Recent Cannabis Use and Accelerometer-Measured Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior Among Young-to-Midlife Adults: An Analysis of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey from 2011 to 2014
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Cannabis use has been associated with reduced physical activity and increased sedentary behavior in adolescents. In adults, however, there is no conclusive evidence of such an association, and existing studies have primarily relied on self-reported activity measures. As cannabis use increases globally, a deeper understanding of its relationship with activity levels may inform clinical counseling and guidelines. This study investigated the association between recent cannabis use and accelerometer-measured activity. Methods: Data were obtained from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) from 2011 to 2014. We included adults in the United States who responded to a cannabis questionnaire and had at least 4 days of activity data from an ActiGraph GT3X+ accelerometer, which comprised participants from 18 to 59 years. The primary exposure was any self-reported cannabis use in the past 30 days. The primary outcome was daily sedentary time and secondary outcomes were daily light physical activity (LPA) and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA). Analyses were performed with multivariable quasi-Poisson regression models. Results: Of 4666 included adults, 658 (14.1%) reported recent cannabis use. After covariate adjustment, recent cannabis use was not associated with daily sedentary time (adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR] 0.99, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.98–1.01) or daily MVPA time (aIRR 1.01, 95% CI: 0.98–1.04). Daily LPA time was 4% greater with recent cannabis use (aIRR 1.04, 95% CI: 1.01–1.06). Conclusion: Recent cannabis use in young to midlife adults was not associated with accelerometer-measured sedentary or MVPA time, but it was associated with a marginal increase in LPA time of unclear clinical significance. Our findings provide evidence against existing concerns that cannabis use independently promotes sedentary behavior and decreases physical activity. Future prospective studies are needed to determine if these findings generalize to specific populations using cannabis including chronic pain patients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".