With approximately 8 hours of one’s waking day spent at work, occupational tasks and environments are important influencers on an individual’s physical activity (PA) and sedentary behaviours. Little research has compared device-measured physical activity, sedentary behaviour and cardiometabolic outcomes between occupational groups. To compare device-measured movement (sedentary time [ST], light intensity physical activity [LPA], moderate-to-vigorous intensity physical activity [MVPA], and steps) across occupations. The secondary objective was to examine whether cardiometabolic and fitness outcomes differed by occupation. Five bibliographic databases were searched to identify all studies which included working age, employed adults from high-income countries, and reported on device-measured movement within occupations. Risk of bias within and across studies was assessed. Results were synthesized using meta-analyses and narrative syntheses. The review includes 132 unique studies with data from 15,619 participants. Working adults spent ~ 60% of their working and waking time engaged in sedentary behaviour; a very small proportion (~ 4%) of the day included MVPA. On average, workers accumulated 8124 steps/day. Office and call center workers’ steps/day were among the lowest, while those of postal delivery workers were highest. Office workers had the greatest ST and the lowest time in LPA both at work and during wakeful time. However, office workers had the greatest minutes sent in MVPA during wakeful hours. Laborers had the lowest ST and spent a significantly greater proportion of their work time in LPA and MVPA. Healthcare and protective services workers had higher levels of LPA at work compared to other occupations. Workers in driving-based occupations tended to have a higher body mass index and blood pressure. This review identifies that occupational and wakeful time PA and ST differed between occupations. Future studies are needed to assess whether patterns differ by age and sex, describe leisure-time movement and movement patterns, and the relationship with cardiometabolic health. PROSPERO CRD42017070448 .

This review focuses on recent literature examining the validity and reliability of the talk test for prescribing and monitoring exercise intensity. The utility of the talk test for high-intensity interval training and recently proposed exercise training guidelines for patients with atrial fibrillation is also examined. In healthy adults and patients with cardiovascular disease, comfortable speech is likely possible (equivocal or last positive talk test stage) when exercise intensity is below the ventilatory or lactate threshold, and not likely possible (negative talk test stage) when exercise intensity exceeds the ventilatory or lactate threshold. The talk test can be used to produce exercise intensities (moderate-to-vigorous intensity, 40-80% (Equation is included in full-text article.)) within accepted Canadian Association of Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation and American College of Sports Medicine guidelines for exercise training, to monitor exercise training for patients with atrial fibrillation, and help avoid exertional ischemia. The talk test has been shown to be consistent across various modes of exercise (i.e., walking, jogging, cycling, elliptical trainer and stair stepper). It may not be practical for high-intensity interval training. The talk test is a valid, reliable, practical and inexpensive tool for prescribing and monitoring exercise intensity in competitive athletes, healthy active adults and patients with cardiovascular disease. Healthcare professionals should feel comfortable in advocating its use in a variety of clinical and health-promotion settings.

Low energy availability [(energy intake – exercise expenditure)/kg lean body mass], a component of the Female Athlete Triad, has been associated with menstrual disturbances and low bone mass. No studies have examined the energy availability of athletes across a season. The purpose of this study was to assess the prevalence of, and what contributes to, low energy availability in Division I female soccer players across a season. Nineteen participants aged 18–21 years (mean [Vdot]O_2max: 57.0 ± 1.0 mL · kg⁻¹ · min⁻¹) were studied during the pre, mid, and post season. Mean energy availability was overall lowest at mid season, and lower at mid than post season (35.2 ± 3.7 vs. 44.5 ± 3.7 kcal · kg⁻¹ lean body mass, P = 0.009). Low energy availability (<30 kcal · kg⁻¹ lean body mass) was observed in 5/19 (26.3%), 5/15 (33.3%), and 2/17 (11.8%) of participants during the pre, mid, and post season. Dietary energy intake was lower mid (P = 0.008) and post season (P = 0.022) than it was pre season (pre: 2794 ± 233 kcal · day⁻¹; mid: 2208 ± 156 kcal · day⁻¹; post: 2161 ± 143 kcal · day⁻¹). Exercise energy expenditure decreased significantly (P ≤ 0.001) over time (pre: 819 ± 57 kcal · day⁻¹; mid: 642 ± 26 kcal · day⁻¹; post: 159 ± 28 kcal · day⁻¹). Low energy availability was due to lower dietary energy intake at lunch during pre season (P = 0.014) and during lunch and dinner during mid season (P ≤ 0.030). Energy availability was inversely related to body dissatisfaction (r = −0.62, P = 0.017) and drive for thinness (r = −0.55, P = 0.041) during mid season. Although most Division I female soccer players are not at risk for low energy availability, a concerning proportion exhibited low energy availability at pre or mid season. Further studies are needed to explore strategies to prevent and monitor low energy availability in these athletes.