Neville Owen

Bio: Neville Owen is an academic researcher from Baker IDI Heart and Diabetes Institute. The author has contributed to research in topics: Population & Sitting. The author has an hindex of 127, co-authored 700 publications receiving 74166 citations. Previous affiliations of Neville Owen include Loughborough University & University of Wollongong.

Correlates of adults' participation in physical activity: review and update.

Abstract: Purpose To review and update the evidence relating to the personal, social, and environmental factors associated with physical activity (PA) in adults. Methods Systematic review of the peer-reviewed literature to identify papers published between 1998 and 2000 with PA (and including exercise and exercise adherence). Qualitative reports or case studies were not included. Results Thirty-eight new studies were located. Most confirmed the existence of factors already known to be correlates of PA. Changes in status were noted in relation to the influence of marital status, obesity, smoking, lack of time, past exercise behavior, and eight environmental variables. New studies were located which focused on previously understudied population groups such as minorities, middle and older aged adults, and the disabled. Conclusion The newly reported studies tend to take a broader “ecological” approach to understanding the correlates of PA and are more focused on environmental factors. There remains a need to better understand environmental influences and the factors that influence different types of PA. As most of the work in this field still relies on cross-sectional studies, longitudinal and intervention studies will be required if causal relationships are to be inferred.

Too Much Sitting: The Population Health Science of Sedentary Behavior

Abstract: Even when adults meet physical activity guidelines, sitting for prolonged periods can compromise metabolic health Television (TV) time and objective measurement studies show deleterious associations, and breaking up sedentary time is beneficial Sitting time, TV time, and time sitting in automobiles increase premature mortality risk Further evidence from prospective studies, intervention trials, and population-based behavioral studies is required

Letter to the Editor: Standardized use of the terms "sedentary" and "sedentary behaviours"

Abstract: There has recently been an increase in research related to the health impact of sedentary behaviour (e.g., sitting) (Tremblay et al. 2010). Numerous studies suggest that those who engage in high amounts of sedentary behaviour can be at increased risk of morbidity and mortality regardless of their level of moderateto vigorous-intensity physical activity (MVPA) (Dunstan et al. 2010; Grøntved and Hu 2011; Katzmarzyk et al. 2009; Thorp et al. 2011; Wijndaele et al. 2011). Further, it has been noted that there is often little association between sedentary behaviour and MVPA (Biddle et al. 2004; Ekelund et al. 2006) and that it is possible for an individual to accumulate large amounts of both MVPA and sedentary behaviour in the course of a day (Healy et al. 2008; Katzmarzyk et al. 2009; Owen et al. 2010; Tremblay et al. 2010; Wong and Leatherdale 2008). Taken together, these findings suggest that too much sitting and too little MVPA represent separate and distinct risk factors for chronic, noncommunicable diseases (e.g., cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer). While research into the biology and health impact of sedentary behaviour represents an exciting new field of study, current inconsistencies in terminology are confusing for students, researchers, policymakers, and the general public. In short, the term “sedentary” currently has two separate and contradictory operational definitions. In this emerging field of research, sedentary behaviours are typically defined by both low energy expenditure (e.g., resting metabolic rate, typically ≤1.5 metabolic equivalents (METs)) and a sitting or reclining posture (Owen et al. 2010; Pate et al. 2008; Tremblay et al. 2010). In this context, a person may be described as sedentary if they engage in a large amount of sedentary behaviour. In contrast, in the sport and exercise literature the term sedentary is frequently used to describe the absence of some threshold of MVPA (Church et al. 2009; Melanson et al. 2009; Mullen et al. 2011; Sims et al. 2012; Smith et al. 2010). Thus, it is common for researchers in this field to describe a participant as sedentary because they are not meeting physical activity guidelines. Hence, many exercise studies include a “sedentary control group” or refer to their participants as coming from a “sedentary population” because of their lack of physical activity without actually measuring or assessing their level of sedentary behaviour. It is not difficult to see how these conflicting definitions of the term sedentary can easily lead to confusion. When reading the title or abstract of an article, it is often difficult to ascertain which definition of sedentary the authors have employed. If an article focuses on the health impact of a “sedentary lifestyle”, are they concerned with excessive sitting–lying down, the lack of physical activity, or both? Further, it is surprisingly common for articles within a given academic journal to oscillate between one definition and the other. To prevent further confusion, we propose that journal editors adopt a consistent definition of the term sedentary and require that all manuscripts published within their journal adhere to this common terminology. We suggest that journals formally define sedentary behaviour as any waking behaviour characterized by an energy expenditure ≤1.5 METs while in a sitting or reclining posture. In contrast, we suggest that authors use the term “inactive” to describe those who are performing insufficient amounts of MVPA (i.e., not meeting specified physical activity guidelines). The formal adoption of the above definitions by journal editors and reviewers would greatly improve the clarity of research and discussion related to these important health behaviours and help researchers searching for studies specific to sedentary behaviour or physical inactivity. We hope the research community will support these definitions and we look forward to further improvements in our understanding of the health impacts of sedentary behaviour and physical activity.

Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes

Abstract: XI. STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING DIABETES CARE D iabetes is a chronic illness that requires continuing medical care and patient self-management education to prevent acute complications and to reduce the risk of long-term complications. Diabetes care is complex and requires that many issues, beyond glycemic control, be addressed. A large body of evidence exists that supports a range of interventions to improve diabetes outcomes. These standards of care are intended to provide clinicians, patients, researchers, payors, and other interested individuals with the components of diabetes care, treatment goals, and tools to evaluate the quality of care. While individual preferences, comorbidities, and other patient factors may require modification of goals, targets that are desirable for most patients with diabetes are provided. These standards are not intended to preclude more extensive evaluation and management of the patient by other specialists as needed. For more detailed information, refer to Bode (Ed.): Medical Management of Type 1 Diabetes (1), Burant (Ed): Medical Management of Type 2 Diabetes (2), and Klingensmith (Ed): Intensive Diabetes Management (3). The recommendations included are diagnostic and therapeutic actions that are known or believed to favorably affect health outcomes of patients with diabetes. A grading system (Table 1), developed by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and modeled after existing methods, was utilized to clarify and codify the evidence that forms the basis for the recommendations. The level of evidence that supports each recommendation is listed after each recommendation using the letters A, B, C, or E.

Efficacy of the Theory of Planned Behaviour: a meta-analytic review.

Abstract: The Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) has received considerable attention in the literature. The present study is a quantitative integration and review of that research. From a database of 185 independent studies published up to the end of 1997, the TPB accounted for 27% and 39% of the variance in behaviour and intention, respectively. The perceived behavioural control (PBC) construct accounted for significant amounts of variance in intention and behaviour, independent of theory of reasoned action variables. When behaviour measures were self-reports, the TPB accounted for 11% more of the variance in behaviour than when behaviour measures were objective or observed (R2s = .31 and .21, respectively). Attitude, subjective norm and PBC account for significantly more of the variance in individuals' desires than intentions or self-predictions, but intentions and self-predictions were better predictors of behaviour. The subjective norm construct is generally found to be a weak predictor of intentions. This is partly attributable to a combination of poor measurement and the need for expansion of the normative component. The discussion focuses on ways in which current TPB research can be taken forward in the light of the present review.

Quantity and Quality of Exercise for Developing and Maintaining Cardiorespiratory, Musculoskeletal, and Neuromotor Fitness in Apparently Healthy Adults: Guidance for Prescribing Exercise

Abstract: The purpose of this Position Stand is to provide guidance to professionals who counsel and prescribe individualized exercise to apparently healthy adults of all ages. These recommendations also may apply to adults with certain chronic diseases or disabilities, when appropriately evaluated and advised by a health professional. This document supersedes the 1998 American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) Position Stand, "The Recommended Quantity and Quality of Exercise for Developing and Maintaining Cardiorespiratory and Muscular Fitness, and Flexibility in Healthy Adults." The scientific evidence demonstrating the beneficial effects of exercise is indisputable, and the benefits of exercise far outweigh the risks in most adults. A program of regular exercise that includes cardiorespiratory, resistance, flexibility, and neuromotor exercise training beyond activities of daily living to improve and maintain physical fitness and health is essential for most adults. The ACSM recommends that most adults engage in moderate-intensity cardiorespiratory exercise training for ≥30 min·d on ≥5 d·wk for a total of ≥150 min·wk, vigorous-intensity cardiorespiratory exercise training for ≥20 min·d on ≥3 d·wk (≥75 min·wk), or a combination of moderate- and vigorous-intensity exercise to achieve a total energy expenditure of ≥500-1000 MET·min·wk. On 2-3 d·wk, adults should also perform resistance exercises for each of the major muscle groups, and neuromotor exercise involving balance, agility, and coordination. Crucial to maintaining joint range of movement, completing a series of flexibility exercises for each the major muscle-tendon groups (a total of 60 s per exercise) on ≥2 d·wk is recommended. The exercise program should be modified according to an individual's habitual physical activity, physical function, health status, exercise responses, and stated goals. Adults who are unable or unwilling to meet the exercise targets outlined here still can benefit from engaging in amounts of exercise less than recommended. In addition to exercising regularly, there are health benefits in concurrently reducing total time engaged in sedentary pursuits and also by interspersing frequent, short bouts of standing and physical activity between periods of sedentary activity, even in physically active adults. Behaviorally based exercise interventions, the use of behavior change strategies, supervision by an experienced fitness instructor, and exercise that is pleasant and enjoyable can improve adoption and adherence to prescribed exercise programs. Educating adults about and screening for signs and symptoms of CHD and gradual progression of exercise intensity and volume may reduce the risks of exercise. Consultations with a medical professional and diagnostic exercise testing for CHD are useful when clinically indicated but are not recommended for universal screening to enhance the safety of exercise.

Health benefits of physical activity: the evidence

Abstract: The primary purpose of this narrative review was to evaluate the current literature and to provide further insight into the role physical inactivity plays in the development of chronic disease and premature death. We confirm that there is irrefutable evidence of the effectiveness of regular physical activity in the primary and secondary prevention of several chronic diseases (e.g., cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, hypertension, obesity, depression and osteoporosis) and premature death. We also reveal that the current Health Canada physical activity guidelines are sufficient to elicit health benefits, especially in previously sedentary people. There appears to be a linear relation between physical activity and health status, such that a further increase in physical activity and fitness will lead to additional improvements in health status.

Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics—2019 Update: A Report From the American Heart Association

Abstract: March 5, 2019 e1 WRITING GROUP MEMBERS Emelia J. Benjamin, MD, ScM, FAHA, Chair Paul Muntner, PhD, MHS, FAHA, Vice Chair Alvaro Alonso, MD, PhD, FAHA Marcio S. Bittencourt, MD, PhD, MPH Clifton W. Callaway, MD, FAHA April P. Carson, PhD, MSPH, FAHA Alanna M. Chamberlain, PhD Alexander R. Chang, MD, MS Susan Cheng, MD, MMSc, MPH, FAHA Sandeep R. Das, MD, MPH, MBA, FAHA Francesca N. Delling, MD, MPH Luc Djousse, MD, ScD, MPH Mitchell S.V. Elkind, MD, MS, FAHA Jane F. Ferguson, PhD, FAHA Myriam Fornage, PhD, FAHA Lori Chaffin Jordan, MD, PhD, FAHA Sadiya S. Khan, MD, MSc Brett M. Kissela, MD, MS Kristen L. Knutson, PhD Tak W. Kwan, MD, FAHA Daniel T. Lackland, DrPH, FAHA Tené T. Lewis, PhD Judith H. Lichtman, PhD, MPH, FAHA Chris T. Longenecker, MD Matthew Shane Loop, PhD Pamela L. Lutsey, PhD, MPH, FAHA Seth S. Martin, MD, MHS, FAHA Kunihiro Matsushita, MD, PhD, FAHA Andrew E. Moran, MD, MPH, FAHA Michael E. Mussolino, PhD, FAHA Martin O’Flaherty, MD, MSc, PhD Ambarish Pandey, MD, MSCS Amanda M. Perak, MD, MS Wayne D. Rosamond, PhD, MS, FAHA Gregory A. Roth, MD, MPH, FAHA Uchechukwu K.A. Sampson, MD, MBA, MPH, FAHA Gary M. Satou, MD, FAHA Emily B. Schroeder, MD, PhD, FAHA Svati H. Shah, MD, MHS, FAHA Nicole L. Spartano, PhD Andrew Stokes, PhD David L. Tirschwell, MD, MS, MSc, FAHA Connie W. Tsao, MD, MPH, Vice Chair Elect Mintu P. Turakhia, MD, MAS, FAHA Lisa B. VanWagner, MD, MSc, FAST John T. Wilkins, MD, MS, FAHA Sally S. Wong, PhD, RD, CDN, FAHA Salim S. Virani, MD, PhD, FAHA, Chair Elect On behalf of the American Heart Association Council on Epidemiology and Prevention Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee