Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Background and Objectives: Habitual physical activity, sleep, and psychological wellness may relate to physical and cognitive–motor performance in young adults, but these relationships are seldom examined within one free-living monitoring framework. This study examined associations of daily physical activity, sleep, and wellness with neuromuscular, postural, and visuomotor performance in university students. Methods: In a 14-day prospective observational design, Samsung Health provided daily step totals, while WHO-5, PSS-10, PSQI, and daily wellness measures characterized recovery. OptoJump, GYKO, and BlazePod assessments were repeated across three laboratory sessions. The prespecified analysis cohort comprised 242 students with ≥10 valid monitoring days (including ≥1 weekend day) and ≥2 valid laboratory sessions per outcome. Sex-adjusted linear mixed-effects models included 237 participants and 696 repeated observations, adjusting for session, age, BMI, weekly training volume, academic period, and testing time. Results: Each additional 1000 steps/day was associated with greater countermovement jump height (β = 1.31 cm, 95% CI 0.97–1.65), lower eyes-closed L5 movement velocity (β = −0.65 mm/s, 95% CI −1.00 to −0.30), and faster choice-response time (β = −6.22 ms, 95% CI −9.37 to −3.08; all Holm-adjusted p < 0.001). Higher perceived stress and poorer PSQI-defined sleep quality were independently associated with less favorable performance across all three domains, whereas mean self-reported sleep duration was not. Conclusions: Higher habitual step count, lower perceived stress, and better sleep quality were associated with a more favorable multidimensional performance profile. Because step count was summarized at the participant level, these findings should be interpreted as between-participant associations rather than causal or day-to-day readiness effects. Device-source attribution and postural-measure validation remain limitations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alecu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: