-
Of the 4,685 participants included in the study, 825 (17.6%) had MetS at baseline in 2009 and 1,188 (25.6%) had MetS in 2015. Table 1 shows the baseline characteristics between the MetS group and the non-MetS group in 2009. We found significant differences between the non-MetS group and MetS group in terms of age, gender, region, education, dietary intake, regular drinking, TV time, and MVPA levels. The MetS group was more likely to be older, male, urban residents, primary school or below, regular drinker, TV time ≥ 28 h/w, non-MVPA, and higher protein and Na intake, but less likely to be middle school, TV time < 7 h/w, in the highest tertile of MVPA, and lower carbohydrate intake.
Table 1. Baseline characteristics of the study populations stratified by MetS in 2009
Parameters Total (4,685) Normal (n = 3,860) MetS (n = 825) P Average age (years)* 51.4 ± 13.0 50.6 ± 13.1 55.2 ± 11.7 < 0.001 Age group (n, %) 18−34 4,959 (10.6) 457 (11.8) 38 (4.6) < 0.001 35−44 992 (21.2) 866 (22.4) 126 (15.3) < 0.001 45−54 1,291 (27.6) 1,062 (27.5) 229 (27.8) 0.382 55−64 1,185 (25.3) 926 (24.0) 259 (31.4) < 0.001 65− 722 (15.4) 549 (14.2) 173 (21.0) < 0.001 Gender (n, %) 0.015 Male 2,104 (44.9) 1,694 (43.9) 410 (49.7) Female 2,581 (55.1) 2,166 (56.1) 415 (50.3) Region (n, %) 0.031 City 1,334 (28.5) 1,060 (27.5) 274 (33.2) Country 3,351 (71.5) 2,800 (72.5) 551 (66.8) Education (n, %) Primary school/below 2,153 (46.0) 1,754 (45.4) 399 (48.4) 0.007 Middle school 1,571 (33.5) 1,313 (34.0) 258 (31.3) 0.002 High school/above 961 (20.5) 793 (20.6) 168 (20.4) 0.934 Annual per capital family income (yuan) (n, %) < 10,000 2,295 (49.0) 1,888 (48.9) 407 (49.3) 0.056 10,000−20,000 1,195 (25.5) 1,020 (26.4) 175 (21.2) 0.073 ≥ 20,000 1,195 (25.5) 952 (24.7) 243 (29.5) 0.114 Dietary intake* Carbohydrate (g/day) 298.0 ± 111.1 299.8 ± 109.9 289.8 ± 116.2 0.004 Protein (g/day) 68.1 ± 25.4 67.9 ± 25.2 69.2 ± 26.4 0.011 Fat (g/day) 79.1 ± 41.4 79.2 ± 40.7 78.9 ± 44.4 0.109 Cholesterol (g/day) 263.3 ± 209.9 262.5 ± 209.7 267.0 ± 211.0 0.586 Na (mg/day) 5275.5 ± 4533.8 5184.0 ± 4392.5 5704.3 ± 5125.9 0.047 Kcal (kcal/day) 2234.7 ± 716.1 2,240.8 ± 710.5 2206.1 ± 742.0 0.292 Current smoker (n, %) 1,427 (30.5) 1,160 (30.1) 267 (32.4) 0.201 Regular drinking (n, %) 1,328 (28.4) 1,068 (27.7) 260 (31.5) 0.008 Sleep time (h/day)* 7.7 ± 2.2 7.7 ± 2.2 7.7 ± 2.0 0.566 Leisure ST (h/w) (n, %) TV time < 10.5 1,491 (31.8) 1,263 (32.7) 228 (27.6) 0.012 10.5−17.5 1,666 (35.6) 1,386 (35.9) 280 (33.9) 0.071 17.5−28 889 (19.0) 717 (18.6) 172 (20.9) 1.319 ≥ 28 63 (13.6) 494 (12.8) 145 (17.6) 0.024 Computer time 0.186 < 7 4,280 (91.4) 3,536 (91.6) 744 (90.2) ≥ 7 405 (8.6) 324 (8.4) 81 (9.8) Reading time 0.295 < 7 4,307 (91.9) 3,556 (92.1) 751 (91.0) ≥ 7 378 (8.1) 304 (7.9) 74 (9.0) Total leisure ST < 14 1,474 (31.5) 1,252 (32.4) 222 (26.9) < 0.001 14−21 1,444 (30.8) 1,187 (30.8) 257 (31.2) 0.337 21−35 1,259 (26.9) 1,029 (26.7) 230 (27.9) 0.216 ≥ 35 508 (10.8) 392 (10.2) 116 (14.1) < 0.001 Total time Physical activity (METs.h/w) (n, %) LPA Low (< 18.6) 1,392 (29.7) 1,159 (30.0) 233 (28.2) 0.777 Medium (18.6−53.7) 1,671 (35.7) 1,352 (35.0) 319 (38.7) 0.854 High (≥ 53.7) 1,622 (34.6) 1,349 (35.0) 273 (33.1) 0.71 MVPA Low (= 0) 1,918 (40.9) 1,502 (38.9) 416 (50.4) < 0.001 Medium (0−61.0) 1,048 (22.4) 850 (22.2) 198 (24.0) 0.21 High (≥ 61.0) 1,719 (36.7) 1,508 (39.1) 211 (25.6) < 0.001 Total PA Low (< 46.6) 1,374 (29.3) 1,075 (27.9) 299 (36.2) < 0.001 Medium (46.6−147.2) 1,598 (34.1) 1,286 (33.3) 312 (37.8) 0.54 High (≥ 147.2) 1,713 (36.6) 1,499 (38.8) 214 (25.9) < 0.001 MetS components (n, %) Abnomial obesity 1,634 (34.9) 935 (24.2) 699 (84.7) < 0.001 Hyperglycemia 638 (13.6) 267 (6.9) 371 (45.0) < 0.001 Raised TG 1,507 (32.2) 807 (20.9) 700 (84.9) < 0.001 Reduced HDL_C 618 (13.2) 253 (6.6) 365 (44.2) < 0.001 Raised BP 1,761 (37.6) 1,124 (29.1) 637 (77.2) < 0.001 Note. MetS: metabolic syndrome; PA: physical activity; met: metabolic equivalent; h/w: hours per week; MET: Metabolic equivalent of task; MVPA Moderate-to-vigorous-intensity physical activity; HDL: high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; MET: metabolic equivalent of task; *: means (standard deviations) and conducted an analysis of variance (ANOVA). -
Table 2 shows the association between the risks of MetS and its components and the levels of different types of leisure ST and PA at baseline. After adjusting for all covariates, higher levels of TV time were associated with abdominal obesity (OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.1–1.7, Ptrend < 0.001), hyperglycemia (OR 1.3, 95% CI 1.0–1.7, Ptrend = 0.012), elevated TG (OR 1.3, 95% CI 1.1–1.7, Ptrend = 0.006), and MetS (OR 1.3, 95% CI 1.1–1.6, Ptrend < 0.001). The computer time > 7 h/w group had a higher risk of low HDL-C (OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.1–1.7) and MetS (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.2–1.9) than the computer time < 7 h/w group. A higher level of total leisure ST was associated with abdominal obesity (OR 1.2, 95% CI 1.0–1.5, Ptrend < 0.001), hyperglycemia (OR 1.3, 95% CI 1.0–1.6, P trend < 0.001), elevated TG (OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.2–1.7, Ptrend < 0.001), and MetS (OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.2–1.8, Ptrend < 0.001). The effects of reading level were not significant.
Table 2. Prospective associations of risk of MetS and its components with levels of leisure ST at baseline, OR (95%) CI
Parameters N Abdominal obesity Hyperglycemia Raised TG Reduced HDL_C Raised BP MetS subjects Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Leisure ST (h/w) TV time < 10.5 1,491 ref ref ref ref ref ref ref ref ref ref ref ref 10.5−17.5 1,666 1.1
(0.9, 1.3)1.1
(0.9, 1.3)1.0
(0.8, 1.3)1.0
(0.8, 1.3)1.0
(0.8, 1.2)1.1
(1.0, 1.2)*0.9
(0.7, 1.1)1.0
(0.8, 1.2)1.3
(0.9, 1.6)1.3
(0.9, 1.6)1.0
(0.9, 1.2)1.0
(0.9, 1.2)17.5−28 889 1.2
(1.0, 1.4)*1.2
(1.0, 1.5)*1.1
(0.9, 1.3)1.1
(1.0, 1.3)*1.2
(1.0, 1.4)1.2
(1.0, 1.4)*1.0
(0.8, 1.2)1.0
(0.8, 1.2)1.2
(0.9, 1.4)1.2
(0.9, 1.5)1.3
(1.1, 1.5)**1.2
(1.1, 1.5)**≥ 28 639 1.3
(1.1, 1.6)**1.4
(1.1, 1.7)**1.4
(1.1, 1.8)**1.3
(1.0, 1.7)**1.4
(1.1, 1.7)**1.3
(1.1, 1.7)**1.1
(0.9, 1.4)1.0
(0.8, 1.3)1.0
(0.9, 1.3)1.1
(0.9, 1.3)1.4
(1.2, 1.7)**1.3
(1.1, 1.6)**Ptrend < 0.001 < 0.001 0.001 0.012 < 0.001 0.006 0.347 0.992 0.429 0.566 < 0.001 < 0.001 Computer time < 7 4,280 ref ref ref ref ref ref ref ref ref ref ref ref ≥ 7 405 1.2
(1.0, 1.4)1.2
(1.0, 1.4)1.2
(0.9, 1.5)1.1
(0.9, 1.4)1.7
(1.4, 2.0)**1.5
(0.9, 1.8)1.4
(1.2, 1.7)**1.4
(1.1, 1.7)**1.0
(0.8, 1.2)1.1
(0.9, 1.3)1.6
(1.3, 2.0)**1.5
(1.2, 1.9)**Reading time < 7 4,307 ref ref ≥ 7 378 1.1
(0.9, 1.4)1.1
(0.9, 1.4)1.0
(0.8, 1.3)1.0
(0.7, 1.2)1.1
(0.9, 1.3)0.8
(0.7, 1.0)1.2
(0.9, 1.5)1.0
(0.8, 1.3)0.9
(0.8, 1.1)1.0
(0.8, 1.3)1.1
(0.9, 1.4)1.0
(0.8, 1.2)Total leisure ST < 14 1,474 ref ref ref ref ref ref ref ref ref ref ref ref 14−21 1,444 1.2
(1.0, 1.3)*1.2
(1.0, 1.3)*1.1
(0.9, 1.3)1.0
(0.9, 1.2)1.2
(1.1, 1.4)**1.2
(1.1, 1.4)**1.1
(0.9, 1.3)1.1
(0.9, 1.3)1.0
(0.9, 1.1)1.0
(0.9, 1.1)1.2
(1.0, 1.4)*1.1
(0.9, 1.3)21−35 1,259 1.2
(1.0, 1.3)*1.2
(1.0, 1.4)*1.2
(1.0, 1.5)*1.2
(0.9, 1.4)1.2
(1.1, 1.4)**1.2
(1.1, 1.5)**1.1
(0.9, 1.3)1.1
(0.9, 1.2)1.0
(0.9, 1.2)1.0
(0.9, 1.1)1.3
(1.1, 1.5)**1.2
(1.0, 1.4)*≥ 35 508 1.4
(1.2, 1.7)**1.2
(1.0, 1.5)**1.4
(1.1, 1.8)**1.3
(1.0, 1.6)*1.6
(1.3, 1.9)**1.4
(1.2, 1.7)**1.4
(1.1, 1.7)**1.2
(0.9, 1.4)0.9
(0.7, 1.1)0.9
(0.7, 1.1)1.7
(1.4, 2.0)**1.4
(1.2, 1.8)**Ptrend < 0.001 0.008 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 0.014 0.853 0.744 0.639 < 0.001 < 0.001 Note. The model 1 adjusted only for baselined gender, age, region, education, income and wave; the model 2 full adjusted the covariates including baselined carbohydrate, protein, fat, cholesterol, Na, kcal, regular drinking, current smoking, sleep time, total PA besides those in model 1, and when each type of ST was studied, the other types of sedentary excluding the total ST were acted as covariates. *P < 0.05; **P < 0.001. -
Table 3 shows the association between MetS risk and the levels of different types of baseline PA time. After adjusting for all covariates, higher levels of MVPA time were associated with a lower risk of abdominal obesity (OR 0.8, 95% CI 0.7–0.9, Ptrend = 0.008), elevated TG (OR 0.7, 95% CI 0.6–0.8, Ptrend = 0.011), lower HDL-C (OR 0.8, 95% CI 0.7–0.9, Ptrend = 0.031), elevated BP (OR 0.8, 95% CI 0.7–0.9, Ptrend = 0.031), and MetS (OR 0.7, 95% CI 0.6–0.9, Ptrend < 0.001). Higher levels of total PA time were associated with a lower risk of abdominal obesity (OR 0.8, 95% CI 0.7–0.9, Ptrend = 0.003), elevated TG (OR 0.8, 95% CI 0.7–0.9, Ptrend = 0.020), and MetS (OR 0.8, 95% CI 0.7–0.9, Ptrend < 0.001).
Table 3. Prospective associations of risk of MetS and its components with levels of Physical activity at baseline, OR (95%) CI
Parameters N Abdominal obesity Hyperglycemia Raised TG Reduced HDL_C Raised BP MetS subjects Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Total time Physical activity (METs-h/w) LPA Low 1,392 ref ref ref ref ref ref ref ref ref ref ref ref Medium 1,671 1.2
(1.0, 1.4)**1.1
(0.9, 1.3)1.0
(0.9, 1.2)1.0
(0.9, 1.2)1.2
(0.9, 1.3)1.1
(0.9, 1.3)1.2
(1.0, 1.4)*1.2
(0.9, 1.4)1.2
(1.0, 1.3)*1.1
(0.9, 1.3)1.2
(1.0, 1.4)*1.2
(0.9, 1.4)High 1,622 1.2
(0.9, 1.4)1.1
(0.9, 1.3)1.2
(0.9, 1.4)1.1
(0.9, 1.4)1.0
(0.9, 1.2)1.0
(0.9, 1.2)1.1
(0.9, 1.3)1.1
(0.9, 1.3)1.2
(0.9, 1.3)1.2
(0.9, 1.4)1.2
(0.9, 1.5)1.1
(0.9, 1.4)Ptrend 0.085 0.548 0.125 0.294 0.491 0.914 0.1 0.165 0.087 0.054 0.051 0.123 MVPA Low 1,918 ref ref ref ref ref ref ref ref ref ref ref ref Medium 1,048 1.0
(0.9, 1.1)0.9
(0.8, 1.1)0.9
(0.8, 1.1)0.9
(0.7, 1.0)1.0
(0.9, 1.1)1.0
(0.8, 1.1)0.9
(0.8, 1.0)0.9
(0.8, 1.1)0.9
(0.8, 1.0)0.9
(0.7, 1.0)*1.0
(0.8, 1.1)0.9
(0.8, 1.1)High 1,719 0.8
(0.7, 0.9)**0.8
(0.7, 0.9)**0.9
(0.7, 1.0)0.9
(0.8, 1.0)0.7
(0.6, 0.8)**0.7
(0.6, 0.8)**0.7
(0.6, 0.8)**0.8
(0.7, 0.9)**0.9
(0.8, 1.0)*0.8
(0.7, 0.9)**0.7
(0.6, 0.8)**0.7
(0.6, 0.9)**Ptrend 0.02 0.008 0.015 0.03 0.002 0.011 0.02 0.085 0.045 0.031 < 0.001 < 0.001 Total PA Low 1,374 ref ref ref ref ref ref ref ref ref ref ref ref Medium 1,598 1.0
(0.9, 1.1)1.0
(0.9, 1.1)1.0
(0.8, 1.1)0.9
(0.8, 1.1)1.0
(0.9, 1.2)1.0
(0.9, 1.2)1.0
(0.9, 1.1)1.0
(0.9, 1.2)1.0
(0.9, 1.1)1.0
(0.9, 1.1)1.0
(0.9, 1.2)1.0
(0.9, 1.2)High 1,713 0.8
(0.7, 0.9)**0.8
(0.7, 0.9)**0.9
(0.8, 1.0)0.9
(0.8, 1.0)0.7
(0.6, 0.8)**0.8
(0.7, 0.9)**0.8
(0.7, 0.9)**0.9
(0.8, 1.1)1.0
(0.8, 1.1)0.9
(0.8, 1.0)0.7
(0.6, 0.8)**0.8
(0.7, 0.9)**Ptrend 0.003 0.003 0.158 0.356 0.019 0.020 0.022 0.096 0.765 0.774 < 0.001 < 0.001 Note. The model 1 adjusted only for baselined gender, age, region, education, income and wave, and the model 2 full adjusted the covariates besides those in model 1, including baselined, carbohydrate, protein, fat, cholesterol, Na, kcal, regular drinking, current smoking, sleep time, total leisure ST, and when each type of PA was studied, the other types of PA excluding the total PA were acted as covariates. Classification of LPA, MVPA and total PA were based on the tertiles of the amounts per week (MET-h/w), there were LPA: low level (_ 18.6 MET-h/w), medium level (18.6–53.7 MET-h/w), and high level (≥ 53.7 MET-h/w); MVPA: low level (0 MET-h/w), medium level (0–61.0 MET-h/w), and high level (≥ 61.0 MET-h/w); total PA: low level (46.6 MET-h/w), medium level (46.6–147.2 MET-h/w), and high level (≥ 147.2 MET-h/w). -
Figure 1A shows the joint association between total ST and MVPA and MetS. Those reporting the highest total leisure ST (≥ 35 h/w) and the lowest levels of MVPA (0 MET-h/w) had a twofold higher odds of MetS (OR 2.0, 95% CI 1.4–2.7) than the reference group (those reporting the lowest level of total leisure ST (< 14 h/w) and the highest tertile of MVPA (≥ 61.0 MET-h/w). Those reporting the highest total leisure ST (≥ 35 h/w) with a medium level of MVPA (0–61.0 MET-h/w) had a 70% higher odds (OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.2–2.4), and those reporting the highest total leisure ST with the highest tertile of MVPA also had a 70% higher odds (OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.1–2.6) than the reference group. Except for those reporting ST (14–21 h/w) within the highest tertile of MVPA (≥ 61.0 MET-h/w), the other groups had significantly higher odds of MetS, which showed a curved acceleration with increased TV time.
Figure 1. The ORs for the joint associations of total leisure sedentary time and MVPA/total PA with MetS. Note: The ORs for the joint associations of total leisure ST and MVPA with MetS are showed in Figure 1A, and the ORs for the joint associations of total leisure ST and total PA with MetS are showed in Figure 1B. Both models were adjusted the covariates including baselined gender, age, region, education, income, carbohydrate, protein, fat, cholesterol, Na, kcal, regular drinking, current smoking, sleep time, and wave, besides LPA were adjusted in Figure 1A. Classification of LPA, MVPA and total PA were based on the tertiles of the amounts per week (MET-h/w), there were LPA: low level (< 18.6 MET-h/w), medium level (18.6−53.7 MET-h/w), and high level (≥ 53.7 MET-h/w); MVPA: low level (0 MET-h/w), medium level (0−61.0 MET-h/w), and high level (≥ 61.0 MET-h/w); total PA: low level (46.6 MET-h/w), medium level (46.6−147.2 MET-h/w), and high level (≥ 147.2 MET-h/w).
When we repeated these analyses using total leisure ST and total PA, the results were similar but weaker (Figure 1B). Compared with the reference group (those reporting the lowest level of total leisure ST (< 14 h/w) and the highest tertile of total PA (≥ 147.2 MET-h/w), those reporting the highest leisure ST (≥ 35 h/w) and the lowest levels of total PA (< 46.6 MET-h/w) had a twofold higher odds of MetS (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.4–2.5), and those reporting the highest leisure ST (≥ 35 h/w) and the second tertile of total PA (46.6–147.2 MET-h/w) had a 60% higher odds (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.2–2.1), while those reporting the highest level of leisure ST (≥ 35 h/w) and the highest tertile of total PA (≥ 147.2 MET-h/w) did not have a significantly higher odds. In addition, within those reporting the highest tertile of total PA (≥ 147.2 MET-h/w), the levels of total leisure ST had no significant effects on MetS. Within those reporting the second (46.6–147.2 MET-h/w) and the first (< 46.6 MET-h/w) tertile of total PA, except that the lowest level of total leisure ST (< 14 h/w) had no significant effects on MetS, the other higher levels of total leisure ST significantly increased the odds of MetS.
doi: 10.3967/bes2021.132
Associations of Sedentary Time and Physical Activity with Metabolic Syndrome among Chinese Adults: Results from the China Health and Nutrition Survey
-
Abstract:
Objective This study aimed to determine the independent and joint associations of sedentary time (ST) and physical activity (PA) with metabolic syndrome (MetS) and its components among Chinese adults. Methods The study analyzed data from 4,865 adults aged ≥ 18 years who participated in the 2009 and 2015 China Health and Nutrition Surveys (CHNS). Four types of leisure ST and three types of PA self-reported at baseline were collected. Multivariable logistic regressions were used to determine the independent and joint associations of ST and PA with the odds of MetS or its components. Results For independent effects, higher levels of television time and total leisure ST was associated with higher MetS risk [odds ratio (OR) 1.3, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.1–1.6, P < 0.001; OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.2–1.8, P < 0.001, respectively]. The MetS risk in the computer time > 7 hours/week (h/w) group was higher than that in the < 7 h/w group in (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.2–1.9). Higher levels of moderate-to-vigorous-intensity physical activity (MVPA) and total PA were associated with a lower MetS risk (OR 0.7, 95% CI 0.6–0.9, P < 0.001; OR 0.8, 95% CI 0.7–0.9, P < 0.001, respectively). For the joint effects, compared with those reporting the lowest level of total leisure ST (< 14 h/w) and the most active tertile of MVPA (≥ 61.0 MET-h/w), participants reporting the most total leisure ST (≥ 35 h/w) and the lowest level of MVPA (0 MET-h/w) had the highest odds of MetS (OR 2.0; 95% CI 1.4–2.7). Except for people reporting ST (14–21 h/w) within the most active tertile of MVPA, the associations in all other groups were significant. With the increase of TV time and decreased MVPA, the odds of MetS almost showed a curve acceleration. Conclusions MVPA and total PA have independent preventive effects, and sedentary behavior (mainly watching TV) has an unsafe effect on MetS and its components. Strengthening the participation of MVPA and combining the LPA to replace the TV-based ST to increase the total PA may be necessary to reduce the prevalence of MetS in Chinese adults. -
Key words:
- Sedentary time /
- Physical activity /
- Metabolic syndrome /
- Adults
注释: -
Figure 1. The ORs for the joint associations of total leisure sedentary time and MVPA/total PA with MetS. Note: The ORs for the joint associations of total leisure ST and MVPA with MetS are showed in Figure 1A, and the ORs for the joint associations of total leisure ST and total PA with MetS are showed in Figure 1B. Both models were adjusted the covariates including baselined gender, age, region, education, income, carbohydrate, protein, fat, cholesterol, Na, kcal, regular drinking, current smoking, sleep time, and wave, besides LPA were adjusted in Figure 1A. Classification of LPA, MVPA and total PA were based on the tertiles of the amounts per week (MET-h/w), there were LPA: low level (< 18.6 MET-h/w), medium level (18.6−53.7 MET-h/w), and high level (≥ 53.7 MET-h/w); MVPA: low level (0 MET-h/w), medium level (0−61.0 MET-h/w), and high level (≥ 61.0 MET-h/w); total PA: low level (46.6 MET-h/w), medium level (46.6−147.2 MET-h/w), and high level (≥ 147.2 MET-h/w).
Table 1. Baseline characteristics of the study populations stratified by MetS in 2009
Parameters Total (4,685) Normal (n = 3,860) MetS (n = 825) P Average age (years)* 51.4 ± 13.0 50.6 ± 13.1 55.2 ± 11.7 < 0.001 Age group (n, %) 18−34 4,959 (10.6) 457 (11.8) 38 (4.6) < 0.001 35−44 992 (21.2) 866 (22.4) 126 (15.3) < 0.001 45−54 1,291 (27.6) 1,062 (27.5) 229 (27.8) 0.382 55−64 1,185 (25.3) 926 (24.0) 259 (31.4) < 0.001 65− 722 (15.4) 549 (14.2) 173 (21.0) < 0.001 Gender (n, %) 0.015 Male 2,104 (44.9) 1,694 (43.9) 410 (49.7) Female 2,581 (55.1) 2,166 (56.1) 415 (50.3) Region (n, %) 0.031 City 1,334 (28.5) 1,060 (27.5) 274 (33.2) Country 3,351 (71.5) 2,800 (72.5) 551 (66.8) Education (n, %) Primary school/below 2,153 (46.0) 1,754 (45.4) 399 (48.4) 0.007 Middle school 1,571 (33.5) 1,313 (34.0) 258 (31.3) 0.002 High school/above 961 (20.5) 793 (20.6) 168 (20.4) 0.934 Annual per capital family income (yuan) (n, %) < 10,000 2,295 (49.0) 1,888 (48.9) 407 (49.3) 0.056 10,000−20,000 1,195 (25.5) 1,020 (26.4) 175 (21.2) 0.073 ≥ 20,000 1,195 (25.5) 952 (24.7) 243 (29.5) 0.114 Dietary intake* Carbohydrate (g/day) 298.0 ± 111.1 299.8 ± 109.9 289.8 ± 116.2 0.004 Protein (g/day) 68.1 ± 25.4 67.9 ± 25.2 69.2 ± 26.4 0.011 Fat (g/day) 79.1 ± 41.4 79.2 ± 40.7 78.9 ± 44.4 0.109 Cholesterol (g/day) 263.3 ± 209.9 262.5 ± 209.7 267.0 ± 211.0 0.586 Na (mg/day) 5275.5 ± 4533.8 5184.0 ± 4392.5 5704.3 ± 5125.9 0.047 Kcal (kcal/day) 2234.7 ± 716.1 2,240.8 ± 710.5 2206.1 ± 742.0 0.292 Current smoker (n, %) 1,427 (30.5) 1,160 (30.1) 267 (32.4) 0.201 Regular drinking (n, %) 1,328 (28.4) 1,068 (27.7) 260 (31.5) 0.008 Sleep time (h/day)* 7.7 ± 2.2 7.7 ± 2.2 7.7 ± 2.0 0.566 Leisure ST (h/w) (n, %) TV time < 10.5 1,491 (31.8) 1,263 (32.7) 228 (27.6) 0.012 10.5−17.5 1,666 (35.6) 1,386 (35.9) 280 (33.9) 0.071 17.5−28 889 (19.0) 717 (18.6) 172 (20.9) 1.319 ≥ 28 63 (13.6) 494 (12.8) 145 (17.6) 0.024 Computer time 0.186 < 7 4,280 (91.4) 3,536 (91.6) 744 (90.2) ≥ 7 405 (8.6) 324 (8.4) 81 (9.8) Reading time 0.295 < 7 4,307 (91.9) 3,556 (92.1) 751 (91.0) ≥ 7 378 (8.1) 304 (7.9) 74 (9.0) Total leisure ST < 14 1,474 (31.5) 1,252 (32.4) 222 (26.9) < 0.001 14−21 1,444 (30.8) 1,187 (30.8) 257 (31.2) 0.337 21−35 1,259 (26.9) 1,029 (26.7) 230 (27.9) 0.216 ≥ 35 508 (10.8) 392 (10.2) 116 (14.1) < 0.001 Total time Physical activity (METs.h/w) (n, %) LPA Low (< 18.6) 1,392 (29.7) 1,159 (30.0) 233 (28.2) 0.777 Medium (18.6−53.7) 1,671 (35.7) 1,352 (35.0) 319 (38.7) 0.854 High (≥ 53.7) 1,622 (34.6) 1,349 (35.0) 273 (33.1) 0.71 MVPA Low (= 0) 1,918 (40.9) 1,502 (38.9) 416 (50.4) < 0.001 Medium (0−61.0) 1,048 (22.4) 850 (22.2) 198 (24.0) 0.21 High (≥ 61.0) 1,719 (36.7) 1,508 (39.1) 211 (25.6) < 0.001 Total PA Low (< 46.6) 1,374 (29.3) 1,075 (27.9) 299 (36.2) < 0.001 Medium (46.6−147.2) 1,598 (34.1) 1,286 (33.3) 312 (37.8) 0.54 High (≥ 147.2) 1,713 (36.6) 1,499 (38.8) 214 (25.9) < 0.001 MetS components (n, %) Abnomial obesity 1,634 (34.9) 935 (24.2) 699 (84.7) < 0.001 Hyperglycemia 638 (13.6) 267 (6.9) 371 (45.0) < 0.001 Raised TG 1,507 (32.2) 807 (20.9) 700 (84.9) < 0.001 Reduced HDL_C 618 (13.2) 253 (6.6) 365 (44.2) < 0.001 Raised BP 1,761 (37.6) 1,124 (29.1) 637 (77.2) < 0.001 Note. MetS: metabolic syndrome; PA: physical activity; met: metabolic equivalent; h/w: hours per week; MET: Metabolic equivalent of task; MVPA Moderate-to-vigorous-intensity physical activity; HDL: high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; MET: metabolic equivalent of task; *: means (standard deviations) and conducted an analysis of variance (ANOVA). Table 2. Prospective associations of risk of MetS and its components with levels of leisure ST at baseline, OR (95%) CI
Parameters N Abdominal obesity Hyperglycemia Raised TG Reduced HDL_C Raised BP MetS subjects Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Leisure ST (h/w) TV time < 10.5 1,491 ref ref ref ref ref ref ref ref ref ref ref ref 10.5−17.5 1,666 1.1
(0.9, 1.3)1.1
(0.9, 1.3)1.0
(0.8, 1.3)1.0
(0.8, 1.3)1.0
(0.8, 1.2)1.1
(1.0, 1.2)*0.9
(0.7, 1.1)1.0
(0.8, 1.2)1.3
(0.9, 1.6)1.3
(0.9, 1.6)1.0
(0.9, 1.2)1.0
(0.9, 1.2)17.5−28 889 1.2
(1.0, 1.4)*1.2
(1.0, 1.5)*1.1
(0.9, 1.3)1.1
(1.0, 1.3)*1.2
(1.0, 1.4)1.2
(1.0, 1.4)*1.0
(0.8, 1.2)1.0
(0.8, 1.2)1.2
(0.9, 1.4)1.2
(0.9, 1.5)1.3
(1.1, 1.5)**1.2
(1.1, 1.5)**≥ 28 639 1.3
(1.1, 1.6)**1.4
(1.1, 1.7)**1.4
(1.1, 1.8)**1.3
(1.0, 1.7)**1.4
(1.1, 1.7)**1.3
(1.1, 1.7)**1.1
(0.9, 1.4)1.0
(0.8, 1.3)1.0
(0.9, 1.3)1.1
(0.9, 1.3)1.4
(1.2, 1.7)**1.3
(1.1, 1.6)**Ptrend < 0.001 < 0.001 0.001 0.012 < 0.001 0.006 0.347 0.992 0.429 0.566 < 0.001 < 0.001 Computer time < 7 4,280 ref ref ref ref ref ref ref ref ref ref ref ref ≥ 7 405 1.2
(1.0, 1.4)1.2
(1.0, 1.4)1.2
(0.9, 1.5)1.1
(0.9, 1.4)1.7
(1.4, 2.0)**1.5
(0.9, 1.8)1.4
(1.2, 1.7)**1.4
(1.1, 1.7)**1.0
(0.8, 1.2)1.1
(0.9, 1.3)1.6
(1.3, 2.0)**1.5
(1.2, 1.9)**Reading time < 7 4,307 ref ref ≥ 7 378 1.1
(0.9, 1.4)1.1
(0.9, 1.4)1.0
(0.8, 1.3)1.0
(0.7, 1.2)1.1
(0.9, 1.3)0.8
(0.7, 1.0)1.2
(0.9, 1.5)1.0
(0.8, 1.3)0.9
(0.8, 1.1)1.0
(0.8, 1.3)1.1
(0.9, 1.4)1.0
(0.8, 1.2)Total leisure ST < 14 1,474 ref ref ref ref ref ref ref ref ref ref ref ref 14−21 1,444 1.2
(1.0, 1.3)*1.2
(1.0, 1.3)*1.1
(0.9, 1.3)1.0
(0.9, 1.2)1.2
(1.1, 1.4)**1.2
(1.1, 1.4)**1.1
(0.9, 1.3)1.1
(0.9, 1.3)1.0
(0.9, 1.1)1.0
(0.9, 1.1)1.2
(1.0, 1.4)*1.1
(0.9, 1.3)21−35 1,259 1.2
(1.0, 1.3)*1.2
(1.0, 1.4)*1.2
(1.0, 1.5)*1.2
(0.9, 1.4)1.2
(1.1, 1.4)**1.2
(1.1, 1.5)**1.1
(0.9, 1.3)1.1
(0.9, 1.2)1.0
(0.9, 1.2)1.0
(0.9, 1.1)1.3
(1.1, 1.5)**1.2
(1.0, 1.4)*≥ 35 508 1.4
(1.2, 1.7)**1.2
(1.0, 1.5)**1.4
(1.1, 1.8)**1.3
(1.0, 1.6)*1.6
(1.3, 1.9)**1.4
(1.2, 1.7)**1.4
(1.1, 1.7)**1.2
(0.9, 1.4)0.9
(0.7, 1.1)0.9
(0.7, 1.1)1.7
(1.4, 2.0)**1.4
(1.2, 1.8)**Ptrend < 0.001 0.008 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 0.014 0.853 0.744 0.639 < 0.001 < 0.001 Note. The model 1 adjusted only for baselined gender, age, region, education, income and wave; the model 2 full adjusted the covariates including baselined carbohydrate, protein, fat, cholesterol, Na, kcal, regular drinking, current smoking, sleep time, total PA besides those in model 1, and when each type of ST was studied, the other types of sedentary excluding the total ST were acted as covariates. *P < 0.05; **P < 0.001. Table 3. Prospective associations of risk of MetS and its components with levels of Physical activity at baseline, OR (95%) CI
Parameters N Abdominal obesity Hyperglycemia Raised TG Reduced HDL_C Raised BP MetS subjects Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Total time Physical activity (METs-h/w) LPA Low 1,392 ref ref ref ref ref ref ref ref ref ref ref ref Medium 1,671 1.2
(1.0, 1.4)**1.1
(0.9, 1.3)1.0
(0.9, 1.2)1.0
(0.9, 1.2)1.2
(0.9, 1.3)1.1
(0.9, 1.3)1.2
(1.0, 1.4)*1.2
(0.9, 1.4)1.2
(1.0, 1.3)*1.1
(0.9, 1.3)1.2
(1.0, 1.4)*1.2
(0.9, 1.4)High 1,622 1.2
(0.9, 1.4)1.1
(0.9, 1.3)1.2
(0.9, 1.4)1.1
(0.9, 1.4)1.0
(0.9, 1.2)1.0
(0.9, 1.2)1.1
(0.9, 1.3)1.1
(0.9, 1.3)1.2
(0.9, 1.3)1.2
(0.9, 1.4)1.2
(0.9, 1.5)1.1
(0.9, 1.4)Ptrend 0.085 0.548 0.125 0.294 0.491 0.914 0.1 0.165 0.087 0.054 0.051 0.123 MVPA Low 1,918 ref ref ref ref ref ref ref ref ref ref ref ref Medium 1,048 1.0
(0.9, 1.1)0.9
(0.8, 1.1)0.9
(0.8, 1.1)0.9
(0.7, 1.0)1.0
(0.9, 1.1)1.0
(0.8, 1.1)0.9
(0.8, 1.0)0.9
(0.8, 1.1)0.9
(0.8, 1.0)0.9
(0.7, 1.0)*1.0
(0.8, 1.1)0.9
(0.8, 1.1)High 1,719 0.8
(0.7, 0.9)**0.8
(0.7, 0.9)**0.9
(0.7, 1.0)0.9
(0.8, 1.0)0.7
(0.6, 0.8)**0.7
(0.6, 0.8)**0.7
(0.6, 0.8)**0.8
(0.7, 0.9)**0.9
(0.8, 1.0)*0.8
(0.7, 0.9)**0.7
(0.6, 0.8)**0.7
(0.6, 0.9)**Ptrend 0.02 0.008 0.015 0.03 0.002 0.011 0.02 0.085 0.045 0.031 < 0.001 < 0.001 Total PA Low 1,374 ref ref ref ref ref ref ref ref ref ref ref ref Medium 1,598 1.0
(0.9, 1.1)1.0
(0.9, 1.1)1.0
(0.8, 1.1)0.9
(0.8, 1.1)1.0
(0.9, 1.2)1.0
(0.9, 1.2)1.0
(0.9, 1.1)1.0
(0.9, 1.2)1.0
(0.9, 1.1)1.0
(0.9, 1.1)1.0
(0.9, 1.2)1.0
(0.9, 1.2)High 1,713 0.8
(0.7, 0.9)**0.8
(0.7, 0.9)**0.9
(0.8, 1.0)0.9
(0.8, 1.0)0.7
(0.6, 0.8)**0.8
(0.7, 0.9)**0.8
(0.7, 0.9)**0.9
(0.8, 1.1)1.0
(0.8, 1.1)0.9
(0.8, 1.0)0.7
(0.6, 0.8)**0.8
(0.7, 0.9)**Ptrend 0.003 0.003 0.158 0.356 0.019 0.020 0.022 0.096 0.765 0.774 < 0.001 < 0.001 Note. The model 1 adjusted only for baselined gender, age, region, education, income and wave, and the model 2 full adjusted the covariates besides those in model 1, including baselined, carbohydrate, protein, fat, cholesterol, Na, kcal, regular drinking, current smoking, sleep time, total leisure ST, and when each type of PA was studied, the other types of PA excluding the total PA were acted as covariates. Classification of LPA, MVPA and total PA were based on the tertiles of the amounts per week (MET-h/w), there were LPA: low level (_ 18.6 MET-h/w), medium level (18.6–53.7 MET-h/w), and high level (≥ 53.7 MET-h/w); MVPA: low level (0 MET-h/w), medium level (0–61.0 MET-h/w), and high level (≥ 61.0 MET-h/w); total PA: low level (46.6 MET-h/w), medium level (46.6–147.2 MET-h/w), and high level (≥ 147.2 MET-h/w). -
[1] Gami AS, Witt BJ, Howard DE, et al. Metabolic syndrome and risk of incident cardiovascular events and death: a systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. J Am Coll Cardiol, 2007; 49, 403−14. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2006.09.032 [2] Zhou PA, Zhang CH, Chen YR, et al. Association between metabolic syndrome and carotid atherosclerosis: a cross-sectional study in northern China. Biomed Environ Sci, 2019; 32, 914−21. [3] Li R, Li WC, Lun ZJ, et al. Prevalence of metabolic syndrome in Mainland China: a meta-analysis of published studies. BMC Public Health, 2016; 16, 296. doi: 10.1186/s12889-016-2870-y [4] Huang LN, Wang HJ, Wang ZH, et al. Association of red meat usual intake with serum ferritin and the risk of metabolic syndrome in Chinese adults: a longitudinal study from the China health and nutrition survey. Biomed Environ Sci, 2020; 33, 19−29. [5] Lakka TA, Laaksonen DE. Physical activity in prevention and treatment of the metabolic syndrome. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab, 2007; 32, 76−88. doi: 10.1139/h06-113 [6] Edwardson CL, Gorely T, Davies MJ, et al. Association of sedentary behaviour with metabolic syndrome: a meta-analysis. PLoS One, 2012; 7, e34916. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0034916 [7] Amirfaiz S, Shahril MR. Objectively measured physical activity, sedentary behavior, and metabolic syndrome in adults: systematic review of observational evidence. Metab Syndr Relat Disord, 2019; 17, 1−21. doi: 10.1089/met.2018.0032 [8] Bakker EA, Lee DC, Sui XM, et al. Association of resistance exercise, independent of and combined with aerobic exercise, with the incidence of metabolic syndrome. Mayo Clin Proc, 2017; 92, 1214−22. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2017.02.018 [9] Ekblom Ö, Ekblom-Bak E, Rosengren A, et al. Cardiorespiratory fitness, sedentary behaviour and physical activity are independently associated with the metabolic syndrome, results from the SCAPIS pilot study. PLoS One, 2015; 10, e0131586. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0131586 [10] Liu SH, Waring ME, Eaton CB, et al. Association of objectively measured physical activity and metabolic syndrome among US adults with osteoarthritis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken), 2015; 67, 1371−8. doi: 10.1002/acr.22587 [11] Scheers T, Philippaerts R, Lefevre J. SenseWear-determined physical activity and sedentary behavior and metabolic syndrome. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 2013; 45, 481−9. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e31827563ba [12] Alkahtani S, Elkilany A, Alhariri M. Association between sedentary and physical activity patterns and risk factors of metabolic syndrome in Saudi men: a cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health, 2015; 15, 1234. doi: 10.1186/s12889-015-2578-4 [13] Jefferis BJ, Parsons TJ, Sartini C, et al. Does duration of physical activity bouts matter for adiposity and metabolic syndrome? A cross-sectional study of older British men. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act, 2016; 13, 36. doi: 10.1186/s12966-016-0361-2 [14] Loprinzi PD, Cardinal BJ. Association between biologic outcomes and objectively measured physical activity accumulated in ≥ 10-minute bouts and <10-minute bouts. Am J Health Promot, 2013; 27, 143−51. doi: 10.4278/ajhp.110916-QUAN-348 [15] Park SK, Larson JL. The relationship between physical activity and metabolic syndrome in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. J Cardiovasc Nurs, 2014; 29, 499−507. doi: 10.1097/JCN.0000000000000096 [16] Yao M, Lichtenstein AH, Roberts SB, et al. Relative influence of diet and physical activity on cardiovascular risk factors in urban Chinese adults. Int J Obes, 2003; 27, 920−32. doi: 10.1038/sj.ijo.0802308 [17] Loprinzi PD, Cardinal BJ. Interrelationships among physical activity, depression, homocysteine, and metabolic syndrome with special considerations by sex. Prev Med, 2012; 54, 388−92. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2012.03.016 [18] Janssen I, Ross R. Vigorous intensity physical activity is related to the metabolic syndrome independent of the physical activity dose. Int J Epidemiol, 2012; 41, 1132−40. doi: 10.1093/ije/dys038 [19] Salonen MK, Wasenius N, Kajantie E, et al. Physical activity, body composition and metabolic syndrome in young adults. PLoS One, 2015; 10, e0126737. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0126737 [20] Dankel SJ, Loenneke JP, Loprinzi PD. The individual, joint, and additive interaction associations of aerobic-based physical activity and muscle strengthening activities on metabolic syndrome. Int J Behav Med, 2016; 23, 707−13. doi: 10.1007/s12529-016-9570-y [21] Ekblom-Bak E, Ekblom Ö, Bergstrom G, et al. Isotemporal substitution of sedentary time by physical activity of different intensities and bout lengths, and its associations with metabolic risk. Eur J Prev Cardiol, 2016; 23, 967−74. doi: 10.1177/2047487315619734 [22] Camhi SM, Sisson SB, Johnson WD, et al. Accelerometer-determined moderate intensity lifestyle activity and cardiometabolic health. Prev Med, 2011; 52, 358−60. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2011.01.030 [23] Kim J, Tanabe K, Yokoyama N, et al. Objectively measured light-intensity lifestyle activity and sedentary time are independently associated with metabolic syndrome: a cross-sectional study of Japanese adults. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act, 2013; 10, 30. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-10-30 [24] Bankoski A, Harris TB, McClain JJ, et al. Sedentary activity associated with metabolic syndrome independent of physical activity. Diabetes Care, 2011; 34, 497−503. doi: 10.2337/dc10-0987 [25] Shuval K, Finley CE, Barlow CE, et al. Sedentary behavior, cardiorespiratory fitness, physical activity, and cardiometabolic risk in men: the cooper center longitudinal study. Mayo Clin Proc, 2014; 89, 1052−62. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2014.04.026 [26] de Rezende LFM, Lopes MR, Rey-López JP, et al. Sedentary behavior and health outcomes: an overview of systematic reviews. PLoS One, 2014; 9, e105620. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0105620 [27] Tudor-Locke CE, Myers AM. Challenges and opportunities for measuring physical activity in sedentary adults. Sports Med, 2001; 31, 91−100. doi: 10.2165/00007256-200131020-00002 [28] Lemes IR, Sui X, Fernandes RA, et al. Association of sedentary behavior and metabolic syndrome. Public Health, 2019; 167, 96−102. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2018.11.007 [29] Cooper AJM, Brage S, Ekelund U, et al. Association between objectively assessed sedentary time and physical activity with metabolic risk factors among people with recently diagnosed type 2 diabetes. Diabetologia, 2014; 57, 73−82. doi: 10.1007/s00125-013-3069-8 [30] Greer AE, Sui XM, Maslow AL, et al. The effects of sedentary behavior on metabolic syndrome independent of physical activity and cardiorespiratory fitness. J Phys Act Health, 2015; 12, 68−73. doi: 10.1123/jpah.2013-0186 [31] Kim H, Kang M. Sedentary behavior and metabolic syndrome in physically active adults: national Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2003-2006. Am J Hum Biol, 2019; 8, e23225. [32] Chen YJ, Yang J, Su J, et al. Physical activity, sedentary time and their associations with clustered metabolic risk among people with type 2 diabetes in Jiangsu province: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Open, 2019; 9, e027906. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027906 [33] Xiao J, Shen C, Chu MJ, et al. Physical activity and sedentary behavior associated with components of metabolic syndrome among people in rural China. PLoS One, 2016; 11, e0147062. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0147062 [34] Popkin BM, Du SF, Zhai FY, et al. Cohort profile: the China health and nutrition survey-monitoring and understanding socio-economic and health change in China, 1989-2011. Int J Epidemiol, 2010; 39, 1435−40. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyp322 [35] Ainsworth BE, Haskell WL, Whitt MC, et al. Compendium of physical activities: an update of activity codes and MET intensities. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 2000; 32(9 Suppl): S498-504. [36] Chinese Diabetes Society. Guidelines for the prevention and control of type 2 diabetes in China (2017 Edition). Chin J Pract Intern Med, 2018; 38, 292−344. (In Chinese [37] Yang Y, Wang G, Pan X. China food composition. 2nd ed. Peking University Medical Press. 2009. (In Chinese) [38] DiPietro L, Jin YC, Talegawkar S, et al. The joint associations of sedentary time and physical activity with mobility disability in older people: the NIH-AARP diet and health study. J Gerontol, 2018; 73, 532−8. doi: 10.1093/gerona/glx122 [39] Ghosh A, Bhagat M. Association of television viewing time with central obesity status in rural Asian Indian women: santiniketan women study. Am J Hum Biol, 2014; 26, 427−30. doi: 10.1002/ajhb.22536 [40] Santos AC, Ebrahim S, Barros H. Alcohol intake, smoking, sleeping hours, physical activity and the metabolic syndrome. Prev Med, 2007; 44, 328−34. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2006.11.016 [41] Hastert TA, Gong J, Campos H, et al. Physical activity patterns and metabolic syndrome in Costa Rica. Prev Med, 2015; 70, 39−45. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.11.006 [42] Ekelund U, Brage S, Franks PW, et al. Physical activity energy expenditure predicts progression toward the metabolic syndrome independently of aerobic fitness in middle-aged healthy Caucasians: the medical research council Ely study. Diabetes Care, 2005; 28, 1195−200. doi: 10.2337/diacare.28.5.1195 [43] Lindstrom J, Ilanne-Parikka P, Peltonen M, et al. Sustained reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes by lifestyle intervention: follow-up of the Finnish Diabetes Prevention Study. Lancet, 2006; 368, 1673−9. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69701-8 [44] Mohan V, Gokulakrishnan K, Deepa R, et al. Association of physical inactivity with components of metabolic syndrome and coronary artery disease—the Chennai Urban Population Study (CUPS no. 15). Diabet Med, 2005; 22, 1206−11. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2005.01616.x [45] Pischon T, Hankinson SE, Hotamisligil GS, et al. Leisure-time physical activity and reduced plasma levels of obesity-related inflammatory markers. Obes Res, 2003; 11, 1055−64. doi: 10.1038/oby.2003.145 [46] Simmons RK, Griffin SJ, Steele R, et al. Increasing overall physical activity and aerobic fitness is associated with improvements in metabolic risk: cohort analysis of the ProActive trial. Diabetologia, 2008; 51, 787−94. doi: 10.1007/s00125-008-0949-4 [47] Rennie KL, McCarthy N, Yazdgerdi S, et al. Association of the metabolic syndrome with both vigorous and moderate physical activity. Int J Epidemiol, 2003; 32, 600−6. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyg179 [48] Li CL, Lin JD, Lee SJ, et al. Associations between the metabolic syndrome and its components, watching television and physical activity. Public Health, 2007; 121, 83−91. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2006.08.004 [49] Esteghamati A, Khalilzadeh O, Rashidi A, et al. Association between physical activity and insulin resistance in Iranian adults: national surveillance of risk factors of non-communicable diseases (SuRFNCD-2007). Prev Med, 2009; 49, 402−6. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2009.09.005 [50] Healy GN, Dunstan DW, Salmon J, et al. Objectively measured light-intensity physical activity is independently associated with 2-h plasma glucose. Diabetes Care, 2007; 30, 1384−9. doi: 10.2337/dc07-0114 [51] Healy GN, Wijndaele K, Dunstan DW, et al. Objectively measured sedentary time, physical activity, and metabolic risk: the Australian Diabetes, Obesity and Lifestyle Study (AusDiab). Diabetes Care, 2008; 31, 369−71. doi: 10.2337/dc07-1795 [52] Shephard RJ. Limits to the measurement of habitual physical activity by questionnaires. Br J Sports Med, 2003; 37, 197−206. doi: 10.1136/bjsm.37.3.197 [53] Arem H, Moore SC, Patel A, et al. Leisure time physical activity and mortality: a detailed pooled analysis of the dose-response relationship. JAMA Intern Med, 2015; 175, 959−67. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.0533 [54] del Pozo-Cruz J, García-Hermoso A, Alfonso-Rosa RM, et al. Replacing sedentary time: meta-analysis of objective-assessment studies. Am J Prev Med, 2018; 55, 395−402. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2018.04.042 [55] Maher C, Olds T, Mire E, et al. Reconsidering the sedentary behaviour paradigm. PLoS One, 2014; 9, e86403. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0086403 [56] Matthews CE, George SM, Moore SC, et al. Amount of time spent in sedentary behaviors and cause-specific mortality in US adults. Am J Clin Nutr, 2012; 95, 437−45. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.111.019620 [57] Dunstan DW, Salmon J, Owen N, et al. Physical activity and television viewing in relation to risk of undiagnosed abnormal glucose metabolism in adults. Diabetes Care, 2004; 27, 2603−9. doi: 10.2337/diacare.27.11.2603 [58] Hu FB, Li TY, Colditz GA, et al. Television watching and other sedentary behaviors in relation to risk of obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus in women. JAMA, 2003; 289, 1785−91. doi: 10.1001/jama.289.14.1785 [59] Jakes RW, Day NE, Khaw KT, et al. Television viewing and low participation in vigorous recreation are independently associated with obesity and markers of cardiovascular disease risk: EPIC-Norfolk population-based study. Eur J Clin Nutr, 2003; 57, 1089−96. doi: 10.1038/sj.ejcn.1601648