Hindawi

BioMed Research International

Volume 2019, Article ID 9791281, 10 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/9791281

Research Article
Physical Activity, Sedentary Behavior, and Quality of Life among
University Students

Paweł F. Nowak ,1 Agnieszka Bożek ,2 and Mateusz Blukacz2

1
Faculty of Physical Education and Physiotherapy, Opole University of Technology, Opole, Poland
2
Institute of Psychology, Jagiellonian Univeristy, Cracow, Poland

Correspondence should be addressed to Paweł F. Nowak; [email protected]

Received 16 July 2019; Revised 8 November 2019; Accepted 2 December 2019; Published 18 December 2019

Academic Editor: Rajnish Chaturvedi

Copyright © 2019 Paweł F. Nowak et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution
License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is
properly cited.
The aim of our study was to explore the relation between physical activity, sedentary behavior, and the subjective and objective
indicators of quality of life as well as life satisfaction among university students, whose education is related to different dimensions
on health. Participants (N � 595) were invited to fill in a set of suitable questionnaires. The path analysis and linear regression were
used to establish a relationship between the examined constructs. Only some types of physical activity have shown a positive
relation with the quality of life; the study also revealed some age and gender regularities. Physical activity in the household was
most positively correlated to the quality of life. The amount of leisure and transport physical activity decreased with age, and there
were also gender differences regarding the intensity and type of physical activity. Sedentary behavior during the week related
positively with the subjective quality of life and its intimacy dimension, but sedentary behavior at the weekends was negatively
related to objective and subjective quality of life as well as dimensions including intimacy, safety, and communicative aspect of the
quality of life. Neither physical activity nor sedentary behavior demonstrated a significant relation with the level of life satisfaction.
The type of physical activity undertaken and its matching to the needs of the young person affected their objective and subjective
quality of life. Those findings may have important implications for institutions responsible for promoting active lifestyle.

1. Introduction healthy lifestyle is a determinant of health in all its di-

mensions [3]. Being considered as a healthy behavior,
Physical activity is commonly considered important, as the physical activity forms a significant element of the public
needs of a modern lifestyle can be fulfilled in this manner. It health policy system in both developing and developed
serves to fulfill the biologically conditioned need to un- countries [4]. It is also a worldwide recognized health
dertake movement activities and forms one of the di- promotion tool, because it directly increases the health
mensions of everyday activity. It affects health and efficient potential not only in the biological dimension of the or-
everyday activity; it can also reduce health care costs [1]. ganism but also in the psychosocial dimension. This is why
However, beside the utilitarian aspects, physical activity is the WHO disseminates information regarding spending
also a cultural manifestation of spending leisure time. The human’s energy through physical activity, with a certain
data from high-income countries confirm a decrease in volume and frequency, which is the biological minimum for
human muscle work relating to performing professional the development of and keeping a good health [5]. However,
duties; on the other hand, physical activity of a recreational in opposition to educational intervention and programs
nature is still increasing [2]. promoting active or sporty lifestyle, dissemination of sed-
Physical activity is considered to be a positive health entary culture (i.e., comfortable life and avoiding effort) can
measure. It forms an integral part of a healthy lifestyle also be observed; this culture is determined by many factors
desired by society, especially in the western culture, as a related to development of modern civilization [6, 7].
2 BioMed Research International

It is worth emphasizing that one in five people in the work, household duties, recreation, or transport) and to
world is completely physically inactive [8]. The amount of what extent they relate to the indicators of quality of life and
sedentary behavior grows with wealth of societies and the general life satisfaction.
level of urban development. Inactivity is more common
among women than men and this tendency increases with 2. Materials and Methods
age. Up to one third of adults and four fifths of the youth do
not achieve the recommended level of physical activity [2]. 2.1. Participants. The study was conducted among 595
Researchers emphasize that the amount of time spent in students from six Polish universities. They were classified
front of computer screen or TV goes up systematically, and into two groups depending on the study course: 295 students
this has a negative impact on quality of life related to health, of physical health, physiotherapy, and tourism and recrea-
combined with lack of physical activity [9]. Additionally, the tion, whose education is focused on the human body, and
lack of physical activity is the fourth leading cause of deaths 300 students of psychology, pedagogy, or theology, whose
in the world [10]. education deals with the human mind and spirit. In total,
Contemporary strategies disseminating physical activity there were 387 (65%) females and 208 (35%) males, aged
and research concepts in this area focus on several key areas, from 18 to 30 (M � 21.67; SD � 1.88).
where an individual can spend their energy using their own
muscles. Four types of physical activity are distinguished:
activity related to professional work, activity related to 2.2. Measurements and Data Analysis. The authors applied
movement throughout the day, activity related to household the International Physical Activity Questionnaire [27] with
duties, and recreational activity performed in the leisure the purpose of assessing physical activity undertaken across
time [11]. An examination regarding the level of physical a comprehensive set of domains including leisure time
activity in the group on the emerging adults is particularly physical activity; domestic and gardening activities; work-
important, as in this period of life, health habits are built up; related physical activity; transport-related physical activity;
it is also the period of diverse experiences that affect the way and sedentary behavior measured separately during the
of life in the future [12]. week and at the weekend. The questionnaire contains 26
Concept of quality of life has become widespread in the questions regarding the duration of time (expressed in
perspective of socioeconomic and cultural development [13]. minutes) that participants spend on the given activities.
It is a multidimensional construct; different studies take into To assess quality of life the authors used Comprehensive
account its different aspects. Previous studies have shown a Quality of Life Scale—Adult (ComQol-A5) by Cummins
positive relationship between physical activity and various [28]. This scale comprises 14 items and measures both
indicators of the quality of life, but they mainly concerned objective and subjective dimensions of quality of life that
older adults [14, 15] or chronically ill individuals [16]; most cover seven areas: material well-being, health, productivity,
of them concerned only health-related quality of life [17, 18]. intimacy, safety, place in community, and emotional well-
However, the present study focuses on both objective and being. The measurement of each objective domain is
subjective indicators of the quality of life and their associ- achieved by obtaining an aggregate importance score based
ation with physical activity or sedentary behavior among on the measurement of three objective indices relevant to
university students. that domain. The measurement of each subjective domain is
Life satisfaction deals with overall assessment of one’s achieved by obtaining a satisfaction score of that domain,
own achievements and living [19]. This is the degree to whose relevance is weighed by the perceived importance of
which a person evaluates the overall quality of their life- the domain for an individual.
—overall positively or negatively [20]. Results of different Life satisfaction was measured with the Satisfaction with
research studies are inconsistent, although most of them Life Scale (SWLS) by Diener et al. [19]. The scale contains 5
indicate a positive relation between physical activity as such items relating to the sense of satisfaction with one’s own
and life satisfaction. For example, Maher and colleagues [21] achievements and living conditions.
found that college students who engaged in more physical The study was carried out in groups of students. After
activity that is typical for them experienced greater life obtaining permission to conduct research from study heads,
satisfaction. participants completed a paper set of questionnaires in the
The purpose of the study is to examine the relationships presence of the investigator. Due to large data gaps or in-
between physical activity, sedentary behavior, and subjective adequate completion of the questionnaires (e.g., in the form
and objective indicators of quality of life as well as life of marking only the extreme answers), approximately 3% of
satisfaction among a group of university students, whose the questionnaires were rejected.
future work deals with either the human’s body or mind. The relations between quality of life and physical activity
Based on current research [17, 22–26], we assumed that were modeled using path analysis, based on which a model
physical activity affects an increase in different indicators of was created so as to represent the structure of relations
quality of life and thereby increases the life satisfaction. between various aspects of the analyzed constructs. The
Conversely, it was assumed that sedentary behavior con- model is based on an assumption that the subjective quality
tributes to a decrease in the quality of various aspects of the of life depends on the amount of physical activity, but the
quality of life. The authors also wanted to find out the types relations are analyzed as different physical activities and
of physical activity (i.e., activity associated with: professional separate domains representing the quality of life, while
BioMed Research International 3

controlling for energy expenditure, age, gender, and type of coefficients and indirect effects which are paths that run
education. This allowed the authors to identify and analyze from one variable to another through other variables. The
in detail the relations often described in the literature as a total indirect effects are sums of all possible indirect paths
single parameter. It is important to emphasize here that that follow from one variable to another. Total indirect
because of methodological limitations, since the research effects were tested for significance using Sobel’s test [31].
was neither experimental nor longitudinal, the presented Direct paths and total indirect effects, in unstandardized and
model does not prove the causal effect of physical activity on standardized form, and correlation coefficients are presented
quality of life. However, the focus of the present study is on in Table 3.
the quality of life by quantifying the size and directions of the The model demonstrates that the education focusing on
relations between the aspects of both constructs. mind and spirit is related to less time being spent by par-
The model consists of three groups of variables: the ticipants on leisure activities (p � 0.006) and a greater
principal two represent the aspects of physical activity and amount of time spent on transport (p � 0.001) and sed-
domains of quality of life, and control variables providing entary activities both during the week and at the weekend
information such as the type of education, age, gender, and (p < 0.001, p � 0.035). Along with older age, participants are
weekly energy expenditure. The aim was to assess the likely to spend less time on leisure (p � 0.014) and transport
magnitude of possible relations between activity and quality activities (p � 0.035). Interestingly, women seemed to spend
of life, while adjusting for other factors that could affect more time on domestic (p < 0.001), work-related (p < 0.001),
them. To grasp the complexity of relationships, it was im- and transport activities (p < 0.001) and less time on sed-
perative to include life satisfaction in the model, a charac- entary activities during the week (p � 0.022). Weekly energy
teristic somewhat similar and correlated to quality of life. expenditure depends on amount of time spent actively per
This allowed us to contrast whether physical activity is more week; thus, it is strongly related to all activity measures
inclined to predict quality of life or life satisfaction, while (p < 0.001), except for sedentary weekly activities which are
also controlling for weekly energetic expenditure [29]. The negatively related to energy expenditure (p < 0.001). Work
type of education was coded “0” for education related to the seems to have a higher energy expenditure.
physical health and “1” for education focused on the mind The time spent on leisure was negatively correlated with time
and spirit. Gender was marked as “0” for men and “1” for related to work (r � − 0.346) which suggests that these activities
women. The structure of tested model is presented in form an alternative activity in the student group. Similar effects
Figure 1. but with smaller magnitudes can be observed between work-
related and domestic (r � − 0.239), transport (r � − 0.299), and
3. Results sedentary weekly (r � − 0.091) activities. The time spent on
domestic activities is also negatively correlated with transport
The analysis was conducted in Mplus 7 software [30]. Table 1 activities (r � − 0.092). Sedentary weekly and weekend activities
contains a summary of the statistics. Due to skewed dis- are positively correlated with each other (r � 0.433).
tributions, physical activity time measures were analyzed as Domestic activity positively relates to the importance
logarithms. All measures except some aspects of physical score (p < 0.001), satisfaction score (p � 0.017), and pro-
activity were gathered from 595 participants. The measure of ductivity (p � 0.001) and intimacy (p � 0.004) domains of
work-related activity had the greatest number of the missing the quality of life. Work-related activities negatively relate to
answers; yet since all other information about physical ac- material quality of life (p � 0.025) and positively to com-
tivities were collected, it was probably because some students municative quality of life (p � 0.033). Transport activities
were not employed at all. The total of the data that was seem to positively relate to importance score of quality of life
missing in the questionnaires regarding work-related ac- (p � 0.001). Sedentary weekly activities are positively related
tivity was not related to the type of education (χ 2 (1) � 1.889 to satisfaction score (p � 0.047) and intimacy domain of the
p � 0.169) which allowed the assumption that the fact of quality of life (p � 0.030). In contrast, sedentary weekend
finding missing data was in fact random, and thus, full activities negatively relate to importance score (p � 0.011),
information maximum likelihood estimation was used. satisfaction score (p � 0.004), intimacy (p � 0.023), safety
The estimated model is presented in Figure 2. For the (p � 0.018), and communication (p � 0.014) domains of the
purpose of clear illustration, nonsignificant paths were ex- quality of life.
cluded from the graph. The fit indices show that the model is
rather good fitting to the data (χ2/df � 90.881/40 � 2.272; 4. Discussion
RMSEA � 0.046; CFI � 0.990; TLI � 0.954) and was not
modified from the model presented in Figure 1. The com- The aim of the study was to establish a relation between
plete variance-covariance matrix is given in Table 2. physical activity, sedentary behavior, and the subjective and
Paths without established materiality level were omitted objective indicators of quality of life as well as life satisfaction
from the graph (see Figure 1.). Solid lines represent positive among university students, whose future work is concerned
relations; dashed lines represent negative relations. Corre- with either the human’s body or mind. The results that were
lation coefficients between domains of quality of life and obtained confirm the starting assumptions only to a certain
demographic variables were also omitted from the graph. degree.
The path analysis model offers the possibility to dis- First, only some types of physical activity demonstrate a
tinguish direct paths which are equivalent to regression positive relation with the quality of life. Activities
4 BioMed Research International

LEISUR IMPOR

SATISF
EDUC
DOMES MATER

AGE HEALT
WORK
PRODU

GENDER INTIM
TRANS
SAFE
ENERG
SED WK COMM

EMOT

SED WD SWLS

Figure 1: Structure of relations between variables tested in the model. EDUC: type of education; AGE: age; GENDER: gender; ENERG:
weekly energy expenditure; LEISUR: leisure time physical activity; DOMES: domestic and gardening activities; WORK: work-related
physical activity; TRANS: transport-related physical activity; SED WK: sedentary behavior during the week; SED WD: sedentary behavior
during the weekend; IMPOR: importance score; SATISF: satisfaction score; MATER: material well-being; HEALTH: health; PRODU:
productivity; INTIM: intimacy; SAFE: safety; COMM: place in community; EMOT: emotional well-being; SWLS: life satisfaction.

Table 1: Descriptive statistics.

Variable N Mean or % SD Min Max
Age 595 21.73 1.99 18.00 30.00
Demographic
Gender (% female) 595 64.71%
Human body 295 49.58%
Education
Human mind and spirit 300 50.42%
Importance 595 4.11 0.48 2.14 5.00
Satisfaction 595 5.20 0.83 1.00 7.00
Material 595 6.33 5.58 − 20.00 20.00
Health 595 8.98 8.04 − 20.00 20.00
Quality of life Productivity 595 8.05 6.64 − 20.00 20.00
Intimacy 595 12.51 7.23 − 20.00 20.00
Safety 595 10.66 6.75 − 20.00 20.00
Community 595 5.65 7.07 − 20.00 20.00
Emotional 595 9.63 8.38 − 20.00 20.00
Well-being SWLS 595 21.34 4.89 5.00 35.00
N Median IQR Min Max
Leisure time 592 1668.00 3274.50 0.00 32100.00
Domestic and gardening 592 1200.00 1920.00 0.00 18660.00
Work-related 413 5436.00 9126.00 33.00 49560.00
Physical activity (minutes per week) Transport-related 589 1485.00 2466.00 49.50 20790.00
Sedentary weekly 592 300.00 240.00 30.00 900.00
Sedentary weekend 592 300.00 240.00 30.00 900.00
Weekly energy expenditure (kcal × week− 1) 592 9746.35 13398.29 323.30 67284.00
χ2 df RMSEA CFI TLI
Model fit
90.881 40 0.046 0.990 0.954
Abbreviations: N: number of complete cases; df: degrees of freedom; IQR: interquartile; RMSEA: root means square error of approximation; CFI: comparative
fit index; TLI: Tucker Lewis index.

accompanying household duties have shown the greatest relationship could be established (neither positive nor
number of positive associations (i.e., with regard to the negative) between the leisure time activity and the quality
objective and subjective quality of life and productivity and of life. Activity during leisure time is associated with
intimacy dimensions of the quality of life). The activity greater energy expenditure, which leads to tiredness. Not
during professional work was also established to be a everyone has positive experiences related to physical ac-
significant factor (for the communication dimension of tivity. Some people can associate it with a big effort, rivalry,
quality of life) along with the activities during trans- hard work on oneself, self-discipline, and sacrifices, but not
portation (for the objective quality of life). Surprisingly, no with pleasure.
BioMed Research International 5

EDUC –0.095 LEISUR IMPOR

–0.346 0.162
SATISF
–0.082
0.110
0.631 DOMES –0.112
0.148 MATER
0.124
–0.239
AGE 0.542 –0.116 HEALT
–0.075 WORK 0.149
–0.092
0.872 PRODU
0.131
0.240 –0.299 –0.132
-
INTIM
0.113 TRANS 0.109
0.184 0.092
GENDER –0.091 SAFE
–0.093 0.100
0.158
–0.107 COMM
0.594 SED WK –0.103
0.433 –0.112
–0.201
- EMOT
0.093
ENERG SED WD SWLS

Figure 2: Standardized values of significant paths in the model. Abbreviations: EDUC: type of education; AGE: age; GENDER: gender;
ENERG: weekly energy expenditure; LEISUR: leisure time physical activity; DOMES: domestic and gardening activities; WORK: work-
related physical activity; TRANS: transport-related physical activity; SED WK: sedentary behavior during the week; SED WD: sedentary
behavior during the weekend; IMPOR: importance score; SATISF: satisfaction score; MATER: material well-being; HEALTH: health;
PRODU: productivity; INTIM: intimacy; SAFE: safety; COMM: place in community; EMOT: emotional well-being; SWLS: life satisfaction.

Physical activity is a culturally conditioned behavior needed for work or family) and the amount of free time
[32]. In recent years in Poland, where the study took place, a decreases, and there is a smaller pressure from peers to
dynamic development of different forms of health-oriented spend free time in a physically active way. In addition, with
physical recreation is observed [33]. However, traditions in age, the financial situation improves, so that more people
this area are much more limited than in Western European may be able to afford to buy a vehicle instead of using a bike.
countries [34, 35]. People still think that physical activities Fourth, the study indicates that students in mental and
involving domestic work (e.g., cleaning and ironing) and spiritual health-related study fields (such as psychology,
transport (e.g., walking to work and climbing the stairs) can pedagogy, and theology) are less interested in physical ac-
fulfil the biologically conditioned drive to perform move- tivities during their leisure time than students in physical
ment and can substitute recreational sports in the leisure health-related study fields (such as physical education and
time. The same applies to physical work performed within physiotherapy); the research shows that they would rather
the profession. Professional physical activity (e.g., work on prefer spending their free time in a passive manner.
site, in the factory, and in the bar) overloads the body in a However, this group reported more physical activity related
one-sided manner, so it cannot be classified as a positive to transport compared to the students from the latter group.
element of a healthy lifestyle. Research shows that engaging a This can be explained by the fact that people engaged in
physical work in one’s profession may significantly reduce sports activities in their leisure time, e.g., rarely ride a bike or
the physical activity in leisure time [36]. walk on foot, because they might think that their activity is
Second, the results of this study have demonstrated some performed by practicing their favorite sport or form of
demographic regularities related to physical activity. recreation [37]. As a result, they are able to select either to
Women engage in physical domestic activity, work-related use a vehicle more often, which does not require the use of
physical activity and transportation activity more frequently their muscles. The research also shows that physical activity
compared to men, and they spend less time than men in a is considered in an instrumental way and individual types of
sitting position. The result can be explained in terms of activity are used interchangeably, although they have dif-
cultural customs, as in the Polish society, women are ex- ferent goals. Types of physical activity are negatively cor-
pected to take care of the household and children, do related to each other, which means that participants
shopping, etc., as well as work professionally for at least part experience the energy expenditure associated with pro-
of the time. This, in turn, limits the time they can spend in a fessional physical work or household duties and are less
sitting position. willing to take recreational physical activity.
Third, the results reveal that the older participants were Fifth, sedentary behaviors during the week usually have an
the less likely to spend time on physical activity during their impact on the way of spending leisure time on weekends [38];
leisure time. We can interpret it in such a way that the the present research confirms this regularity since there is a
number of duties increases in the adult life (i.e., more time is significant relationship between time spent in a sitting
 6

Table 2
Variance-covariance matrix SED- SED-
LEISUR DOMES WORK TRANS IMPOR SATISF MATER HEALT PRODU INTIM SAFE COMM EMOT SWLS EDUC AGE GENDER ENERG
(N � 595) WK WD
LEISUR 1.581
DOMES 0.389 1.422
WORK 0.758 0.590 1.912
TRANS 0.418 0.319 0.528 1.160
SED A − 0.104 − 0.080 − 0.185 − 0.085 0.305
SED B − 0.074 − 0.030 − 0.064 − 0.049 0.134 0.293
IMPOR 0.063 0.114 0.071 0.103 − 0.031 − 0.038 0.234
SATISF 0.050 0.122 0.074 0.071 0.003 − 0.046 0.174 0.687
MATER − 0.195 0.304 − 0.631 0.092 0.104 − 0.030 0.792 2.295 31.047
HEALT 0.056 0.394 0.396 0.319 − 0.332 − 0.414 1.182 4.178 11.243 64.526
PRODU 0.557 1.258 0.618 0.542 − 0.110 − 0.274 1.391 4.117 12.748 22.418 44.043
INTIM 0.278 1.214 0.613 0.722 0.107 − 0.269 1.330 4.087 10.384 16.877 20.656 52.199
SAFE 0.781 0.946 0.762 0.772 − 0.063 − 0.346 1.568 3.965 9.582 21.095 21.804 28.536 45.552
COMM 0.252 0.635 1.067 0.811 − 0.010 − 0.334 1.212 3.197 6.311 11.738 18.879 12.218 12.940 49.935
EMOT 0.406 0.952 1.027 0.578 0.072 − 0.246 1.415 5.085 14.399 25.445 28.570 29.923 27.637 17.176 70.044
SWLS 0.482 0.249 0.299 0.253 0.028 − 0.122 0.681 2.323 8.014 13.228 16.256 13.456 13.053 8.330 21.258 23.835
EDUC − 0.169 − 0.046 − 0.134 0.002 0.048 0.030 0.000 − 0.002 0.083 − 0.330 0.130 − 0.045 − 0.108 0.334 − 0.323 0.061 0.250
AGE − 0.268 0.136 − 0.013 − 0.092 0.000 0.049 0.009 − 0.038 − 0.428 − 0.407 0.103 − 1.270 − 0.681 1.522 − 0.464 − 0.572 0.287 3.966
GENDER − 0.112 0.078 − 0.030 0.053 − 0.007 − 0.001 0.049 0.018 0.096 0.103 0.228 0.479 0.201 − 0.030 0.275 0.145 0.043 − 0.020 0.227
ENERG 0.808 0.583 1.150 0.559 − 0.118 − 0.049 0.069 0.081 − 0.273 0.342 0.546 0.569 0.834 0.903 0.738 0.316 − 0.107 0.001 − 0.082 0.943
BioMed Research International
 Table 3: Unstandardized and standardized path coefficients: direct, total indirect, and correlation coefficients.
Physical activity (log) Quality of Life Well-being
Leisur Domes Work Trans Sed Wk Sed Wd Impor Satisf Mater Healt Produ Intim Safe Comm Emot SWLS
Direct effects Total indirect Total indirect
b − 0.239 − 0.047 − 0.069 0.267 0.175 0.101 b 0.071 0.061 0.151 0.356 0.569 0.654 0.448 0.518 0.493 b 0.047
Education β − 0.095 − 0.020 − 0.025 0.124 0.158 0.093 β 0.070 0.035 0.013 0.021 0.041 0.043 0.032 0.035 0.028 β 0.005
p 0.006 0.603 0.335 0.001 <0.001 0.035 p <0.001 0.020 0.378 0.143 0.006 0.004 0.030 0.017 0.050 p 0.744
b − 0.052 0.041 0.002 − 0.041 − 0.013 0.005 b 0.000 0.010 0.109 − 0.133 − 0.032 0.206 0.025 0.191 0.125 b − 0.005
Age β − 0.082 0.069 0.003 − 0.075 − 0.047 0.018 β 0.000 0.006 0.010 − 0.008 − 0.002 0.014 0.002 0.014 0.007 β − 0.001
p 0.014 0.067 0.898 0.032 0.254 0.674 p 0.988 0.634 0.395 0.460 0.840 0.249 0.876 0.254 0.508 p 0.963
Control variables b − 0.153 0.602 0.331 0.415 − 0.108 − 0.039 b 0.000 − 0.001 0.003 0.014 0.013 0.001 − 0.022 − 0.015 − 0.002 b − 0.021
Gender β − 0.058 0.240 0.113 0.184 − 0.093 − 0.034 β − 0.001 − 0.002 0.001 0.003 0.004 0.000 − 0.006 − 0.004 0.000 β − 0.009
p 0.077 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.022 0.417 p 0.911 0.867 0.903 0.675 0.668 0.967 0.458 0.627 0.952 p 0.250
BioMed Research International

Weekly b 0.817 0.667 1.248 0.659 − 0.114 − 0.044 b 0.089 0.087 − 0.242 0.345 0.714 0.767 0.902 0.880 0.891 b 0.352
Energy β 0.631 0.542 0.872 0.594 − 0.201 − 0.079 β 0.179 0.102 − 0.042 0.042 0.104 0.103 0.130 0.121 0.103 β 0.070
Expenditure p <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.060 p <0.001 0.011 0.295 0.300 0.009 0.010 0.001 0.002 0.010 p 0.081
Correlations Direct effects Direct effects
r — — — — — — b 0.002 − 0.007 − 0.045 − 0.196 0.059 − 0.194 0.195 − 0.294 − 0.140 b 0.227
Leisure p — — — — — — β 0.006 − 0.010 − 0.010 − 0.031 0.011 − 0.034 0.036 − 0.052 − 0.021 β 0.058
p 0.895 0.830 0.834 0.526 0.818 0.482 0.451 0.275 0.663 p 0.234
r − 0.086 — — — — — b 0.066 0.076 0.387 0.211 0.826 0.794 0.496 0.226 0.499 b 0.088
Domestic p 0.061 — — — — — β 0.162 0.110 0.083 0.031 0.149 0.131 0.088 0.038 0.071 β 0.022
p <0.001 0.017 0.073 0.500 0.001 0.004 0.056 0.399 0.116 p 0.637
r − 0.346 − 0.239 — — — — b − 0.006 0.021 − 0.464 0.132 − 0.022 0.157 0.148 0.555 0.489 b 0.061
Work p <0.001 <0.001 — — — — β − 0.018 0.035 − 0.116 0.023 − 0.005 0.030 0.030 0.109 0.081 β 0.017
p 0.727 0.498 0.025 0.660 0.927 0.560 0.557 0.033 0.117 p 0.738
Physical activity (log) r − 0.044 − 0.092 − 0.299 — — — b 0.066 0.035 0.213 0.143 0.211 0.438 0.390 0.503 0.223 b 0.098
Transport p 0.313 0.029 <0.001 — — — β 0.148 0.045 0.041 0.019 0.034 0.065 0.062 0.077 0.029 β 0.022
p 0.001 0.313 0.360 0.669 0.442 0.141 0.161 0.085 0.522 p 0.631
r 0.004 0.010 − 0.091 − 0.036 — — b − 0.024 0.138 0.329 − 0.464 0.341 1.313 0.772 1.043 1.218 b 0.496
Sed weekly p 0.930 0.820 0.048 0.381 — — β − 0.027 0.092 0.033 − 0.032 0.028 0.100 0.063 0.082 0.080 β 0.056
p 0.550 0.047 0.486 0.496 0.541 0.030 0.173 0.079 0.085 p 0.232
r − 0.048 0.005 − 0.005 − 0.046 0.433 — b − 0.100 − 0.202 − 0.291 − 1.173 − 0.960 − 1.373 − 1.334 − 1.458 − 1.231 b − 0.547
Sed weekend
p 0.284 0.909 0.922 0.262 <0.001 — β − 0.112 − 0.132 − 0.028 − 0.079 − 0.078 − 0.103 − 0.107 − 0.112 − 0.080 β − 0.061
p 0.011 0.004 0.536 0.083 0.083 0.023 0.018 0.014 0.080 p 0.184
Correlations
— — — — — — r — — — — — — — — — — —
Importance
— — — — — — p — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — r 0.414 — — — — — — — — — —
Satisfaction
— — — — — — p <0.001 — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — R 0.297 0.501 — — — — — — — — —
Material
— — — — — — p <0.001 <0.001 — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — r 0.293 0.628 0.254 — — — — — — — —
Health
— — — — — — p <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — r 0.411 0.743 0.344 0.417 — — — — — — —
Quality of life Productivity
— — — — — — p <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 — — — — — — —
— — — — — — r 0.358 0.672 0.254 0.286 0.414 — — — — — —
Intimacy
— — — — — — p <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 — — — — — —
— — — — — — r 0.461 0.700 0.256 0.385 0.473 0.574 — — — — —
Safety
— — — — — — p <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 — — — — —
— — — — — — r 0.337 0.535 0.165 0.198 0.393 0.218 0.252 — — — —
Community
— — — — — — p <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 — — — —
— — — — — — r 0.337 0.728 0.313 0.376 0.507 0.483 0.479 0.273 — — —
Emotional
— — — — — — p <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 — — —
— — — — — — r 0.283 0.572 0.298 0.337 0.500 0.377 0.388 0.234 0.234 — —
Well-being SWLS
— — — — — — p <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 — —
7
8 BioMed Research International

position throughout a week and during weekends. The as- physically, but also has an impact on health in the psy-
sumption about negative relationship between the sedentary chosocial dimension [39].
behavior at the weekend on different dimensions of quality of The promotion of physical activity is one of the sig-
life is confirmed in this study as well. People certainly perceive nificant elements of the strategy of public health institutions
differently their activity inactivity during work days and at the [40]. In the consideration of obtained results, special at-
weekend. Days off are typical for leisure and different or- tention should be paid to promoting a wide range of forms of
ganizations of the day. Lack of activity on weekdays fulfills the recreational activity undertaken in the leisure time [41].
role of necessary rest and therefore can be a source of pleasure.
Weekends are also treated as a chance to get satisfying en- 5. Conclusions
tertainment, to deepen social contacts, etc. Probably, the
responders were aware that physical activity would be a much In the presented study of university students, whose future
better way to develop social contacts than sedentary behavior, work should involve either the development of the human’s
hence the negative relationship of the latter with the di- body or mind, the study demonstrated that
mensions of the quality of life.
The more surprising result was that the sedentary weekly (i) Physical activity relates significantly with the quality
behavior is positively related to subjective quality of life and its of life, however not all its types. Physical activity in
intimacy dimensions. It might be that sedentary behavior the household is most positively correlated to the
during the week plays some important role on the quality of life quality of life.
when it is balanced with other physical activities, and sedentary (ii) The amount of leisure and transport physical ac-
behavior during the weekend does not have a similar effect. tivity decreases with age, and there are gender
Another unexpected result of the study is that no significant differences regarding the intensity and type of
relationship was established between physical activity and the physical activity.
overall life satisfaction. The reason for this may arise from the (iii) Sedentary behavior during the week relates posi-
fact that the physical activity performed by the participants is tively with the subjective quality of life and its in-
not enjoyable for them, as, for example, its type and intensity timacy dimension, but sedentary behavior at the
does not suit them, and consequently, it is considered as a form weekends is negatively related to objective and
of an unpleasant obligation. However, the quality of physical subjective quality of life as well as dimensions in-
education classes attended by the respondents was not cluding intimacy, safety, and communicative aspect
researched in this study. It is also not known in what kind of of the quality of life.
physical activity participants take part in their leisure time or (iv) Neither physical activity nor sedentary behavior
whether it is tailored to their needs and capabilities; perhaps, demonstrates a considerable relation with the level
this fact affects the results of the present study. of life satisfaction.
(v) Physical activity has to be spread among students in
4.1. Limitations of the Study. The research has involved a such a manner that recreational activities of the
fairly diverse group of students (different colleges and uni- secured quality are not substituted by household or
versities in different parts of the country), and differences professional duties or transport activities.
could be established between the particular aspects of quality
of life as well as sedentary behavior during week and Data Availability
weekends, thus allowing a comprehensive analysis of the
relations. However, the present study is not free from limi- The data used to support the findings of this study are
tations. As it was cross-sectional study and subjects were not available from the corresponding author upon request.
randomized between the groups, the observed effects were not
controlled for other between-group factors. Moreover, the Conflicts of Interest
methods used in the study only applied self-report measures.
Thus, the participants’ answers could be affected by memory The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest
biases as well as the response bias to fit in the social approval. regarding the publication of this paper.
Additionally, the study was conducted only in Poland, so
some of the registered results could be hard to generalize or References
replicate due to cultural factors. Therefore, an approach in-
volving a more robust comparison in terms of cultural and [1] G. Sjøgaard, J. R. Christensen, J. B. Justesen et al., “Exercise is
socioeconomic factors is recommended. more than medicine: the working age population’s well-being
and productivity,” Journal of Sport and Health Science, vol. 5,
no. 2, pp. 159–165, 2016.
[2] P. C. Hallal, L. B. Andersen, F. C. Bull, R. Guthold, W. Haskell,
4.2. Implications. The study could present some important and U. Ekelund, “Global physical activity levels: surveillance
implications for college and universities as well as in- progress, pitfalls, and prospects,” The Lancet, vol. 380,
stitutions responsible for promoting active lifestyle. no. 9838, pp. 247–257, 2012.
Spending leisure time actively is a value in itself, as it [3] I. Vuori, “Does physical activity enhance health?,” Patient
contributes to the personal development of a person not only Education and Counseling, vol. 33, pp. 95–103, 1998.
BioMed Research International 9

[4] W. L. Haskell, S. N. Blair, and J. O. Hill, “Physical activity: N. Schwarz, Eds., pp. 7–26, Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK,
health outcomes and importance for public health policy,” 1991.
Preventive Medicine, vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 280–282, 2009. [21] J. P. Maher, S. E. Doerksen, S. Elavsky, and D. E. Conroy,
[5] World Health Organization, Global Recommendations on “Daily satisfaction with life is regulated by both physical
Physical Activity for Health, World Health Organization, activity and sedentary behavior,” Journal of Sport and Exercise
Geneva, Switzerland, 2010. Psychology, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 166–178, 2014.
[6] I. Soos, S. J. H. Biddle, J. Ling et al., “Physical activity, sed- [22] M. Kanning and W. Schlicht, “Be active and become happy: an
entary behaviour, use of electronic media, and snacking ecological momentary assessment of physical activity and
among youth: an international study,” Kinesiology, vol. 46, mood,” Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, vol. 32, no. 2,
no. 2, pp. 155–163, 2014. pp. 253–261, 2010.
[7] S. A. Prince, K. M. Gresty, J. L. Reed, E. Wrigh, M. S. Tremblay, [23] G. Pucci, R. S. Reis, C. R. Rech, and P. C. Hallal, “Quality of life
and R. D. Reid, “Individual, social and physical environmental and physical activity among adults: population-based study in
correlates of sedentary behaviours in adults: a systematic review Brazilian adults,” Quality of Life Research, vol. 21, no. 9,
protocol,” Systematic Reviews, vol. 3, no. 1, p. 120, 2014. pp. 1537–1543, 2012.
[8] S. C. Dumith, P. C. Hallal, R. S. Reis, and H. W. Kohl, [24] R. P. Joseph, K. E. Royse, T. J. Benitez, and D. W. Pekmezi,
“Worldwide prevalence of physical inactivity and its associ- “Physical activity and quality of life among university stu-
ation with human development index in 76 countries,” Pre- dents: exploring self-efficacy, self-esteem, and affect as po-
ventive Medicine, vol. 53, no. 1-2, pp. 24–28, 2011. tential mediators,” Quality of Life Research, vol. 23, no. 2,
[9] C. A. Davies, C. Vandelanotte, M. J. Duncan, and pp. 659–667, 2014.
J. G. Z. van Uffelen, “Associations of physical activity and [25] M. Sato, J. S. Jordan, and D. C. Funk, “The role of physically
screen-time on health related quality of life in adults,” Pre- active leisure for enhancing quality of life,” Leisure Sciences,
ventive Medicine, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 46–49, 2012. vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 293–313, 2014.
[10] H. W. Kohl, C. L. Craig, E. V. Lambert et al., “The pandemic of [26] A. Y. Omorou, J. Langlois, E. Lecomte, S. Briançon, and
physical inactivity: global action for public health,” The A. Vuillemin, “Cumulative and bidirectional association of
Lancet, vol. 380, no. 9838, pp. 294–305, 2012. physical activity and sedentary behaviour with health-related
[11] J. Marttila, J. Laitakari, R. Nupponen, S. Miilunpalo, and quality of life in adolescents,” Quality of Life Research, vol. 25,
O. Paronen, ““The versatile nature of physical activity—on the no. 5, pp. 1169–1178, 2016.
psychological, behavioural and contextual characteristics of [27] E. Patterson, “Guidelines for data processing and analysis of
health-related physical activity,” Patient Education and the international physical activity Questionnaire (IPAQ),”
Counseling, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 29–38, 1998. 2015, http://www.ipaq.ki.se/scoring.pdf.
[12] T. W. McDade, L. Chyu, G. J. Duncan, L. T. Hoyt, [28] R. A. Cummins, Comprehensive Quality of Life Scale—Adult:
L. D. Doane, and E. K. Adam, “Adolescents’ expectations for ComQol-A5, Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia, 1997.
the future predict health behaviors in early adulthood,” Social [29] J. R. S. Paffenbarger, R. T. Hyde, and A. L. Wing, ““Physical activity
Science & Medicine, vol. 73, no. 3, pp. 391–398, 2011. and physical fitness as determinants of health and longevity,” in
[13] J. Trzebiatowski, “Quality of life in the perspective of social Exercise, Fitness, and Health, C. Bouchard, R. J. Shephard,
and medical sciences—classification of definitions,” Hygeia T. S. Stephens, J. R. Sutton, and B. D. McPherson, Eds., pp. 883–
Public Health, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 25–31, 2011. 897, Human Kinetics Publishers, Champaign, IL, USA, 1994.
[14] W. J. Rejeski and S. L. Mihalko, “Physical activity and quality [30] L. K. Muthén and B. O. Muthén, Mplus User’s Guide, Muthén
of life in older adults,” The Journals of Gerontology. Series A, and Muthén, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 7th edition, 2012.
Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences, vol. 56, no. 2, [31] M. E. Sobel, “Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect
pp. 23–35, 2001. effects in structural equation models,” Sociological Method-
[15] S. Elavsky, E. McAuley, R. W. Motl et al., “Physical activity ology, vol. 13, pp. 290–312, 1982.
enhances longterm quality of life in older adults: efficacy, [32] K. Backett and C. Davison, “Lifecourse and lifestyle: the social
esteem, and affective influences,” Annals of Behavioral and cultural location of health behaviours,” Social Science &
Medicine, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 138–145, 2005. Medicine, vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 629–638, 1995.
[16] K. S. Courneya and C. M. Friedenreich, “Physical exercise and [33] P. F. Nowak, “Development of selected of physical recreation
quality of life following cancer diagnosis: a literature review,” in Poland after 1989 on the example of mass sports and
Annals of Behavioral Medicine, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 171–179, recreation events,” in Applicability of Scientific Research in
1999. Physical Education and Sport, J. Iskra, R. Tataruch, and
[17] R. Bize, J. A. Johnson, and R. C. Plotnikoff, “Physical activity C. Kuśnierz, Eds., pp. 35–48, Opole University of Technology,
level and health-related quality of life in the general adult Opole, Poland, 2013.
population: a systematic review,” Preventive Medicine, vol. 45, [34] M. Pia˛tkowska, “Self-rated physical activity level across
no. 6, pp. 401–415, 2007. Europe – Poland and other European countries,” Biology of
[18] R. E. Blacklock, R. E. Rhodes, and S. G. Brown, “Relationship Sport, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 23–31, 2012.
between regular walking, physical activity, and health-related [35] J. Bergier, L. Kapka-loSkrzypczak, P. Biliński, P. Paprzycki,
quality of life,” Journal of Physical Activity and Health, vol. 4, and A. Wojtyła, “Physical activity of Polish adolescents and
no. 2, pp. 138–152, 2007. young adults according to IPAQ: a population based study,”
[19] E. Diener, R. A. Emmons, R. J. Larsen, and S. Griffin, “The Annals of Agricultural and Environmental Medicine, vol. 19,
satisfaction with life scale,” Journal of Personality Assessment, no. 1, pp. 109–115, 2012.
vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 71–75, 1985. [36] K. Abu-Omar and A. Rütten, “Relation of leisure time, oc-
[20] R. Veenhoven, “Questions on happiness: classical topics, cupational, domestic, and commuting physical activity to
modern answers, blind spots,” in Subjective Well-Being. An health indicators in Europe,” Preventive Medicine, vol. 47,
Interdisciplinary Perspective, F. Strack, M. Argyle, and no. 3, pp. 319–323, 2008.
10 BioMed Research International

[37] A. Marques, J. Martins, H. Sarmento, L. Rocha, and

F. C. d. Costa, “Do students know the physical activity rec-
ommendations for health promotion?,” Journal of Physical
Activity and Health, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 253–256, 2015.
[38] C. Drenowatz, N. Gribben, M. D. Wirth et al., “The associ-
ation of physical activity during weekdays and weekend with
body composition in young adults,” Journal of Obesity,
vol. 2016, Article ID 8236439, 8 pages, 2016.
[39] A. Vuillemin, S. Boini, S. Bertrais et al., “Leisure time physical
activity and health-related quality of life,” Preventive Medi-
cine, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 562–569, 2005.
[40] S. Kahlmeier, C. Popp, B. W. Martin et al., “A systematic
overview of institutions and bodies active in physical activity
promotion in Europe,” Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Sport-
medizin und Sporttraumatologie, vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 13–18,
2014.
[41] A. Smith, “Exercise is recreation not medicine,” Journal of
Sport and Health Science, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 129–134, 2016.
 MEDIATORS of

INFLAMMATION

The Scientific Gastroenterology Journal of

World Journal
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Research and Practice
Hindawi
Hindawi
Diabetes Research
Hindawi
Disease Markers
Hindawi
www.hindawi.com Volume 2018
http://www.hindawi.com
www.hindawi.com Volume 2018
2013 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018

Journal of International Journal of

Immunology Research
Hindawi
Endocrinology
Hindawi
www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018

Submit your manuscripts at

www.hindawi.com

BioMed
PPAR Research
Hindawi
Research International
Hindawi
www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018

Journal of
Obesity

Evidence-Based
Journal of Stem Cells Complementary and Journal of
Ophthalmology
Hindawi
International
Hindawi
Alternative Medicine
Hindawi Hindawi
Oncology
Hindawi
www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2013

Parkinson’s
Disease

Computational and
Mathematical Methods
in Medicine
Behavioural
Neurology
AIDS
Research and Treatment
Oxidative Medicine and
Cellular Longevity
Hindawi Hindawi Hindawi Hindawi Hindawi
www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018