BACKGROUND: Prior research examining sedentary time and cognitive function has produced mixed findings with limited attention to specific types of sedentary behavior. This cross-sectional study tested the hypothesis that more cognitively active sedentary behaviors (playing video games, internet use, and reading) are positively associated with cognitive performance, in contrast to cognitively passive sedentary behavior (watching television). METHODS: Data from 3,943 participants (aged 46-48; 53.3% female) with valid activPAL3 accelerometry, self-reported time spent doing sedentary behaviors, cognitive assessment scores (10-word auditory verbal learning test, category verbal fluency [animal naming] and two-letter cancellation task), and covariate data (sex assigned at birth, moderate-to-vigorous intensity physical activity [MVPA], occupational physical activity, and level of education) were cross-sectionally analyzed from the Age 46 Biomedical Sweep of the 1970 British Cohort Study. Linear regression models, including sex-stratification, evaluated associations between device-measured activity monitoring and specific sedentary behaviors with standardized cognitive assessment scores (z-scores) and a composite global cognition score (primary outcome). RESULTS: In adjusted pooled models, MVPA was positively associated with better global cognition (β = 0.069 ± 0.021 [0.027-0.110] per hour/day, p CONCLUSION: While the cognitively passive sedentary behavior of watching television was not associated with global cognition, the more cognitively active sedentary behaviors of reading and internet use were associated with better global cognition in middle-aged adults. These cross-sectional findings highlight potential concurrent behavioral targets for cognitive health in middle-aged adults. The data suggest that lifestyle strategies might optimize cognitive outcomes by prioritizing the accumulation of MVPA, while concurrently supporting a more cognitively active composition of unavoidable sedentary time.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Stephen B. Fried (1988) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: