Should we restrict evening physical activity among youth? The association between evening MVPA and sleep quality is modified by age among physically active youth from the Family Life, Activity, Sun, Health, and Eating Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Current sleep hygiene recommendations advise against moderate-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) in the evening; few studies have examined how evening MVPA relates to sleep among youth. We examined associations between evening MVPA (6-10pm) and sleep quality among 12-17-year-olds who met daily MVPA guidelines (60 minutes). Methods: This cross-sectional study is a secondary analysis of data from the FLASHE (Nebeling et al., 2017) study. Web-based survey data regarding sleep quality and MVPA timing were collected from 1416 US youth who meet MVPA guidelines. Sleep quality (good/poor) was compared between youth who reported participating in evening MVPA at least 1 evening/week versus those reporting no evening MVPA, using covariate-adjusted logistic regressions. Moderation by age (12-14 vs. 15-17 years) was examined. Results: Most youth (77%) participated in evening MVPA at least 1 evening/week and 87% experienced good sleep quality. Sleep quality did not differ between youth who engaged in evening MVPA vs. those who did not, but only among 12-14-year-olds. Among youth aged 15-17 years, there was a significant positive association between evening MVPA and sleep quality; those who engaged in evening MVPA had 3.35 times the odds of good sleep quality relative to those with no evening MVPA. Conclusion(s): Our study did not find evidence to restrict opportunities for youth to engage in evening MVPA. In fact, evening MVPA positively relates to sleep quality among older youth. Further work is required to understand the effects of evening MVPA on other objective and subjective sleep attributes.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".