Abstract
Understanding the sources of the large individual differences in sedentary behavior is of great importance as this behavior is associated with pre‐mature mortality and non‐communicable diseases. Here, we report on the contribution of genetic and environmental factors to the variation in objectively assessed (accelerometer) sedentary behavior and self‐reported sitting and their shared genetic basis. In addition, the overlap of the genetic risk factors influencing sedentary time and moderate‐to‐vigorous physical activity (MVPA) was estimated. A sample of 800 individuals (twins and their siblings) was equipped with an Actigraph accelerometer for 7 days and reported on their sitting time and time spent on MVPA on those days using the IPAQ‐SF. Genetic factors explained 56% (CI: 44%, 65%) of the individual differences in objective sedentary behavior (Actigraph) and 26% (CI: 0%, 51%) of the individual differences in self‐reported sedentary behavior (IPAQ‐SF). A modest correlation (0.33) was found between these measures, which was for 45% accounted for by genetic influences. The genetic correlation was 0.49 reflecting a partly overlapping set of genes that influenced both measurements. A modest correlation (−0.27) between Actigraph‐derived sedentary time and MVPA was found, which was 13% accounted for by genetic effects. The genetic correlation was −0.31, indicating that there are overlapping genetic variants that increase sedentary time and decrease MVPA or vice versa. To conclude, more than half of the individual differences in objective sedentary time could be attributed to genetic differences, while for self‐reported sitting this was much lower. In addition, using objective measurements, this study confirms that sedentary time is not simply the inverse of MVPA. Future studies are needed to understand the pathways translating genomic variation into variation in these behaviors and how this knowledge might feed into the development of health promotion interventions.
Highlights
Sedentary behavior is defined as any waking behavior characterized by an energy expenditure ≤1.5 metabolic equivalents (METs), while in a sitting, reclining, or lying posture.[1]
An even more powerful design to disentangle the relative importance of environmental and genetic influences on a trait or behavior is the twin design. This design includes both genetically identical, or monozygotic (MZ), twins and non-identical, or dizygotic (DZ), twins and allows for separating the genetic influences, shared environmental influences and unique environmental influences
Accelerometer data were collected in three Netherlands Twin Register (NTR) samples; 49 monozygotic twin pairs aged 16-26, selected based on their exercise status in their adolescence; 15 female monozygotic twin pairs participated in a study on obesity and food reward regulation[23]; and 672 individuals recruited for a study on the determinants of sedentary behavior
Summary
Understanding the sources of the large individual differences in sedentary behavior is of great importance as this behavior is associated with pre-mature mortality and non-communicable diseases. We report on the contribution of genetic and environmental factors to the variation in objectively assessed (accelerometer) sedentary behavior and self-reported sitting and their shared genetic basis. The overlap of the genetic risk factors influencing sedentary time and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) was estimated. Genetic factors explained 56% (CI: 44%, 65%) of the individual differences in objective sedentary behavior (Actigraph) and 26% (CI: 0%, 51%) of the individual differences in self-reported sedentary behavior (IPAQ-SF). A modest correlation (−0.27) between Actigraph-derived sedentary time and MVPA was found, which was 13% accounted for by genetic effects. More than half of the individual differences in objective sedentary time could be attributed to genetic differences, while for self-reported sitting this was much lower. Using objective measurements, this study confirms that sedentary time is not the inverse of MVPA. Future studies are needed to understand the pathways translating genomic variation into variation in these behaviors and how this knowledge might feed into the development of health promotion interventions
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
