Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018 May; 15(5): 922. Despite being challenged in recent years, the hypothesis that individuals of higher socioeconomic status (SES) are more physically active than their lower SES counterparts is generally considered a fact. Recent reviews, however, have suggested that differences across groups might be related to which physical activity (PA)
domains have been investigated. In the present review, searches for relevant studies were performed in the MEDLINE, ISI Web of Knowledge and SPORTDiscus databases. Search terms included “socioeconomic”, “socio-economic”, “socio economic” and “social class” to meet all variations of the variable “socioeconomic status” in combination with the term “physical activity”. Studies were included when applying the dimensions of intensity, frequency, type/mode, and duration in measuring PA. Fifty-six
studies were included and were subsequently split into four PA domains: transport PA (TPA), occupational PA (OPA), housing PA (HPA) and leisure time PA (LTPA). It turned out that the positive relationship held only for LTPA, whereas the relationship was non-existent or even opposite for all other domains. It is concluded that the assumed positive relationship between SES and PA is mainly a relationship between LTPA and SES. It is further suggested that the PA domain should always be considered
when studying said relationships. Keywords: lifestyle, social position, socioeconomic status, physical activity, activity domains, review It has long been assumed that there is an association between socioeconomic status (SES) and physical activity (PA) in that people of high SES are more physically active than those of lower SES (see, for example, [1,2]). Such a difference across socioeconomic groups has been touted as a cause of health-related differences and used to justify advocacy for the introduction of interventions targeted at increasing
levels of PA in lower socioeconomic groups [1,2]. More recently, however, several papers have emerged questioning this relationship, among them the reviews by Gidlow, Johnston, Crone,
Ellis, and James [3]; Beenackers, Kamphuis, Giskes, Brug, Kunst, Burdorf and Lenthe [4] and Stalsberg and Pedersen
[5]. Beenackers et al. [4], in fact, found that in studies reporting occupational PA (OPA), low-SES groups came out as more active, whereas the results were similar across SES groups for active
transport. The only domain in clear favor of high-SES groups was leisure-time PA (LTPA). For total PA, the picture was mixed, with about the same number of studies reporting each way. Gidlow et al. [3], although reporting a clear effect of SES when comparing the most extreme (highest and lowest) SES groups, reported relatively mixed results for the remainder of the
data. Gidlow et al. [3] discussed problems with the operationalization of the SES variable but reported that education was most commonly used and seemed to produce the most stable relationships. Stalsberg and Pedersen [5]
identified similar methodological problems with both variables (PA and SES) as mentioned above and revealed also that more than 40% of studies on adolescents had found no differences in PA across SES groups. A few even reported opposite results with the low-SES group as more active (see [5] for details). The common denominator of the
mentioned studies was that they pointed to variations in relationships across PA domains and argued that differences across socioeconomic groups might be restricted to differences in organized LTPA, whereas other PA domains such as transport PA (TPA), occupational PA (OPA) and housing PA (HPA) had been somewhat overlooked. That there would be a difference in LTPA across socioeconomic groups is perhaps less surprising, considering that individuals of low SES more often have physically demanding
occupations, with heavy and repetitive work [6], longer work hours, and evening and nightshift work more often [7]. Thus, individuals of low SES have less leisure time and less energy to participate in
LTPA. Furthermore, organized LTPA is often costly, hence further decreasing the possibilities for participation in organized LTPA for low-SES individuals. True enough; studies confirm that individuals of higher SES participate more frequently in organized LTPA. Hence, interventions including organized LTPA may be less helpful to level out social inequalities in health-related variables unless they focus on increasing access for those who cannot otherwise afford it
[8]. Taken together, the mentioned findings suggest that reported differences in PA levels across socioeconomic groups might be biased by an undue focus on LTPA. Stalsberg and Pedersen
[5] concluded that although a majority of studies reported a positive relationship between high SES and PA, the relationship was far less clear than what was usually touted. Furthermore, high PA among high-SES groups reported in studies was overwhelmingly LTPA, a fact Palma and Assis highlighted
[9] in a commentary. These authors argued further that the whole field of research on PA and health was biased by the fact that researchers were all from developed countries and studied variables that were relevant for individuals in such countries. Palma and Assis concluded that the results of such research painted an unrepresentative picture of
the field and, thus such findings would be less relevant for developing countries. Del Duca, Nahas, Garcia, Silva, Hallal, and Peres provided an elegant example, of the importance of considering multiple PA domains. In their study, when adding active commuting to the mix of PA, nearly twice as many individuals adhered to PA recommendations than when only LTPA was counted
[10]. In addition, comparing only the number of hours, or minutes, of PA across SES-groups does not provide sufficient evidence for conclusions about health issues. Beckvid-Henriksson, Franzén, Elinder, and Nyberg
[11] found, for example, that children from low-SES families were more physically active compared with their high-SES counterparts. Despite this fact, they were more often obese and overweight. The authors thus suggested that one should examine other variables such as diet to identify explanations of health differences across socioeconomic
groups. As both Gidlow et al. and Stalsberg and Pedersen have stressed, considerable methodological challenges plague studies of SES and PA [3,5]. Because both SES and PA are notoriously difficult variables
to operationalize; their relationship is similarly difficult to establish, and demands considerable attention to numerous mediators (see, for example, [8,10]). Although Gidlow et al. first and
foremost discussed challenges related to SES measures [3], Stalsberg and Pedersen, inspired by Rice and Howell [12], underscored the significance of measuring several dimensions of PA
[5]—namely frequency (the number of PA events during a specific period), intensity (physiological effort associated with participating in a particular type of PA), duration (time of participation in a single bout of PA) and type of activity. In their paper on methodologies used to assess PA, Warren et al.
reiterated the argument: that it is difficult to obtain a valid measure of PA [13]. Inspired by the mentioned studies, especially the work of Beenackers et al. [4] who clearly
demonstrated the significance of differentiating between domains of PA, the present review set out to investigate whether the assumed positive relationship between SES and PA may have been somewhat overestimated because the majority of studies on the topic have reported data on LTPA. There are two notable differences between Beenackers et al.’s study and the present one. First, Beenackers et al. restricted their study to European adults, whereas we imposed no such restrictions given Stalsberg
and Pedersen’s [5] observation of regional differences outside Europe, and given Palma and Assis’ [9] suggestion that developing countries were misrepresented in studies of PA. Second, we attempted to
present a more standardized operationalization of PA than did Beenackers et al., by applying Rice and Howells’ criteria [12]; thereby securing data that would be more comparable across studies. Our review is not a traditional systematic review as far as it does not seek to synthesize or summarize previously reported results.
Instead, the aim was to identify variations in findings across individual studies, and to examine whether these might have stemmed from the selection of PA domains investigated. Computerized searches were conducted in the MEDLINE, ISI Web of Knowledge (ISI) and SPORTDiscus databases to identify all relevant articles published from 2000 to 2010. A subsequent search was performed,
that encompassed more recent papers (published between 2010 and 2014). To include all variations of the variable “socioeconomic status”, the search terms “socioeconomic”, “socio-economic”, “socio economic” and “social class” were used in combination with the term “physical activity”. To exclude studies on children and adolescents, the search limit “19 years plus” was imposed upon the search performed in MEDLINE, and the terms “grownups” and “adult” were added in the ISI search. The search in
SPORTDiscus was performed without pre-set boundaries. The first, relatively open, search (Search 1) returned 1225 articles, many of which, we quickly realized were not relevant whatsoever. We therefore added further limitations, as shown in the search criteria of MEDLINE/PubMed (Search 2) presented in
Table 1, which after proving their worth, were applied to all subsequent searches. We have presented Search 1 in Table 1 to illustrate the differences between the two search strategies. By imposing the additional limitations, we avoided sifting through roughly 500 irrelevant titles and abstracts, as well as possible several hundred others in subsequent searches. Ultimately, slightly more than 3400 titles and abstracts were examined to identify studies that would meet the inclusion criteria, and, of those, 385 potentially relevant articles were thoroughly investigated to
establish their eligibility according to the criteria. Search strategies and findings.
To be included in the review articles had to report empirical studies with original data, including data from national surveys, that represented adult participants of both genders; address the relationship of SES and PA in their titles or abstracts; apply Rice and Howells’ dimensions in measuring PA (i.e., intensity, frequency, type or mode and duration); and be written in English. Studies with the aim of investigating physical inactivity (PIA) that applied an adequate method of assessing the level of PA, were included. By contrast, articles were excluded if they reported studies with samples of disabled individuals or people with diseases exclusively; reported studies on motor skills; were doctoral theses, descriptive or theoretical papers, abstract of books or proceedings, conference papers or reviews; reported intervention studies with only either low- or high-SES groups; reported studies with single-gender samples; reported studies using the SES of the respondents’ parents (in the case of for example university students); reported studies that applied fewer than four of the mentioned dimensions in measuring PA (i.e., intensity, frequency, type or mode and duration); or primarily addressed methodological questions. Each of the databases searched offered schemes for imposing limits on the searches. To ensure that the selections of articles were based on the same criteria, some limitations had to be imposed during the reading process and others using pre-set limitations offered by the database. Limitations imposed on the searches appear in Table 1. The first author performed all searches, and both the two authors discussed the few articles whose eligibility was uncertain and determined their merit according to the criteria. 2.1. Data ExtractionFrom the studies included in the sample, data relevant to the present review were extracted, and registered the variables aim of study, design, sample characteristics (including gender, age, and nationality), measures of SES, and outcome/conclusions. Next, the various measures of SES were categorized by education, income, occupation, neighborhood or other if none of the mentioned categories pertained. In addition, less precisely defined variables (e.g., when income was dichotomized as low or high) were registered. Measures of PA were registered according to the four valid measurement dimensions (i.e., duration, frequency, intensity, type, or mode of PA). Phrases similar to “for at least 30 min at a time” were coded as duration. The question of whether the exercise could be regarded as vigorous or moderate was recorded as a measure of intensity. In some studies, authors had pre-calculated intensity by type of PA, particularly when the terms “moderate” and “vigorous” activity were used or when Ainsworth’s code schemas, which classify specific PA by rate of energy expenditure as the Metabolic Equivalent for Tasks (METs) [14], was cited. 2.2. AnalysisPapers were thoroughly reviewed for the directions of relationships reported, although-based also with attention to primary tendencies in the results. The categories of relationships, denominated as positive (i.e., high-SES groups being more active), negative (i.e., low-SES groups being more active), mixed (both high- and low SES being more active according to type of activity or SES measure) and no relation, were then sorted by continental affiliation (i.e., Europe, North America, South America, Asia, Africa, and Oceania). To minimize the complexity of presentation, studies of PIA reporting more inactivity in lower-SES groups were registered as having reported positive relationships. Studies reporting more inactivity among higher-SES groups were thus categorized as having reported a negative relationship. Within each geographical cluster, the frequency of studies with positive, negative, mixed or no relationship were recorded for each SES measure applied. Education was applied as a measure of SES in 16 European studies, 10 of which demonstrated a positive, one a negative, four a mixed, and one a non-existent relationship. A similar procedure was performed for the different domains of PA that emerged during the analysis. If results referred to PA guidelines or to several domains of PA combined, they were recorded in separate groups. Although results from studies of PIA were included in the analysis (more inactive groups considered less active) they were not analyzed as a freestanding group. Studies investigating gender differences were identified and analyzed both in terms of the primary (i.e., total) sample and as males and females separately. 3. ResultsThe searches returned 56 relevant studies, which were subsequently included in the final sample. Table 1 presents the search strategies and results. Above all, the outcome revealed complexity in the association between SES and PA among adults that adds important nuances to common assumptions about the relationship of SES and PA. The sample included studies representing 30 nations in total; 22 studies were European, 11 were Asian, nine were North American, eight were South American, five were Oceanian (i.e., Australian) and one was African (i.e., Nigerian). Almost three out of four (41) of the articles had been published during the second half of the period (2008–2014) and a third during the past 2 years. The samples varied widely, from 276 [15] to 55,151 [16], and women were slightly overrepresented in nearly every study. Regarding age composition, the studies’ samples were relatively similar; at the extremes, one had a mean age of 22.4 years [17,18] and the other a mean age of 75 years [19]. Except for samples from a few studies with slightly narrower age ranges, samples ranged from 18 to 65 or from 16 to 75 years. Three North American studies had particularly high-age samples of 53–97, 65–80+ and 50–79 years. Most of the studies were based on data from either interviewer- (e.g., telephone) or self-administered questionnaires, with the notable exceptions of van Dyck et al. [20], who complemented their data using accelerometers, and Golubic et al. [21], who combined self-reporting with heart rate and movement censoring. The vast majority of studies (n = 48) used education as an SES measure, whereas occupation was the most rarely applied measure (n = 14). Usually, two or more but no more than five measures were applied in each study to establish SES. Three fourths of all studies analyzed reported results related to all four dimensions of PA. In 30 of those studies, PA was operationalized as a rate of energy expenditure (e.g., total energy expenditure (TEE) or METs). When results from fewer than four dimensions were reported, intensity was the dimension most often excluded from analysis. In what follows, four tables are presented describing studies in the sample. Each table describes a different direction of relationships; Table 2 includes studies demonstrating predominantly positive relationships (i.e., high SES groups reported to be more active than low-SES groups), Table 3 includes studies with negative relationships (i.e., low-SES groups reported to be more active than high-SES groups), Table 4 includes studies reporting no relationship, and Table 5 includes studies demonstrating mixed relationships (i.e., positive, negative and non-existent) within the same study. Each table lists articles according to continental affiliation and, thereafter, by year of publication. Table 2Studies investigating PA in adults across SES. Positive relationships.
Table 3Studies investigating PA in adults across SES. Negative relationships.
Table 4Studies investigating PA in adults across SES. No relationship.
Table 5Studies investigating PA in adults across SES. Mixed relationships.
3.1. Directions of Relationships: Geographical Region, Period of Publication, SES Measure and AgeOf all 56 studies in the sample, fewer than half (23) reported a predominantly positive relationship between PA and SES. Nine studies reported a primarily negative relationship (low SES more active), whereas three studies showed no relationship at all. The remaining 21 studies reported mixed results. Only one of the 11 Asian studies [42] reported a positive relationship between PA and SES (i.e., greater likelihood of PIA in lower-SES groups), whereas approximately half of the studies from all other continents demonstrated positive relationships. Over time, although the proportion of studies showing positive results remained constant, the group of studies showing mixed results diminished at the expense of studies showing negative or no relationships. The results of our analysis provide no evidence that the choice of SES variable affects the direction of the relationship between PA and SES in adults. No marked differences emerged in the use of SES measure by continental affiliation, either. Using the mid-range of the individual age range in each sample, except when mean age was the age-related information given, we calculated the arithmetic mean, mode and median of age in each group of studies categorized according to the direction of relationship between PA and SES (Three studies were excluded from these calculations due to limited information on age (i.e., lowest age only)). The group of studies demonstrating positive relationships had a slightly higher mean, mode, and median age (i.e., 48.5, 45 and 45 years, respectively) than the other groups. Conversely, the group of studies demonstrating mixed relationships between PA and SES had the lowest mean, mode, and median age (i.e., 41.6, 40 and 40 years, respectively). 3.2. Physical Activity DomainsAll studies included in the present review presented data on the type or mode of PA, sometimes referred as “PA domains” (i.e., LTPA, OPA, TPA and HPA), according to which they were categorized. For most studies in which the term “domain” was not used, it was still possible to assign the type of PA to a domain. Sports, exercise and walking for recreation were classified as LTPA, for example, whereas gardening was classified as HPA. By enumerating the frequency at which the different domains were studied, a preponderance of LTPA was observed either alone or in combination with other domains. Studies had examined OPA and TPA equally often, albeit far less than LTPA (see Figure 1 for details). Results demonstrating positive, negative, mixed or no association between SES and PA within PA domains. Occasions, in which a domain has been studied (some studies include more than one domain). Seventeen studies reporting either PIA or total PA level without separating different PA domains are not included in this figure. Categorizing the studies revealed a clear tendency of a positive relationship between PA and SES in the LTPA domain but not necessarily in other domains. In 22 of the 32 studies addressing LTPA [16,19,24,25,28,29,30,33,38,40,41,43,55,57,59,60,61,64,66,67,68,69], a positive relationship with SES was found, whereas a negative relationship was found in only one study [44]. The remaining nine studies [21,32,45,46,51,52,53,54,58] reported less clear answers due to differences dependent upon gender, SES-measure, or other confounding effects. Nine of the 11 studies that included the OPA domain demonstrated negative relationships between PA and SES [15,45,55,57,60,61,65,66,67] whereas none of the studies including the OPA domain demonstrated a positive relationship between OPA and SES. In two studies [55,70], results were mixed due to differences across gender. Studies that included the TPA domain seemed to similarly demonstrate negative results; nine such studies [16,20,46,47,57,61,64,67,68] demonstrated negative relations, whereas three demonstrated non-existent or negative relationships [17,18,69], if not both. Of the eight studies examining HPA and SES, none demonstrated a positive relationship, although four demonstrated negative relationships [57,60,67,69], and four others demonstrated non-existent or mixed relationships related to gender differences [25,54,59,61], as illustrated in Figure 1. 3.3. Effects of GenderAn analysis of a subgroup of 26 studies reporting gender-specific results revealed that the relationship between SES and PA was positive for both men and women in the LTPA domain. The mentioned relationship between SES and OPA remained negative for men (low SES more active) but might have been somewhat less established in women. For the remainder of the domains (i.e., TPA and HPA), no clear trend was evident across the studies. 4. DiscussionIn the present review, only 23 of the 56 studies (41%) found that individuals of higher SES were more physically active than their low-SES counterparts, whereas nine studies reported the opposite (individuals of lower SES were more physically active). For 24 studies (43%), resolution is still wanting, in that they report either no effect of SES on PA or mixed effects with some variables favoring high SES and others falling on the side of the lower-SES population. When the results were organized by PA domains, a very clear picture emerged. Out the 32 studies that reported LTPA, 22 concluded that individuals with higher SES were more active, whereas that relationship appeared only once in the 33 studies when other PA domains examined (Figure 1). Regarding the other domains (i.e., HPA, TPA and OPA), an inverse relationship appeared for as many as two-thirds of studies, indicating that individuals from lower-SES groups were more physically active. In nine studies, no relationship was found between PA and SES. Furthermore, when results were organized according to the respective domains, a few important nuances surfaced. LTPA was positively related to SES irrespective of gender, whereas the OPA-SES relationship was positive for males and negative for females. The other relationships (i.e., TPA-SES and HPA-SES) remained unclear, however. Our results show, as with Stalsberg and Pedersen [5], Gidlow et al. [3] and Beenackers et al. [4] before, that the relationship between PA and SES is not as clear-cut as assumed. More importantly, the results support Beenackers et al.’s [4] findings that the relationship between PA and SES depends upon which PA-domains are measured. Thus, our findings upheld our hypothesis. At the same time, although we had limited data from developing countries, our results seem to support Palma and Assis’ [9] argument that studies’ undue focus on LTPA would misrepresent PA levels among populations in such countries. To that argument, we can add that the same would apply to the low-SES population of developed countries. Furthermore, the focus on PA in interventions, although certainly warranted, has obscured other variables not under the control of individuals. For example, the PA level of individuals of low SES likely suffers from their living in areas with less access to parks [71], or with less neighborhood walkability [72] and their health is also negatively affected by the cost of healthy food compared to that of junk food [73]. What the present results may indicate is that although individuals of lower SES have fewer financial resources to engage in leisure activities, they are more physically active than has been assumed when other PA domains (e.g., OPA and TPA) are taken into consideration. In, for example, Del Duca et al. [10] mentioned earlier, many individuals who were otherwise categorized as inactive, in fact, met recommendations for PA when data on TPA were included as opposed to when only LTPA was counted. It is reasonable to assume that people of lower SES have less surplus energy to be physically active during their leisure time, because of the physical strain of their work [74]. Moreover, there is reason to believe that people of higher SES are more active in their leisure time, out of necessity, because they are less physically active at work [67], and not merely because of their ability to finance their activities. The various operationalizations of the SES variable in previous studies have complicated comparisons across studies (see Gidlow et al. [3], and Stalsberg and Pedersen [5] for some more detail). In the present review, as education was the predominant variable for establishing SES among included studies, and the PA variable was held more stringent by the inclusion criteria, thus it secured a more homogenous batch of studies, the picture becomes clearer. The previously touted relationship between SES and PA is mainly a relationship between higher education and LTPA. Our results also suggest that studies on PA, including those investigating relationships with SES, have largely focused on LTPA, often in the form of registered sports participation, membership in sport clubs, and the like. That trend was apparent in all but five studies in our sample, and in 15 studies, LTPA was the sole variable. Studies of OPA, TPA and HPA remain scarce and have often been hampered with methodological inadequacies that blur the results. The reason for such bias could be that the four dimensions of PA (mentioned earlier) are easier to report in sports and other forms of LTPA and, even that the PA-questionnaires predominantly used are better adjusted for reporting such activities. The mentioned methodological consequences of over-generalizing results of LTPA-oriented studies could partly explain many of the observed differences in our dataset. For example, among Asian studies, only one of 11 studies [42] demonstrated positive relationships between PA and SES (higher SES were less inactive) compared with approximately half of the studies from all other continents combined. Such a finding suggests either that the relationship between the SES and PA differs for Asians compared with the rest of the world or, more likely, that the European and American studies have placed undue focus on LTPA compared with other domains. In studies that reported less clear or even negative relationships, observed gender-based differences also arguably coincide with the reality that women less often than men engage in sports [75], more often than men engage in household activities [76] and have less physically demanding occupations [77,78] than men do. Thus, no relationship emerged between PA and SES for females in our results. The trend, albeit unclear, that studies including older participants more often demonstrate positive relationships between SES and PA could relate to the fact that older individuals have more leisure time than younger ones. Furthermore, when studies have included groups of retirees, they have run the risk of underreporting OPA as well as TPA to and from work that would otherwise shift total PA in the direction of the low-SES group. The change in the relationship over time, also unclear, that more recent studies more often have demonstrated negative relationships could partly derive from the fact that those studies, compared with previous ones, included other PA domains instead of focusing solely on LTPA. Moreover, the trend of studies being more geographically diverse in recent years might have served to shift the focus away from LTPA. When measuring LTPA, and drawing conclusions about PA as a result, low-SES groups have appeared to be less physically active than they are, whereas the PA levels of high-SES groups have been overestimated. In addition, as Palma and Assis [9] have underscored, developing countries are misrepresented as having less physically active populations than developed countries because the former have far more physically demanding, time-consuming work that leaves less time for leisure activities, both due to less leisure time and greater fatigue after work, hence their reduced inclination to engage in PA. Another factor could be that studies of PA and SES are typically designed and conducted by individuals who belong to high-SES groups (e.g., researchers and physicians), which are characterized by their higher education, higher income, and less physically demanding occupations [79]. A social group holding the power to define and value or rate a social phenomenon might have the misfortune to disregard their own preconceptions and introduce bias as a result. Recent studies have argued that sedentary time might be a better indicator of health risk than lack of PA is [80,81]. Furthermore, it has been suggested that not even increased levels of physical exercise, sometimes mistaken for increased levels of total PA, can compensate for the declining levels of everyday PA, tentatively termed “daily life physical activity” (DLPA) by Stalsberg and Pedersen [11]) (cf. [82,83]). The over-eager focus on LTPA in scientific studies might have masked the lack of DLPA and thus prompted the underestimation of public health risks. When studying PA to be able to offer health advice, researchers should remember that the level of PA is but one of several variables that determine an individual’s health. As a case in point, Beckvid Henriksson et al. [11], found that the most physically active group – in their case, the low SES group—was also the one with the poorest health. In response, those authors suggested differences in diet across groups as another variable relevant to explaining their findings (see also [84]). The present study clearly involved limitations. Above all, our results cannot falsify the claim that individuals of higher SES are more active, which was not our aim in the first place. Furthermore, our results do not support conclusions about the total PA levels of any SES-group, since most studies do not report all PA-domains. Even if individuals of low SES are more physically active than they have been credited to be, we do not know whether that trend would contribute positively to their health, for all PA is not necessarily equally healthy. In fact, much of their work PA, might even be harmful. Last, we did not include data on sedentary time for any of the groups, which makes it impossible to draw conclusions about any health-related issues, as they depend upon both total PA and accumulated sedentary time. What our results contribute, however, is that the findings of studies seem to have varied across PA-domains and that the entire field of research on PA seems to have given undue attention to LTPA. Thus, results might become less clear when other domains are added to the mix. That possibility indicates directions for future studies seeking to respond to the questions that remain unanswered. More practically, researchers should report all PA-domains and account for sedentary time so that the variables can be balanced against each other. 5. ConclusionsThe assumed relationship between PA and SES is mostly a relationship between LTPA and high SES. No such relationship or a negative relationship between PA and SES for all other PA domains exists, which indicates that individuals from low-SES groups are more active. Whether the high- or low-SES group is more physically active in total remains unclear and is difficult to determine with any certainty based on available data. In any case, no comparison of PA across SES groups should be made without accounting for not only total LTPA, as is currently common, but also total PA. Developing countries and the low-SES group might also have been misrepresented in studies on PA. Those populations might be more physically active than they have been credited to be, the misconception of which is due perhaps to the fact that researchers most often come from high-SES populations in developed countries. That finding has consequences for practitioners targeting low-SES populations with interventions that attempt to increase their PA levels, and we suggest that researchers and practitioners should look beyond the mere amount of PA for other variables that can explain health-related differences across SES groups. Author ContributionsBoth authors have contributed to the article. Ragna Stalsberg and Arve Vorland Pedersen conceived and designed the study; Ragna Stalsberg and Arve Vorland Pedersen performed the data acquisition; Ragna Stalsberg and Arve Vorland Pedersen analyzed the data; Ragna Stalsberg and Arve Vorland Pedersen wrote the paper. Conflicts of InterestThe authors declare no conflict of interest. References1. Jenum A.K., Lorentzen C.A.N., Ommundsen Y. Targeting physical activity in a low socioeconomic status population: Observations from the Norwegian “Romsås in Motion” study. Br. J. Sport Med. 2009;43:64–69. doi: 10.1136/bjsm.2008.053637. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 2. Trost S.G., Owen N., Bauman A.E., Sallis J.F., Brown W. Correlates of adults’ participation in physical activity: Review and update. Med. Sci. Sport Exerc. 2002;34:1996–2001. doi: 10.1097/00005768-200212000-00020. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 3. Gidlow C., Johnston LH., Crone D., Ellis N., James D. A systematic review of the relationship between socio-economic position and physical activity. Health Educ. J. 2016;65:338–367. doi: 10.1177/0017896906069378. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 4. Beenackers M.A., Kamphuis C.B.M., Giskes K., Brug J., Kunst A.E., Burdorf A., van Lenthe F.J. Socioeconomic inequalities in occupational, leisure-time, and transport related physical activity among European adults: A systematic review. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2012;9:116. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-9-116. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 5. Stalsberg R., Pedersen A.V. Effects of socioeconomic status on the physical activity in adolescents: A systematic review of the evidence. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports. 2010;20:368–383. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0838.2009.01047.x. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 6. Warren J.R., Hoonakker P., Carayon P., Brand J. Job characteristics as mediators in SES-health relationships. Soc. Sci. Med. 2004;59:1367–1378. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.01.035. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 7. Landsbergis P.A., Schnall P.L., Pickering T.G., Warren K., Schwartz J.E. Lower socioeconomic status among men in relation to the association between job strain and blood pressure. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health. 2003;29:206–215. doi: 10.5271/sjweh.723. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 8. Bauman A.E., Reis R.S., Sallis J.F., Wells J.C., Loos R.J., Martin B.W., Lancet Physical Activity Series Working Group Correlates of physical activity: Why are some people physically active and others not? Lancet. 2012;380:258–271. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60735-1. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 9. Palma A., Assis M. Rich and physically active: Where are we talking from? Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports. 2011;21:151–152. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0838.2010.01225.x. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 10. Del Duca G.F., Nahas M.V., Garcia L.M.T., Silva S.G., Hallal P.C., Peres M.A. Active commuting reduces sociodemographic differences in adherence to recommendations derived from leisure-time physical activity among Brazilian adults. Public Health. 2016;134:12–17. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2016.01.016. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 11. Beckvid Henriksson G., Franzén S., Elinder L.S., Nyberg G. Low socio-economic status associated with unhealthy weight in six-year-old Swedish children despite higher levels of physical activity. Acta Paediatr. 2016;105:1204–1210. doi: 10.1111/apa.13412. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 12. Rice M.H., Howell C. Measurement of physical activity, exercise, and physical fitness in children: Issues and concerns. J. Pediatr. Nurs. 2000;15:148–156. doi: 10.1053/jn.2000.6019. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 13. Warren J.M., Ekelund U., Besson H., Mezzani A., Geladas N., Vanhees L., Experts Panel Assessment of physical activity—A review of methodologies with reference to epidemiological research: A report of the exercise physiology section of the European Association of Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation. Eur. J. Cardiovasc. Prev. Rehabil. 2010;17:127–139. doi: 10.1097/HJR.0b013e32832ed875. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 14. Ainsworth B.E., Haskell W.L., Leon A.S., Jacobs D.R., Jr., Montoye H.J., Sallis J.F., Paffenbarger R.S., Jr. Compendium of physical acticities: Classification of energy costs of human physical activities. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 1993;25:71–80. doi: 10.1249/00005768-199301000-00011. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 15. Fogelman Y., Bloch B., Kahan E. Assessment of participation in physical activities and relationship to socioeconomic and health factors. The controversial value of self-perception. Patient Educ. Couns. 2004;53:95–99. doi: 10.1016/S0738-3991(03)00119-8. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 16. Berrigan D., Troiano R.P., McNeel T., Disogra C., Ballard-Barbash R. Active transportation increases adherence to activity recommendations. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2006;31:210–216. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2006.04.007. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 17. Molina-Garcia J., Castillo I., Sallis J.F. Psychosocial and environmental correlates of active commuting for university students. Prev. Med. 2010;51:136–138. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2010.05.009. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 18. Molina-Garcia J., Sallis J.F., Castillo I. Active Commuting and Sociodemographic Factors Among University Students in Spain. J. Phys. Act. Health. 2014;11:359–363. doi: 10.1123/jpah.2012-0004. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 19. Satariano W.A., Haight T.J., Tager I.B. Living arrangements and participation in leisure-time physical activities in an older population. J. Aging Health. 2002;14:427–451. doi: 10.1177/089826402237177. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 20. Van Dyck D., Cardon G., Deforche B., Sallis J.F., Owen N., De Bourdeaudhuij I. Neighborhood SES and walkability are related to physical activity behavior in Belgian adults. Prev. Med. 2010;50:74–79. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2009.07.027. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 21. Golubic R., Martin K.R., Ekelund U., Hardy R., Kuh D., Wareham N., Cooper R., Brage S. Levels of physical activity among a nationally representative sample of people in early old age: Results of objective and self-reported assessments. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2014;11:58. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-11-58. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 22. Bernstein M.S., Costanza M.C., Morabia A. Physical activity of urban adults: A general population survey in Geneva. Soz. Praventivmed. 2001;46:49–59. doi: 10.1007/BF01318798. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 23. Bertrais S., Preziosi P., Mennen L., Galan P., Hercberg S., Oppert J.M. Sociodemographic and geographic correlates of meeting current recommendations for physical activity in middle-aged French adults: The Supplementation en Vitamines et Mineraux Antioxydants (SUVIMAX) Study. Am. J. Public Health. 2004;94:1560–1566. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.94.9.1560. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 24. Kamphuis C.B.M., van Lenthe F.J., Giskes K., Huisman M., Brug J., Mackenbach J.P. Socioeconomic status, environmental and individual factors, and sports participation. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2008;40:71–81. doi: 10.1249/mss.0b013e318158e467. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 25. Borodulin K., Laatikainen T., Lahti-Koski M., Jousilahti P., Lakka T.A. Association of Age and Education With Different Types of Leisure-Time Physical Activity Among 4437 Finnish Adults. J. Phys. Act. Health. 2008;5:242–251. doi: 10.1123/jpah.5.2.242. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 26. Kwaśniewska M., Kaczmarczyk K., Pikala M., Broda, Kozakiewicz K., Pajak A., Tykarski A., Zdrojewski T., Drygas W. Socio-demographic and lifestyle correlates of commuting activity in Poland. Prev. Med. 2010;50:257–261. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2010.02.011. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 27. Stringhini S., Dugravot A., Shipley M., Goldberg M., Zins M., Kivimäki M., Marmot M., Sabia S., Singh-Manoux A. Health behaviours, socioeconomic status, and mortality: Further analyses of the British Whitehall II and the French GAZEL prospective cohorts. PLoS Med. 2011;8:e1000419. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000419. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 28. Łobaszewski J., Przewožniak K., Zatońska K., Wojtyła A., Bylina J., Mańczuk M., Zatoński W.A. Patterns of leisure time physical activity and its determinants among a sample of adults from Kielce region, Poland—The ‘PONS’ study. Ann. Agric. Environ. Med. 2011;18:241–245. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 29. Borodulin K., Zimmer C., Sippola R., Mäkinen T., Laatikainen T., Prättälä R. Health Behaviours as Mediating Pathways between Socioeconomic Position and Body Mass Index. Int. J. Behav. Med. 2012;19:14–22. doi: 10.1007/s12529-010-9138-1. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 30. Ord K., Mitchell R., Pearce J. Is level of neighbourhood green space associated with physical activity in green space? Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2013;10:127. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-10-127. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 31. Uijtdewilligen L., Twisk J.W.R., Chinapaw M.J.M., Koppes L.L.J., Van Mechelen W., Singh A.S. Longitudinal Person-Related Determinants of Physical Activity in Young Adults. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2014;46:529–536. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000000126. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 32. Marques A., Martins J., Diniz J., Ramos M., Yazigi F., Onofre M., Carreiro da Costa F. The correlates of meeting physical activity recommendations: A population-based cross-sectional study. Eur. J. Sport Sci. 2014;14:462–470. doi: 10.1080/17461391.2012.713008. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 33. Huston S.L., Evenson K.R., Bors P., Gizlice Z. Neighborhood environment, access to places for activity, and leisure-time physical activity in a diverse North Carolina population. Am. J. Health Promot. 2003;18:58–69. doi: 10.4278/0890-1171-18.1.58. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 34. Ashe M.C., Miller W.C., Eng J.J., Noreau L. Physical Activity and Chronic Conditions Research Team. Older adults, chronic disease and leisure-time physical activity. Gerontology. 2009;55:64–72. doi: 10.1159/000141518. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 35. Azagba S., Sharaf M.F. Physical inactivity among older Canadian adults. J. Phys. Act. Health. 2014;11:99–108. doi: 10.1123/jpah.2011-0305. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 36. Dias-da-Costa J.S., Hallal P.C., Wells J.C.K., Daltoe T., Fuchs S.C., Menezes A.M.B., Olinto M.T.A. Epidemiology of leisure-time physical activity: A population-based study in southern Brazil. Cad. Saude Publica. 2005;21:275–282. doi: 10.1590/S0102-311X2005000100030. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 37. Azevedo M.R., Araújo C.L.P., Reichert F.F., Siqueira F.V., da Silva M.C., Hallal P.C. Gender differences in leisure-time physical activity. Int. J. Public Health. 2007;52:8–15. doi: 10.1007/s00038-006-5062-1. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 38. Reis R., Hino A.A.F., Rech C.R., Kerr J., Hallal P.C. Walkability and physical activity: Findings from Curitiba, Brazil. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2013;45:269–275. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2013.04.020. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 39. Brown A., Siahpush M. Socioeconomic Predictors of a Sedentary Lifestyle: Results From the 2001 National Health Survey. J. Phys. Act. Health. 2006;3:90–101. doi: 10.1123/jpah.3.1.90. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 40. Cerin E., Leslie E. How socio-economic status contributes to participation in leisure-time physical activity. Soc. Sci. Med. 2008;66:2596–2609. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.02.012. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 41. Gearon E., Backholer K., Hodge A., Peeters A. The mediating role of dietary factors and leisure time physical activity on socioeconomic inequalities in body mass index among Australian adults. BMC Public Health. 2013;13:1214. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-13-1214. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 42. Mabry R.M., Winkler E.A., Reeves M.M., Eakin E.G., Owen N. Correlates of Omani adults’ physical inactivity and sitting time. Public Health Nutr. 2013;16:65–72. doi: 10.1017/S1368980012002844. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 43. Adeniyi A.F., Chedi H. Levels and predictors of physical activity in a sample of pre-retirement and retired civil servants in Nigeria. East Afr. J. Public Health. 2010;7:140–143. doi: 10.4314/eajph.v7i2.64713. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 44. Guessous I., Gaspoz J.M., Theler J.M., Kayser B. Eleven-year physical activity trends in a Swiss urban area. Prev. Med. 2014;59:25–30. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2013.11.005. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 45. Wolin K.Y., Bennett G.G. Interrelations of socioeconomic position and occupational and leisure-time physical activity in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. J. Phys. Act. Health. 2008;5:229–241. doi: 10.1123/jpah.5.2.229. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 46. Hearst M.O., Sirard J.R., Forsyth A., Parker E.D., Klein E.G., Green C.G., Lytle L.A. The relationship of area-level sociodemographic characteristics, household composition and individual-level socioeconomic status on walking behavior among adults. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2013;50:149–157. doi: 10.1016/j.tra.2013.01.006. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 47. Kienteka M., Reis R.S., Rech C.R. Personal and behavioral factors associated with bicycling in adults from Curitiba, Parana State, Brazil. Cad. Saude Publica. 2014;30:79–87. doi: 10.1590/0102-311X00041613. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 48. Trinh O.T.H., Nguyen N.D., Dibley M.J., Phongsavan P., Bauman A.E. The prevalence and correlates of physical inactivity among adults in Ho Chi Minh City. BMC Public Health. 2008;8:204. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-8-204. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 49. Naseer M., Khoso A., Naqvi S., Irfan H. Sex-Based Difference in the Perception of Exercise and Level of Physical Activity Among Residents of Karachi City, Pakistan. J. Phys. Act. Health. 2013;10:1039–1047. doi: 10.1123/jpah.10.7.1039. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 50. Vaidya A., Krettek A. Physical activity level and its sociodemographic correlates in a peri-urban Nepalese population: A cross-sectional study from the Jhaukhel-Duwakot health demographic surveillance site. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2014;11:39. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-11-39. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 51. Schneider S., Huy C., Schuessler M., Diehl K., Schwarz S. Optimising lifestyle interventions: Identification of health behaviour patterns by cluster analysis in a German 50+ survey. Eur. J. Public Health. 2009;19:271–277. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckn144. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 52. Chen Y.J., Huang Y.H., Lu F.H., Wu J.S., Lin L.L., Chang C.J., Yang Y.C. The Correlates of Leisure Time Physical Activity among an Adults Population from Southern Taiwan. BMC Public Health. 2011;11:427. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-427. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 53. Borrell C., Dominguez-Berjón F., Pasarin M.I., Ferrando J., Rohlfs I., Nebot M. Social inequalities in health related behaviours in Barcelona. J. Epidemiol. Community Health. 2000;54:24–30. doi: 10.1136/jech.54.1.24. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 54. Livingstone M., Robson P.J., McCarthy S., Kiely M., Harrington K., Browne P., Galvin M., Wareham N.J., Rennie K.L. Physical activity patterns in a nationally representative sample of adults in Ireland. Public Health Nutr. 2001;4:1107–1116. doi: 10.1079/PHN2001192. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 55. Popham F., Mitchell R. Relation of employment status to socioeconomic position and physical activity types. Prev. Med. 2007;45:182–188. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2007.06.012. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 56. Allender S., Foster C., Boxer A. Occupational and Nonoccupational Physical Activity and the Social Determinants of Physical Activity: Results From the Health Survey for England. J. Phys. Act. Health. 2008;5:104–116. doi: 10.1123/jpah.5.1.104. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 57. Jurakić D., Pedišić Z., Andrijašević M. Physical activity of Croatian population: Cross-sectional study using International Physical Activity Questionnaire. Croat. Med. J. 2009;50:165–173. doi: 10.3325/cmj.2009.50.165. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 58. Hawkins S.A., Cockburn M.G., Hamilton A.S., Mack T.M. An estimate of physical activity prevalence in a large population-based cohort. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2004;36:253–260. doi: 10.1249/01.MSS.0000113485.06374.0E. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 59. Lee Y.S., Levy S.S. Gender and Income Associations in Physical Activity and Blood Pressure Among Older Adults. J. Phys. Act. Health. 2011;8:1–9. doi: 10.1123/jpah.8.1.1. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 60. Florindo A.A., Guimarães V.V., Cesar C.L.G., Barros M.B., Alves M.C., Goldbaum M. Epidemiology of leisure, transportation, occupational, and household physical activity: Prevalence and associated factors. J. Phys. Act. Health. 2009;6:625–632. doi: 10.1123/jpah.6.5.625. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 61. Bicalho P.G., Hallal P.C., Gazinelli A., Knuth A.G., Velásquez-Meléndez G. Adult physical activity levels and associated factors in rural communities of Minas Gerais State, Brazil. Rev. Saúde Pública. 2010;44:884–893. doi: 10.1590/S0034-89102010005000023. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 62. Del Duca G.F., Nahas M.V., Garcia L.M., Mota J., Hallal P.C., Peres M.A. Prevalence and sociodemographic correlates of all domains of physical activity in Brazilian adults. Prev. Med. 2013;56:99–102. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2012.11.007. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 63. Linetzky B., De Maio F., Ferrante D., Konfino J., Boissonnet C. Sex-stratified socio-economic gradients in physical inactivity, obesity, and diabetes: Evidence of short-term changes in Argentina. Int. J. Public Health. 2013;58:277–284. doi: 10.1007/s00038-012-0371-z. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 64. Giles-Corti B., Donovan R. Socioeconomic status differences in recreational physical activity levels and real and perceived access to a supportive physical environment. Prev. Med. 2002;35:601–611. doi: 10.1006/pmed.2002.1115. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 65. Proper K.I., Cerin E., Owen N. Neighborhood and Individual Socio-Economic Variations in the Contribution of Occupational Physical Activity to Total Physical Activity. J. Phys. Act. Health. 2006;3:179–190. doi: 10.1123/jpah.3.2.179. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 66. Kahan E., Fogelman Y., Bloch B. Correlations of work, leisure, and sports physical activities and health status with socioeconomic factors: A national study in Israel. Postgrad. Med. J. 2005;81:262–265. doi: 10.1136/pgmj.2004.022293. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 67. Khaing Nang E.E., Khoo E.Y.H., Salim A., Tai E.S., Lee J., Van Dam R.M. Patterns of physical activity in different domains and implications for intervention in a multi-ethnic Asian population: A cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health. 2010;10:644. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-10-644. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 68. Saito Y., Oguma Y., Inoue S., Tanaka A., Kobori Y. Environmental and individual correlates of various types of physical activity among community-dwelling middle-aged and elderly Japanese. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2013;10:2028–2042. doi: 10.3390/ijerph20052028. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 69. Talaei M., Rabiei K., Talaei Z., Amiri N., Zolfaghari B., Kabiri P., Sarrafzadegan N. Physical activity, sex, and socioeconomic status: A population based study. ARYA Atheroscler. 2013;9:51–60. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 70. Ying C., Kuay L.K., Huey T.C., Hock L.K., Hamid H.A., Omar M.A., Ahmad N.A., Cheong K.C. Prevalence and factors associated with physical inactivity among Malaysian adults. Southeast Asian J. Trop. Med. Public Health. 2014;45:467–480. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 71. Schipperijn J., Cerin E., Adams M.A., Reis R., Smith G., Cain K., Christiansen L.B., Dyck D.V., Gidlow C., Frank L.D., et al. Access to parks and physical activity: An eight country comparison. Urban For. Urban Green. 2017;27:253–263. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2017.08.010. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 72. Sallis J.F., Conway T.L., Cain K.L., Carlson J.A., Frank L.D., Kerr J., Glanz K., Chapman J.E., Saelens B.E. Neighborhood built environment and socioeconomic status in relation to physical activity, sedentary behavior, and weight status of adolescents. Prev. Med. 2018;110:47–54. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2018.02.009. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 73. Franck C., Grandi S.M., Eisenberg M.J. Taxing Junk Food to Counter Obesity. Am. J. Public Health. 2013;103:1949–1953. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2013.301279. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 74. Bláfoss R., Micheletti J.K., Sundstrup E., Jakobsen M.D., Bay H., Andersen L.L. Is fatigue after work a barrier for leisure-time physical activity? Cross-sectional study among 10,000 adults from the general working population. Scand. J. Public Health. 2018 doi: 10.1177/1403494818765894. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 75. Deaner R.O., Geary D.C., Puts D.A., Ham S.A., Kruger J., Fles E., Winegard B., Grandis T. A Sex Difference in the Predisposition for Physical Competition: Males Play Sports Much More than Females Even in the Contemporary U.S. PLoS ONE. 2012;7:e49168. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0049168. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 76. Domínguez-Folgueras M. Is Cohabitation More Egalitarian? The Division of Household Labor in Five European Countries. J. Fam. Issues. 2013;34:1623–1646. doi: 10.1177/0192513X12464948. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 77. Chau J.Y., van der Ploeg H.P., Merom D., Chey T., Bauman A.E. Cross-sectional associations between occupational and leisure-time sitting, physical activity and obesity in working adults. Prev. Med. 2012;54:195–200. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2011.12.020. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 78. Martin K.R., Kuh D., Harris T.B., Guralnik J.M., Coggon D., Wills A.K. Body mass index, occupational activity, and leisure-time physical activity: An exploration of risk factors and modifiers for knee osteoarthritis in the 1946 British birth cohort. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 2013;14:219. doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-14-219. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 79. Stalsberg R., Pedersen A.V. Where are we talking from? Leisure-time physical activity and daily-life physical activity from a global perspective. Comments to Letter to the Editor. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports. 2011;21:153–154. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0838.2010.01257.x. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 80. Katzmarzyk P.T., Church T.S., Craig C.L., Bouchard C. Sitting time and mortality from all causes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2009;41:998–1005. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181930355. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 81. Owen N., Sparling P.B., Healy G.N., Dunstan D.W., Matthews C.E. Sedentary behavior: Emerging evidence for a new health risk. Mayo Clin. Proc. 2010;85:1138–1141. doi: 10.4065/mcp.2010.0444. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 82. Hamilton M.T., Healy G.N., Dunstan D.W., Zderic T.W., Owen N. Too little exercise and too much sitting: Inactivity physiology and the need for new recommendations on sedentary behavior. Curr. Cardiovasc. Risk Rep. 2008;2:292–298. doi: 10.1007/s12170-008-0054-8. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 83. Owen N., Bauman A., Brown W. Too much sitting: A novel and important predictor of chronic disease risk? Br. J. Sports Med. 2009;43:81–83. doi: 10.1136/bjsm.2008.055269. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 84. Malhotra A., Noakes T., Phinney S. It is time to bust the myth of physical inactivity and obesity: You cannot outrun a bad diet. Br. J. Sports Med. 2015;49:967–968. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2015-094911. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] Articles from International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health are provided here courtesy of Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI) Which of the following statements is true of the influence of socioeconomic status on individuals participation in physical activity multiple choice question?Which of the following statements is true of the influence of socioeconomic status on individuals' participation in physical activity? Individuals who come from affluent backgrounds have more disposable income for involvement in fitness.
Is socioeconomic status a significant influence on participation in physical activity?Previous studies have shown that boys with higher socioeconomic status are more active (Lampinen et al., 2017). However, studies have also found that socioeconomic status does not affect male and female physical activity (Donnelly et al., 2021).
Which of the following is a barrier that serves to limit participation in regular physical activity?Identifying barriers to physical activity
It a 21-item measure assessing the following barriers to physical activity: 1) lack of time, 2) social influence, 3) lack of energy, 4) lack of willpower, 5) fear of injury, 6) lack of skill, and 7) lack of resources (eg, recreational facilities, exercise equipment).
Which branch of exercise science is used to motivate people to be active set realistic goals and perform better in sports?Exercise psychology, including sport psychology, can help motivate people to be active, set realistic goals, and perform better in sports. Exercise sociology is the branch of kinesiology that focuses on social relationships and interactions in physical activity, including sports.
|