Original Research
The Acute Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Physical Activity and
Sedentary Behavior in University Students and Employees
JACOB E. BARKLEY‡1, ANDREW LEPP‡1, ELLEN GLICKMAN‡1, GREG FARNELL‡2, JAKE
BEITING†1, RYAN WIET†1, and BRYAN DOWDELL†1,3
1Kent
State University, Kent OH, USA; 2John Carroll University, University Heights OH, USA;
3University of Louisiana Lafayette, Lafayette, LA, USA
†Denotes
graduate student author, ‡Denotes professional author
ABSTRACT
International Journal of Exercise Science 13(5): 1326-1339, 2020. The COVID-19 pandemic has closed
non-essential businesses which may alter individuals’ leisure behaviors. Consequently, physical activity and
sedentary behavior may be negatively impacted as many fitness and recreational centers have been closed. This
study aimed to examine the impact of the pandemic on physical activity and sedentary behavior in a sample of
university students and employees before and after the university cancelled face-to-face classes and closed campus.
Participants (N = 398) completed the validated Godin physical activity questionnaire and the International Physical
Activity Questionnaire which assessed physical activity and sedentary behavior pre- and post-cancellation of faceto-face classes. Participants were also separated in the groups (low, moderate, high physical activity) based upon a
tertile split of pre-pandemic total physical activity. Physical activity group by time ANOVAs were used to assess
potential changes in total physical activity and sedentary behavior. Post-cancellation sedentary behavior was
greater (F (1, 388) = 9.2, p = 0.003, partial η2 = 0.032) than pre-cancellation. Physical activity group moderated (F (2,
395) = 22.0, p < 0.001, partial η2 ≥ 0.10) changes in total physical activity from pre- to post cancellation. The high
activity group decreased physical activity whereas the moderate and low activity groups increased physical activity
(t ≥ 2.4, p ≤ 0.02, Cohen’s d = 0.23). While the university closure increased sedentary behavior across the sample, it
only decreased physical activity in participants who were the most active pre-cancellation. Pandemic-related
closure of facilities designed for physical activity may disproportionately impact active individuals.
KEY WORDS: Novel Coronavirus 2019, bodyweight, sitting, inactivity, behavior change
INTRODUCTION
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an infectious disease caused by a novel form of a
coronavirus first discovered in 2019. By 2020, COVID-19 had caused a global pandemic.
Individuals infected with COVID-19 experience respiratory illness and those with underlying
medical conditions are at greater risk of developing serious complications from the disease.
Because the virus is thought to spread from person-to-person through respiratory droplets,
physical distancing recommendations have been established to help slow the spread of the
disease (37, 39). Physical distancing recommendations during the COVID-19 pandemic have
Int J Exerc Sci 13(5): 1326-1339, 2020
altered social interactions, lead to the closure of non-essential businesses and public services
(e.g., recreation and fitness centers, outdoor parks, theatres, restaurants), and limited leisure
time activity options. Positive social interaction with peers is predictive of greater physical
activity behavior as is having access to environments which promote physical activity (e.g.,
gyms, recreation centers, outdoor parks) (3, 5, 25, 35, 45). It is therefore possible that constraints
placed upon social interaction and public spaces due to COVID-19 could decrease physical
activity, increase sedentary behavior, and subsequently increase bodyweight.
Investigators have disseminated information outlining the potential negative impacts the
pandemic may have upon health behaviors (12, 20, 23, 28, 31, 32). These preliminary studies
indicate that stay-at-home orders (strict to lenient) have the potential to limit physical activity
and promote sedentary behavior. While the benefits of physical activity and problems
associated with excessive sedentary behavior are well documented, remaining active during the
COVID-19 pandemic may be particularly important (44, 47). Obesity and a lack of fitness are
emerging as risk factors for developing more severe symptoms and complications if one were
to become infected with COVID-19 (12, 15, 27). For example, hospitalized obese COVID-19
patients under 60 years of age were two times more likely to be admitted to acute and critical
care than similar patients who were not obese (27). Dietz and Santos‐Burgoa also speculate that
because obesity increased mortality risk with other respiratory illnesses (e.g., H1N1) it may
similarly increase mortality risk during the COVID-19 pandemic (15). As such researchers are
emphasizing the importance that individuals, despite the obstacles created by the pandemic,
attempt to maintain recommended physical activity behavior put forth by the World Health
Organization of 150 min/wk of moderate-intensity physical activity or 75 min/wk of vigorousintensity physical activity (17). Recommendations to meet these thresholds include at home
exercises such as: using a cycle ergometer, treadmill, or rowing machine, walking/jogging in
the house or outside if the exerciser can maintain a distance of ≥1m from other individuals,
playing physically-active video games, and using video- or app-guided equipment-free aerobics
or strength training (12, 20, 23, 28, 31, 32). However, some individuals may have barriers (e.g.,
lack of equipment, space) to exercising at home. Furthermore, prior research has indicated that
adherence to home-based exercise programs may be poor (22, 41).
In addition to articles that raised concerns about the potential negative effect of the pandemic
on physical activity and sedentary behavior there are articles which attempt to quantify this
impact (1, 29, 33, 42, 43). These articles used a variety of methods (e.g., various survey
instruments assessing physical activity, a pedometer app) and examine different populations
however, they agree that the pandemic may decrease physical activity. They all reported
significant pandemic-related decreases in physical activity however, one article by Meyer at al.
suggests that this change may be moderated by pre-pandemic physical activity (33). In this
study, participants that were active pre-pandemic reported 32% reductions in physical activity
during the pandemic while participants who were inactive pre-pandemic increased physical
activity by 2.3%. This suggests that pandemic-related restrictions may differentially affect the
physical activity behavior of active and inactive individuals.
International Journal of Exercise Science
1327
http://www.intjexersci.com
Int J Exerc Sci 13(5): 1326-1339, 2020
There are also two survey-based studies indicating that the pandemic may increase sedentary
behavior, and pre-pandemic physical activity behavior may moderate this effect as well (1, 33).
These studies report 26-60% increases in daily sitting during the pandemic with the greatest
increases seen in individuals who were physically active prior to the pandemic. Taken together,
these decreases in physical activity and increases in sedentary behavior may result in decreased
daily caloric expenditure which could promote pandemic-related weight gain (10).
Compounding this problem Carter et al. suggest the pandemic may promote increased caloric
consumption as well (12). Despite this potential for pandemic-related weight gain, to the best of
our knowledge changes in bodyweight has not been assessed.
While there is an emerging body of literature examining the potential impact of the COVID-19
upon physical activity and sedentary behavior, Sallis et al stress the need for more research on
this topic (40). They state that this type of research is needed not only to inform better activity
recommendations during the COVID-19 pandemic but for improved responses to similar events
in the future. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to assess physical activity, sedentary
behavior, and bodyweight in a sample of university students and employees pre- and postcancellation of face-to-face classes due to the COVID-19 pandemic. We assessed the ability of
gender and university role (e.g., undergraduate student, faculty) to moderate this potential
effect. Additionally, we separately assessed the ability of pre-pandemic physical activity to
moderate changes in physical activity, sedentary behavior, and weight as was seen by Meyer, et
al.(33). We hypothesized that participants would report reduced physical activity, increased
sedentary behavior, and greater body weight post-cancellation and these effects may be greater
in individuals from the sample which were the most physically active pre-pandemic.
Furthermore, because pre-pandemic physical activity may predict changes in physical activity
during the pandemic and because men tend to be more physically active than women, we
hypothesized a greater reduction in physical activity from pre- to post-cancellation for men
versus women (2, 33). Lastly, because age is inversely associated with physical activity and
students tend to be younger than university employees, we hypothesized greater reductions in
physical activity in students relative to university employees (6).
METHODS
Participants
This study examined a sample of university students and employees. This population was
selected for two primary reasons: 1) To date no study has examined the impact of the pandemic
specifically on a university population. 2) There was a clearly defined date (3/11/2020) in which
all face-to-face classes were cancelled, and normal university operations stopped. That stoppage
likely significantly altered the daily lives of most of those working or taking classes at the
university. Therefore, we believe this population may serve as a viable source for evaluating the
effect of the pandemic upon the variables of interest. A link to the survey was sent to faculty and
staff in a university-generated email newsletter. This link was also emailed to all university
faculty directly from the principal investigator (PI, Barkley). The PI also emailed the link to the
survey to a randomly selected subset of the total student population (both undergraduate and
graduate students). SPSS was utilized to randomly select student emails for the survey invitation
International Journal of Exercise Science
1328
http://www.intjexersci.com
Int J Exerc Sci 13(5): 1326-1339, 2020
from a complete list of all student emails. The link to the survey was sent to potential
respondents between 5/18/20 and 6/3/20. Survey data collection was halted on 6/18/20 and
data was downloaded. The initial sample was N = 714 (Figure 1). Any participant that was
missing data for one or more of the items of interest (i.e., physical activity, sedentary behavior,
bodyweight) at either time point (pre-, post-cancellation) in the survey was subsequently
removed from the data set and the new sample size, with no missing data, was N = 413.
Participants were asked to report their university role (graduate, undergraduate student,
faculty, staff, administration, other (please describe)) and any participant who indicated their
role at the university was “other” was then eliminated (n = 12). This was done as many of these
individuals indicating their role as “other” listed roles that covered multiple categories (e.g.,
faculty and student, staff and student). Participants also reported their gender (male, female,
non-binary, choose to self-describe, prefer not to say) and anyone reporting their gender as
anything other than male or female was eliminated as there were only three such individuals (n
= two non-binary, one self-describe). The final sample was N = 398 (n = 298 female, 109 male)
with n = 100 undergraduate students (26.9 ± 8.9 years old), 84 graduate students (29.9 ± 9.7 years
old), 176 faculty (52.1 ± 10.7 years old), 28 staff (48.1 ± 12.5 years old), and 10 administrators (48.2
± 8.6 years old).
Figure 1. Flow diagram illustrating the timeline of
participant recruitment and the removal of cases
that had missing data, a university role of “other,”
or a gender that was not male/female.
Power analysis was conducted using the results from Ammar, et al (1). They used a surveybased instrument and examined physical activity and sedentary behavior pre-pandemic and
after the initiation of stay at home orders. They reported total physical activity of 2192.6 ± 3300
MET minutes/week pre-pandemic to 1360 ± 2545 MET minutes/week after stay at home orders.
International Journal of Exercise Science
1329
http://www.intjexersci.com
Int J Exerc Sci 13(5): 1326-1339, 2020
They also reported 5.3 ± 3.7 hours/day of sitting pre-pandemic and 8.4 ± 5.1 hours/day of sitting
after. These difference yield effect sizes of Cohen’s d = 0.28 and 1.13 for physical activity and
sitting, respectively. With these effect sizes and an α ≤ 0.05, 98 and 10 participants would be
needed to achieve a power ≥ 0.80 for difference in physical activity and sedentary behavior,
respectively. Based upon this analysis we believe our current sample of N = 398 was adequate.
Protocol
On March 11th, 2020 a large, public university in the Midwestern United State cancelled face-toface classes and altered all instruction to online only due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The
campus, including all fitness facilities, was closed soon thereafter (3/20/20) and all students
were sent home. Shortly after the university closure, the university’s home state issued a “stay
at home” order (3/22/20) (14). The university’s cancellation of face-to-face classes and ultimate
closure of the campus coupled with the governor’s “stay at home” order likely changed the daily
lives of those with roles at the university. There is evidence of pandemic-related disruption in
daily life and corresponding potential negative psychological outcomes in both university
faculty and students (8, 11). We attempted to assess the impact of these changes via an
anonymous online survey designed to measure physical activity, sedentary behavior, and
bodyweight pre- and post-cancellation of face-to-face classes. At the beginning of the survey
there was text informing participants that the study was assessing health behaviors, such as
physical activity and sedentary behavior, before and after the cancellation of classes. This
approach of assessing past and present physical activity and sedentary behavior via survey
methods is valid and has been utilized successfully in the past (4, 13, 30, 46). We also assessed
age (years), and as mentioned previously, university role and gender. The first page of the
survey contained an informed consent statement explaining the study. That consent statement
indicated that by beginning the survey the participant had read the consent statement and
voluntarily agreed to participate in this study. All procedures were approved by the university
Institutional Review Board. Additionally, this research was carried out fully in accordance to
the ethical standards of the International Journal of Exercise Science (36).
Physical activity was assessed using the Godin physical activity questionnaire which requires
respondents to indicate the number of times, per week they participate in 15 minutes of
strenuous (i.e., vigorous), moderate, and mild physical activity. The survey defines strenuous
physical activity as activities in which the participant’s “heart beats rapidly” and lists several
examples of these types of activities (e.g., running, jogging, basketball). Moderate activity is
defined as physical activities that are “not exhausting” and also provides examples (e.g., fast
walking, tennis. easy bicycling). Finally, mild activities are defined as those that require
“minimal effort” and, again, examples are provided (e.g., slow walking, bowling, golf). A score
for each intensity is calculate using the following equations: times per week participating in
strenuous x 9, moderate x 5, mild x 3. Each of these individual scores was then summed for a
total physical activity score. This survey instrument has evidence of validity and reliability for
the assessment of physical activity behavior and demonstrated good internal consistency
(Cronbach's α = 0.78) in the present study (18, 19).
International Journal of Exercise Science
1330
http://www.intjexersci.com
Int J Exerc Sci 13(5): 1326-1339, 2020
Participants were asked to report their typical activity prior to the university’s cancellation of
face-to-face classes (3/11/20) using the following language: “During a typical 7-day (one week)
period before Kent State ended face-to-face classes (3/11/2020) how many times on the average
do you do the following kinds of exercise for more than 15 minutes during your free time?”
Participants then reported their current physical activity at the time they completed the survey
using the following language: “During a typical 7-day (one week) period after Kent State ended
face-to-face classes (3/11/2020) how many times on the average do you do the following kinds
of exercise for more than 15 minutes during your free time? In other words, these questions are
asking you to describe your current physical activity.”
Sedentary behavior was assessed using the validated International Physical Activity
Questionnaire and language that was similar to the physical activity assessments (13, 30, 46).
Specifically, participants were asked “During a typical week before Kent State ended face-toface classes (3/11/2020), how much time did you usually spend sitting on a weekday?” The
same language was used for assessing weekend sedentary behavior pre-cancellation. Weekday
and weekend sedentary behavior was similarly assessed for post-cancellation by slightly
modifying the questions to “During a typical week after Kent State ended face-to-face classes…”
Lastly, participants were asked to self-report their bodyweight (lbs.) before the cancellation of
face-to-face classes and their weight currently. Using self-report is a valid method of assessing
bodyweight in adults (24).
Statistical Analysis
University role (undergraduate, graduate student, faculty, staff, administrator) by gender
(male, female) by time (pre, post-cancellation) analyses of variance (ANOVAs) with repeated
measures on time were performed to examine changes in mild, moderate, vigorous, and total
physical activity, sedentary behavior, and body weight. Only main effects and interactions
related to changes in time (pre, post-cancellation) were reported for these ANOVAs as all
research questions included this independent variable. For example, we did not report main
effects of university role group and gender nor role group by gender interactions as these
effects are not part of the research questions.
Tertile splits were then performed on pre-cancellation total physical activity score and the
following groups were established: low (n = 127, 12.9 ± 6.7 Godin score), moderate (n = 132, 32.5
± 5.4 Godin score), and high (n = 139, 75.8 ± 59.5 Godin score) pre-cancellation physical activity.
Separate, three pre-cancellation physical activity group (low, moderate, high) by time ANOVAs
were then performed for mild, moderate, vigorous, and total physical activity, sedentary
behavior, and bodyweight. For these ANOVAs we only report the results of the activity group
by time interactions as all main effects of time are reported in the previous ANOVAs and main
effects of activity groups were not part of the research questions. Post hoc analyses of any
significant interaction effects for all ANOVAs were performed using t-tests with Benjamini and
Hochberg False Discovery Rate correction for multiple comparisons (7). A priori significance
was set at α ≤ 0.05 and all data were analyzed using SPSS Version 26.
International Journal of Exercise Science
1331
http://www.intjexersci.com
Int J Exerc Sci 13(5): 1326-1339, 2020
RESULTS
University role group, gender, and time: For the university role group by gender by time
analyses there were no significant (F (4, 388) ≤ 2.0, p ≥ 0.16, partial η2 ≤ 0.005) main or interaction
effects of time for moderate, vigorous, or total physical activity (Table 1). There was a significant
(F (4, 388) = 4.2, p = 0.003, partial η2 = 0.041) university role by time interaction for mild physical
activity. This interaction was due to a significant (t = 3.0, p = 0.015, Cohen’s d = 0.33) decrease in
mild physical activity from pre- to post-cancellation in undergraduate students with no
significant (t ≤ 1.0, p ≥ 0.50, Cohen’s d ≤ 0.18) changes in mild physical activity for any of the
other university role groups. There were no additional main or interaction effects for differences
in mild physical activity (F (4, 388) ≤ 1.9, p ≥ 0.17, partial η2 ≤ 0.015).
Table 1. Mean ± SD of Godin physical activity scores for mild, moderate, vigorous, and total physical activity preand post-cancellation for the five separate university role groups and an average score of all participants
(Overall).
University
Mild
Mild
Moderate Moderate Vigorous Vigorous
Total
Total
role
pre
post
pre
post
pre
post
pre
post
*
Undergrad
16.3±22.6 10.8±12.9
15.0±15.7
12.9±12.4
16.0±22.1 14.0±17.9 47.2±40.2 37.7±30.7
Grad
12.0±22.4
11.2±11.7
17.1±36.9
16.6±19.7
19.1±32.9
21.0±33.7
48.2±75.2
48.7±58.8
Faculty
8.4±7.8
8.9±8.8
15.6±20.4
16.8±19.8
11.7±16.4
11.4±17.5
35.7±24.7
37.1±26.7
Staff
7.3±9.1
9.6±12.4
10.4±12.8
14.8±15.7
16.7±19.2
14.1±20.6
34.4±21.7
38.6±31.9
Admin
12.3±14.9
14.1±19.8
22.5±23.7
23.0±33.8
10.8±18.9
16.2±28.4
45.6±37.6
53.3±56.3
Overall
11.2±16.8
10.0±11.2
15.5±23.6
15.8±18.4
14.7±22.5
14.4±22.6
41.4±44.2
40.2±38.0
Note: *post value significantly (p = 0.015) different from corresponding pre value.
There was a significant (F (1, 388) = 9.2, p = 0.003, partial η2 = 0.032) main effect of time for
sedentary behavior. Participants significantly increased average weekly sitting from pre to postcancellation (Table 2). There were no additional main or interaction effects for differences in
sedentary behavior (F (4, 388) ≤ 1.8, p ≥ 0.18, partial η2 ≤ 0.011).
There were no significant (F (4, 388) ≤ 2.0, p ≥ 0.16, partial η2 ≤ 0.009) main or interaction effects
of time for bodyweight (Table 2).
International Journal of Exercise Science
1332
http://www.intjexersci.com
Int J Exerc Sci 13(5): 1326-1339, 2020
Table 2. Mean ± SD of sedentary behavior (min·wk-1) and bodyweight (lbs) pre- and post-cancellation for the five
separate university role groups and an average value of all participants (Overall).
Sedentary
Sedentary
Bodyweight
Bodyweight post
University role
pre
post
Pre
(lbs)
(min·wk-1)
(min·wk-1)
(lbs)
176.8±48.4
Undergrad
3089.2±1455.4
3681.0±1600.3
175.4±48.4
Grad
3129.1±1329.7
3696.4±1566.5
163.7±45.6
Faculty
2635.9±1039.6
3036.3±1258.0
176.9±50.8
Staff
3082.9±1166.4
3277.9±1225.1
198.8±61.4
Admin
3270.0±717.4
3594.0±1456.2
179.6±36.5
Overall
2901.3±1239.1
3368.6±1448.3*
174.7±49.9
164.5±45.6
177.8±51.5
193.6±66.2
179.6±38.5
175.9±50.7
Note: *post value significantly (p = 0.003) different from corresponding pre value.
Pre-cancellation physical activity group by time: For the pre-cancellation physical activity group
by time analyses there were significant (F (2, 395) ≥ 7.5, p ≤ 0.001, partial η2 ≥ 0.08) physical
activity group by time interactions for mild, moderate, vigorous, and total physical activity
(Table 3). These effects were due to significant reductions (t ≥ 2.4, p ≤ 0.029, Cohen’s d ≥ 0.22) in
mild, moderate, vigorous, and total physical activity from pre- to post cancellation in the high
activity group with significant (t ≥ 2.2, p ≤ 0.03, Cohen’s d ≥ 0.20) increases in moderate and total
physical activity across time points in both the moderate and low activity groups. The low activity
group also reported a significant (t = 4.4, p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 0.43) increase in vigorous
physical activity. There were no significant changes (t = 0.71, p = 0.48, Cohen’s d = 0.06) in light
physical activity for the low activity group nor in light or vigorous physical activity for the
moderate activity group (t ≤ 2.0, p ≥ 0.077, Cohen’s d ≤ 0.18).
There were not significant (F (2, 395) ≤ 1.8, p ≥ 0.16, partial η2 ≤ 0.009) activity group by time
interactions for sedentary behavior or bodyweight.
Table 3. Mean ± SD of Godin physical activity scores for mild, moderate, vigorous, and total physical activity preand post-cancellation for the three separate pre-cancellation physical activity groups.
Activity
Mild
Mild
Moderate Moderate Vigorous Vigorous
Total
Total
group
pre
post
pre
post
pre
post
pre
post
Low
23.6±25.0*
6.7±6.2
7.2±7.7
4.8±6.2
10.0±12.5*
1.4±4.0
6.5±13.7*
12.9±6.7
Moderate
High
8.4±6.6
9.6±8.4
13.6±9.8
16.0±13.6*
10.5±11.0
11.3±15.9
32.5±5.4
17.9±25.7
13.0±14.9*
27.2±35.0
20.9±24.5*
30.8±29.9
24.5±29.9*
75.8±59.5
37.0±21.7*
58.5±50.3*
Note: *post value significantly (p ≤ 0.03) different from corresponding pre value.
International Journal of Exercise Science
1333
http://www.intjexersci.com
Int J Exerc Sci 13(5): 1326-1339, 2020
DISCUSSION
This is the first study we are aware of that attempted to assess potential changes in physical
activity, sedentary behavior, and body weight in individuals across a university campus before
and after face-to-face classes were cancelled and the university was shuttered due to the COVID19 pandemic. Participants reported 7.8 hours or 13.9% more weekly sitting after the cancellation
of face-to-face classes. Additionally, while there was not a main effect of time for changes in
physical activity or bodyweight, there were changes in physical activity over time that were
moderated by university role group and pre-cancellation physical activity group.
Undergraduate students reported a significant reduction of 33.7% in mild physical activity from
pre-to post-cancellation. This was not the case for any of the other university role groups. As we
outlined in our hypotheses this reduction in mild activity may be due, in part, age-related
differences in physical activity and the fact that the undergraduates were the youngest
university role group. It is also possible that during a typical week, undergraduate students may
be more likely to walk across campus to multiple buildings whereas the other university role
groups may be sequestered in fewer buildings according to their specialty. For example, an
undergraduate student may need to walk across campus from the math department to English
whereas a math professor, staff member, graduate student, and administrator likely stays in
their department. After the pandemic caused the cancellation of face-to-face classes the
potentially greater need for walking for active transport across campus for undergraduate
students was eliminated.
In addition to the reduction in mild physical activity for undergraduate students, there was a
22.4% reduction in total physical activity from pre- to post-cancellation in participants who were
most physically active before the pandemic and this reduction was apparent for each exercise
intensity (light, moderate, vigorous). Conversely, the moderate and low pre-cancellation physical
activity groups significantly increased their total physical activity after the pandemic began by
13.9% and 83%, respectively. It is important to note that while the proportional increase in
physical activity for the low pre-cancellation physical activity group was large, their unit
increase (+10.7 Godin score) was actually less than the unit decrease (-17.3 Godin score) in the
high pre-cancellation physical activity group. Despite differences in methodology and samples,
this result was similar to that of Meyer et al who reported a reduction in physical activity in
participants who were designated as active before the pandemic and an increase of physical
activity for inactive participants (33). These results suggest that while the university closure may
have created some barriers to participating in physical activity for some individuals it is possible
that other aspects of the cancellation may have encouraged physical activity behavior in others.
For example, with the closure of the campus and the state of Ohio’s stay at home orders there
was a closure of all fitness centers and gymnasiums. This may have disproportionately
decreased activity among the most active participants as they may be more likely to utilize such
facilities versus the less active participants (16). Conversely, with the change to entirely online
instruction there would no longer be a need for commuting to campus for many respondents to
this survey. This may create more free time within the day that could be allocated to in the home
or outdoor physical activity (21). Perhaps scenarios like this promoted physical activity in our
less-active participants. Future research is warranted to examine how different aspects of the
International Journal of Exercise Science
1334
http://www.intjexersci.com
Int J Exerc Sci 13(5): 1326-1339, 2020
cancellation (e.g., fitness center closures versus elimination of a daily commute) may
differentially affect physical activity in individuals who were highly active before the pandemic
versus those that were not.
While total daily physical activity was only decreased in the most active participants in this
sample, the significant increase in daily sitting was across all physical activity groups and is
worrisome. Physical activity and sedentary behavior are independent risk factors for a variety
of cardio-metabolic disorders (9). Therefore, the increased sedentary behavior independent of
maintained or even increased physical activity could increase the risk of disease development
in our sample (9). Increasing sedentary behavior while maintaining physical activity may also
increase the likelihood that individuals in our sample may be classified as “active couch
potatoes” (38). An “active couch potato” is a person who regularly participates in physical
activity yet also allocates excessive amounts of time to sitting (38). These individuals are at a
greater risk for cardiometabolic disorders than peers who are similarly active yet allocate less
time to sitting (9). We have previously reported that the “active couch potato” phenomenon may
be prevalent among undergraduate students even prior to the pandemic (26). It is possible that
the cancellation of face-to-face classes may exacerbate this problem.
Lastly, there was not a significant change in bodyweight from pre- to post-cancellation. This lack
of a change may be because the majority of our sample (i.e., low and moderate activity groups)
maintained or increased total physical activity over the survey period. It also suggests that
caloric intake, which was not assessed, may not have increased (10). However, weight gain is a
gradual process (10, 34). Therefore, the short window of the pre- to post-cancellation
measurements in the present study may have limited the ability of participants to gain an
appreciable amount of weight. If the pandemic-related environment persists it may be
warranted to reexamine potential pandemic-related changes in body weight over a longer
period of time.
While this study presents novel findings, it is not without limitations. We only examined a
sample of individuals at a university and cannot extend these findings to others in differing
fields. Additionally, data were all self-reported and the survey required participants to recall
past behaviors. Furthermore, we did not assess whether patients had access to a scale to measure
their bodyweight and/or activity monitors or software apps to measure physical activity. While
these are limitations, the survey instruments in the present study are valid and there is evidence
supporting the use of recall in the assessment of these variables (4, 13, 24, 30, 46). Furthermore,
these methods were a viable option given the fact that because the university is closed, in-person
data collection was not possible, nor could the university closure be predicted. However, future
research could attempt to utilize objective measures (e.g., personal activity trackers, fitness apps,
home scales) to assess these variables even if in-person data collection is not possible for the time
being.
In conclusion, we have provided initial evidence of the impact of a university closure, due to the
COVID-19 pandemic, upon physical activity, sedentary behavior, and bodyweight in a sample
of university students and employees. Presently, undergraduate students significantly
International Journal of Exercise Science
1335
http://www.intjexersci.com
Int J Exerc Sci 13(5): 1326-1339, 2020
decreased mild physical activity, participants who were the most active before the pandemic
decreased total physical activity, and there was a significant increase in sedentary behavior in
the total sample. This is concerning as both decreasing physical activity and increasing
sedentary behavior are positively associated with a variety of negative health outcomes (9, 38,
44, 47). While this data should be considered preliminary, we would encourage university
students and employees to be mindful of their time spent sitting and take steps (e.g., taking
activity breaks, using a standing desk) to limit this behavior. Furthermore, those who were most
active before the pandemic should be aware that they may be most prone to reducing physical
activity during the pandemic.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This was an unfunded research project. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. The
authors would like to thank Anthony Shreffler from Kent State University for his assistance with
posting the survey online.
REFERENCES
1. Ammar A, Brach M, Trabelsi K, Chtourou H, Boukhris O, Masmoudi L, Bouaziz B, Bentlage E, How D, Ahmed
M, Müller P, Müller N, Aloui A, Hammouda O, Paineiras-Domingos L, Braakman-Jansen A, Wrede C, Bastoni S,
Pernambuco C, Mataruna L, Taheri M, Irandoust K, Khacharem A, Bragazzi N, Chamari K, Glenn J, Bott N,
Gargouri F, Chaari L, Batatia H, Ali G, Abdelkarim O, Jarraya M, El Abed K, Souissi N, Van Gemert-Pijnen L,
Riemann B, Riemann L, Moalla W, Gómez-Raja J, Epstein M, Sanderman R, Schulz S, Jerg A, Al-Horani R, Mansi
T, Jmail M, Barbosa F, Ferreira-Santos F, Šimunič B, Pišot R, Gaggioli A, Bailey S, Steinacker J, Driss T, Hoekelmann
A. On behalf of the eclb-covid19 consortium. Effects of covid-19 home confinement on eating behaviour and
physical activity: Results of the eclb-covid19 international online survey. Nutrients 12(6):1583, 2020.
2. Azevedo MR, Araújo CLP, Reichert FF, Siqueira FV, da Silva MC, Hallal PC. Gender differences in leisure-time
physical activity. Int J Public Health 52(1):8-15, 2007.
3. Barkley JE, Farnell GS. The relationship between body mass index (bmi) and sedentary behavior is mediated by
negative peer interaction in boys. IJPEFS 8(1):59-65, 2019.
4. Barkley JE, Lepp A, Glickman EL. "Pokémon go!" May promote walking, discourage sedentary behavior in
college students. Games for Health J 6(3):165-170, 2017.
5. Barkley JE, Salvy S-J, Sanders GJ, Dey S, Carlowitz K-PV, Williamson ML. Peer influence and physical activity
behavior in young children: An experimental study. JPAH 11(2):404, 2014.
6. Bauman AE, Reis RS, Sallis JF, Wells JC, Loos RJF, Martin BW. Correlates of physical activity: Why are some
people physically active and others not? Lancet 380(9838):258-271, 2012.
7. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple
testing. J R Stat Soc B 57(1):289-300, 1995.
8. Besser A, Lotem S, Zeigler-Hill V. Psychological stress and vocal symptoms among university professors in israel:
Implications of the shift to online synchronous teaching during the covid-19 pandemic. J Voice 2020.
International Journal of Exercise Science
1336
http://www.intjexersci.com
Int J Exerc Sci 13(5): 1326-1339, 2020
9. Biswas A, Oh PI, Faulkner GE, Bajaj RR, Silver MA, Mitchell MS, Alter DA. Sedentary time and its association
with risk for disease incidence, mortality, and hospitalization in adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ann Intern Med 162(2):123-132, 2015.
10. Blundell JE, King NA. Overconsumption as a cause of weight gain: Behavioural-physiological interactions in
the control of food intake (appetite). Ciba Foundation symposium 201:138-154; discussion 154-138, 188-193, 1996.
11. Cao W, Fang Z, Hou G, Han M, Xu X, Dong J, Zheng J. The psychological impact of the covid-19 epidemic on
college students in china. Psychiatry Res 287:112934, 2020.
12. Carter SJ, Baranauskas MN, Fly AD. Considerations for obesity, vitamin d, and physical activity amid the covid19 pandemic. Obesity 28(7):1176-1177, 2020.
13. Craig CL, Marshall AL, Sjostrom M, Bauman AE, Booth ML, Ainsworth BE, Pratt M, Ekelund U, Yngve A, Sallis
JF, Oja P. International physical activity questionnaire: 12-country reliability and validity. Med Sci Sport Exer
35(8):1381-1395, 2003.
14. DeWine M, Acton A, Husted J. Director's order that all persons stay at home unless engaged in essential work
or activity In: Ohio Department of Health 2020.
15. Dietz W, Santos-Burgoa C. Obesity and its implications for covid-19 mortality. Obesity 28(6):1005-1005, 2020.
16. Eriksson U, Arvidsson D, Sundquist K. Availability of exercise facilities and physical activity in 2,037 adults:
Cross-sectional results from the swedish neighborhood and physical activity (snap) study. BMC Public Health
12:607-607, 2012.
17. Foster C, Shilton T, Westerman L, Varney J, Bull F. World health organisation to develop global action plan to
promote physical activity: Time for action. Br J Sports Med 52(8):484-485, 2018.
18. Godin G, Shephard RJ. A simple method to assess exercise behavior in the community. Canadian journal of
applied sport sciences Journal canadien des sciences appliquees au sport 10(3):141-146, 1985.
19. Godin G, Shephard RJ. Godin leisure-time exercise questionnaire. Med Sci Sports Exerc 26 (Suppl 6):S36-38,
1997.
20. Hammami A, Harrabi B, Mohr M, Krustrup P. Physical activity and coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19): Specific
recommendations for home-based physical training. Manag Sport Leis:1-6, 2020.
21. Hoehner CM, Barlow CE, Allen P, Schootman M. Commuting distance, cardiorespiratory fitness, and metabolic
risk. Am J Prev Med 42(6):571-578, 2012.
22. Jack K, McLean SM, Moffett JK, Gardiner E. Barriers to treatment adherence in physiotherapy outpatient clinics:
A systematic review. Man Ther 15(3):220-228, 2010.
23. Jiménez-Pavón D, Carbonell-Baeza A, Lavie CJ. Physical exercise as therapy to fight against the mental and
physical consequences of covid-19 quarantine: Special focus in older people. Prog Cardiovasc Dis:S00330620(0020)30063-30063, 2020.
24. Kee CC, Lim KH, Sumarni MG, Teh CH, Chan YY, Nuur Hafizah MI, Cheah YK, Tee EO, Ahmad Faudzi Y,
Amal Nasir M. Validity of self-reported weight and height: A cross-sectional study among malaysian adolescents.
BMC Med Res Methodol 17(1):85, 2017.
25. Lee SA, Ju YJ, Lee JE, Hyun IS, Nam JY, Han K-T, Park E-C. The relationship between sports facility accessibility
and physical activity among korean adults. BMC Public Health 16(1):893, 2016.
International Journal of Exercise Science
1337
http://www.intjexersci.com
Int J Exerc Sci 13(5): 1326-1339, 2020
26. Lepp A, Barkley JE. Cell phone use predicts being an "active couch potato": Results from a cross-sectional survey
of sufficiently active college students. DigitHealth 5:2055207619844870, 2019.
27. Lighter J, Phillips M, Hochman S, Sterling S, Johnson D, Francois F, Stachel A. Obesity in patients younger than
60 years is a risk factor for covid-19 hospital admission. Clin Infect Dis 2020.
28. Lippi G, Henry BM, Sanchis-Gomar F. Physical inactivity and cardiovascular disease at the time of coronavirus
disease 2019 (covid-19). Eur J Prev Cardiol 27(9):906-908, 2020.
29. López-Bueno R, Calatayud J, Andersen LL, Balsalobre-Fernández C, Casaña J, Casajús JA, Smith L, LópezSánchez GF. Immediate impact of the covid-19 confinement on physical activity levels in spanish adults.
Sustainability 12(14):1-10, 2020.
30. Mannocci A, Di Thiene D, Del Cimmuto A, Masala D, Boccia A, De Vito E, La Torre G. International physical
activity questionnaire: Validation and assessment in an italian sample. Ital J Public Health 7(4):369-376, 2010.
31. Mattioli AV, Ballerini Puviani M, Nasi M, Farinetti A. Covid-19 pandemic: The effects of quarantine on
cardiovascular risk. Eur J Clin Nutr 74(6):852-855, 2020.
32. Mattioli AV, Sciomer S, Cocchi C, Maffei S, Gallina S. “Quarantine during covid-19 outbreak: Changes in diet
and physical activity increase the risk of cardiovascular disease”. Nutr Metab Cardiovas 2020.
33. Meyer J, McDowell C, Lansing J, Brower C, Smith L, Tully M, Herring M. Changes in physical activity and
sedentary behaviour due to the covid-19 outbreak and associations with mental health in 3,052 us adults.
Cambridge Open Engage 2020.
34. Mozaffarian D, Hao T, Rimm EB, Willett WC, Hu FB. Changes in diet and lifestyle and long-term weight gain
in women and men. N Engl J Med 364(25):2392-2404, 2011.
35. Muchicko MM, Lepp A, Barkley JE. Peer victimization, social support and leisure-time physical activity in
transgender and cisgender individuals. Leisure/Loisir 38(3-4):295-308, 2014.
36. Navalta JW, Stone WJ, Lyons S. Ethical issues relating to scientific discovery in exercise science. Int J Ex Sci
12(1):1-8, 2019.
37. Organization, World Health. Coronavirus disease (covid-19) overview. In: 2020.
38. Owen N, Healy GN, Matthews CE, Dunstan DW. Too much sitting: The population health science of sedentary
behavior. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 38(3):105-113, 2010.
39. Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and. Coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19): How to protect yourself and
others. In: 2020.
40. Sallis JF, Adlakha D, Oyeyemi A, Salvo D. An international physical activity and public health research agenda
to inform coronavirus disease-2019 policies and practices. J Sport Health Sci 9(4):328-334, 2020.
41. Sluijs EM, Kok GJ, van der Zee J. Correlates of exercise compliance in physical therapy. Phys Ther 73(11):771782; discussion 783-776, 1993.
42. Stanton R, To QG, Khalesi S, Williams SL, Alley SJ, Thwaite TL, Fenning AS, Vandelanotte C. Depression,
anxiety and stress during covid-19: Associations with changes in physical activity, sleep, tobacco and alcohol use
in australian adults. Int J Environ Res Public Health 17(11):4065, 2020.
International Journal of Exercise Science
1338
http://www.intjexersci.com
Int J Exerc Sci 13(5): 1326-1339, 2020
43. Tison GH, Avram R, Kuhar P, Abreau S, Marcus GM, Pletcher MJ, Olgin JE. Worldwide effect of covid-19 on
physical activity: A descriptive study. Ann Intern Med 2020.
44. Tremblay MS, Colley RC, Saunders TJ, Healy GN, Owen N. Physiological and health implications of a sedentary
lifestyle. Appl Physiol Nutr Me 35(6):725-740, 2010.
45. Trost SG, Owen N, Bauman AE, Sallis JF, Brown W. Correlates of adults' participation in physical activity:
Review and update. Medicine and science in sports and exercise 34(12):1996-2001, 2002.
46. van der Ploeg HP, Tudor-Locke C, Marshall AL, Craig C, Hagstromer M, Sjostrom M, Bauman A. Reliability
and validity of the international physical activity questionnaire for assessing walking. Res Q Exercise Sport 81(1):97101, 2010.
47. Warburton DER, Nicol CW, Bredin SSD. Health benefits of physical activity: The evidence. Can Med Assoc J
174(6):801-809, 2006.
International Journal of Exercise Science
1339
http://www.intjexersci.com