occupationally active delivery staff were more active than office staff during their working hours but not during non-work hours and on non-work days. Importantly, after an active day's work or during their days off work, the active occupation group did not engage in more sedentary activity than the sedentary occupation group.

As normal human

Conclusion

Having a physically active occupation is not associated with lower activity, or greater inactivity, during non-work hours or non-work days. It therefore appears that there is no compensatory inactivity with a more active occupation. This conclusion offers support for a health promotion intervention to increase PA in the workplace, or perhaps in transport, as a way of increasing total PA throughout working life.

Conflict of interest statement

This research was funded by Glasgow Caledonian University as part of a PhD project. Although Professor Malcolm Granat is a director of PAL Technologies Ltd., this research is not intended in any way to promote the activPAL™ monitor or the company. Professor Mike Lean and Dr. William Tigbe have no conflicts of interest to declare.

References (26)

  • C. Tudor-Locke et al.

    How many days of pedometer monitoring predict weekly physical activity in adults?

    Prev. Med.

    (2005)
  • L. Bey et al.

    Suppression of skeletal muscle lipoprotein lipase activity during physical inactivity: a molecular reason to maintain daily low-intensity activity

    J. Physiol.

    (2003)
  • National Travel Survey 2004

    (2005)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text