Investigation the physical activity level of academics: Çanakkale sample

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate the physica lactivity level (PAL) of academics. Totaly 229 academis between 25-60 ages who were work in 10 different faculties in Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University participated in tostudy voluntary. International physical activity questionary (IPAQ) short form used tocollect data. SSPS 17,0 used to analysis. Kruskal-Wallis used to compare groups and Mann Whitney–U used to compare genders. Findings accepted significant at  p< 0.05 level. Analyse showed that: academics average PAL was1541.1±2160.9 MET-dk/hf, 34.1% of were low active, 52.8% of moderate active, and  13.1% of were high active according to IPAQ classification. Faculty of tourism had highest PAL  (3009.7±157.8 MET-dk/hf) and, PAL of faculty of agriculture was tatistically higher than Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, Faculty of MedicineandFaculty of Fisheries.AccordingtoacademiclevelLecturer had highest PAL(2545.1±3602.9 MET-dk/hf), and assistant professor had lowest FAL (1275.4±1329.1 MET-dk/hf) . Also analyse proved that; , associate Professor, assist professors and research assistants, had statistically lower PAL than lecturer and professor (p<0.05). As a result PAL of academics were differ from eachother. It can be say that, to decreasing the differences, the number of recreational areas should be well planning and academicss hould be encourage to do exercise.

Keywords

• Academics
• health
• physical activity
• sport
• university

References

1. American College of Sports Medicine. ACSM's resource manual for guidelines for exercise testing and prescription, 4th edition, Williams And Wilkins, Philadelphia, 2001
2. Arslan C, Koz M, Gür E, Mendeş B. Investigation of the Correlation between the Physical Activity Level and Health Problems in University Educational Staff. Fırat University Jounal of Health Science, 2003; 17(4): 249-258.
3. Azevedo MR, Araşjo CLP, Reichert FF, Siqueirafv DA, Silva MC, Hallal PC. Gender differences in leisure-time physical activity. Int J Public Health, 2007; 52: 8–15.
4. Baranowski T, Bouchard C, Bar-Or O, Bricker T, Heath G, Kimm SYS, Malina R, Obarzanek E, Pate R, Strong WB, Truman B, Washington R. Assessment, prevalence, and cardiovascular benefits of physical activity and fitness in youth. Med Sci Sport Exerc, 1992; 24: 237-246.
5. Bartlet JE, Kotrlik JW, Higgins CC. Organizational research: determining appropriate sample size in survey research. Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal, 2001; 19 (1), 43-50.
6. Bull FC, Armstrong TP, Dıxon T, Ham S, Neıman A, Pratt M. Physical inactivity. ın comparative quantification of health risks. Global and regional burden of disease attributable to selected major risk factors edited by: Essati M, Lopez AD, Rodgers A, Murray CJL. Geneva: World Health Organization. 2004: 729-881.
7. Burton NW, Turrell G. Occupation, hours worked, and leisure time physical activity. Prev Med, 2000: 31: 673-681.
8. Craig CL, Marshall AL, Sjostrom M, Bauman AE, Booth ML Andainsworth BE, Et Al. International physical activity questionnaire: 12- country reliability and validity. Medicine Science and Sports Exercise, 2003; 35: 1381–1395.

9. Guidelines for Data Processing and Analysis of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) – Short and http://www.ipaq.ki.se/scoring.pdf 2005. Source:
10. Howley ET. Type of activity: resistance, aerobic and leisure versus occupational physical activity. Med Sci Sport Exerc, 2001; 33: 364-369.
11. Öztürk M. Validity and reliability of international physical activity questionary among university students and investigation physical activity level. Master Thesis. Hacettepe University. Ankara. 2005
12. Pate RR, Pratt M, Blair SN, Haskell WL, Macera CA, Bouchard C, Buchner D, Ettinger W, Heath GW, King AC. Physical activity and public health: a recommendation from the centers for disease control and prevention. American College of Sports Medicine, 1995; 273: 402-407.
13. Sümbüloğlu K. Statistical methods for health specific. Ankara: Özdemir Press. 1994.
14. U.S. Department of Health And Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Physical activity and health: A Report of the Surgeon General, Atlanta, GA, 1996.
15. Vanhees L, Lefevre J, Philippaerts R, Et Al. How to assess physical activity? How to assess physical fitness? Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil, 2005; 12: 102-114.
16. Vural Ö, Eler S, Atalay GN. The relation of physical activity level and life quality at sedentary profession. Spormetre Journal of Physical Education and Sport Science, 2010; 3: 69- 75.