In March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic triggered a sudden and severe economic downturn. Between February and May 2020, the number of unemployed individuals rose by more than 14 million, resulting in an unprecedented increase in the unemployment rate, which went from 3.8% in February to 14.4% in April. Even though unemployment has declined in recent months, with some individuals returning to work, the rate is still much higher than it was one year ago (7.9% in September 2020 vs. 3.5% in September 2019). Further, as of September 2020, there are 19.4 million persons unable to work due to the pandemic, as well as 6.3 million persons working only part time even though they would prefer to work more.
In the face of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, food assistance programs adapted quickly and in unprecedented ways to meet the challenges of high unemployment, disruptions in the food supply, and school closures. Supported by US Department of Agriculture’s COVID-19 program-specific waivers, some programs relaxed their eligibility criteria, while others improvised on delivery modalities or temporarily increased benefits.1 To examine food assistance program participation and participant experiences during the first few months of the pandemic, we collected online survey data in July 2020 from a sample of over 1,500 U.S. households, representative of the US population. This brief summarizes participation in key food assistance programs, namely, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the Special Supplemental Program for Women Infants and Children (WIC), School Food Programs, as well as emergency food assistance provided through Food Pantries.
Meatless Monday is an initiative that encourages actionable steps toward the reduction of meat consumption by asking participants to eat meat-free on Mondays. Many organizations, cities, schools, and correctional facilities have implemented Meatless Monday initiatives as a push to improve environmental sustainability, human health, and the welfare of animals. Such initiatives provide an opportunity to educate consumers on the health benefits of a plant-forward diet, the environmental impact of meat production, animal welfare issues, the innovation of non-meat proteins, and to engage stakeholders in gaining more control over their food choices. This report offers a summary of seven Meatless Monday initiatives throughout the U.S., highlighting best practices and notable challenges of implementing and maintaining such an initiative in three different contexts: local government, school systems, and non-profit or volunteer-led organizations. This report was conducted through an extensive look at previous research, news articles, and marketing materials, as well as interviews with stakeholders in six mid-sized U.S. cities.
Aims: to evaluate 1) the PA variation explained by work walkability, 2) the moderating effects of person-level characteristics to the relationship between PA and work walkability, and 3) the differences in the rate of change in PA over time by worksite walkability.
Methods: self-report and accelerometer measured PA at baseline (aim 1, 2); longitudinal accelerometer PA during the initial 56 days of a behavioral intervention (aim 3). Adults were generally healthy and reported part- or full-time employment with a geocodeable address outside the home. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) measured walkability followed established techniques (i.e., residential, intersection, and transit densities, and land-use-mix).
Results: On average, worksite walkability did not show direct relationships with PA (aim 1); yet certain person-level characteristics moderated the relationships: sex, race, and not having young children in the household (aim 2). During 56 days of intervention, the PA rate of change over time showed no evidence of a moderating effect by worksite walkability.
Discussion: Worksite walkability was generally not shown to relate to the overall PA. However, specific subgroups (women, those without young children) appeared more responsive to their worksite neighborhood walkability. Prior literature shows certain demographics respond differently with various BE exposures, and this study adds a potentially novel moderator of interest regarding young children at home. Understanding who benefits from access to walkable BE may inform targeted interventions and policy to improve PA levels and foster health equity.
Investigation one revealed a moderate-to-large effect size for school-based interventions (n=10) increasing CVF (g=0.75; 95%CI [0.40-1.11]). Multi-level interventions (g=.79 [0.34-1.25]) were more effective than interventions focused on the individual (g=0.67 [0.12-1.22]). In investigations two and three children (78.3% Hispanic; mean ± SD age 53.2±4.5 months) completed a mean ± SD 3.7±2.3 PACER laps and 19.0±5.5 CSMP criteria. Individual and family factors associated with PACER laps included child sex (B=-0.96, p=0.03) and age (B=0.17, p<0.01), parents’ promotion of inactivity (B=0.66, p=0.08) and screen time (B=0.65, p=0.05), and parents’ concern for child’s safety during physical activity (B=-0.36, p=0.09). Child age (B=0.47, p<0.01) and parent employment (B=2.29, p=0.07) were associated with CMSP criteria. At the ECEC level, policy environment quality (B=-0.17; p=0.01) was significantly associated with number of PACER laps completed. Outdoor play environment quality (B=0.18; p=0.03), outdoor play equipment total (B=0.32; p<0.01) and screen time environment quality (B=0.60; p=0.02) were significantly associated with CMSP criteria. Researchers, ECEC teachers and policy makers should promote positive environmental changes to preschool-aged children’s family and ECEC environments, as these environments have the potential to improve CVF and GLS more than programs focused on the child alone.
Methods: Participants were recruited from the parent REasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) Study. ActicalTM accelerometers provided estimates of PA variables, including moderate-to-vigorous PA (MVPA), high light PA (HLPA), low light PA (LLPA) and sedentary time, for 4-7 consecutive days. Prevalence and incidence of cognitive impairment were defined by the Six-Item Screener. Letter fluency, animal fluency, word list learning and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (orientation and recall) were conducted to assess executive function and memory.
Results: Of the 7,339 participants who provided accelerometer wear data > 4 days (70.1 ± 8.6 yr, 54.2% women, 31.7% African American), 320 participants exhibited impaired cognition. In cross-sectional analysis, participants in the highest MVPA% quartile had 39% lower odds of cognitive impairment than those in the lowest quartile (OR: 0.61, 95% C.I.: 0.39-0.95) after full adjustment. Further analysis shows most quartiles of MVPA% and HLPA% were significantly associated with executive function and memory (P<0.01). During 2.7 ± 0.5 years of follow-up, 3,385 participants were included in the longitudinal analysis, with 157 incident cases of cognitive impairment. After adjustments, participants in the highest MVPA% quartile had 51% lower hazards of cognitive impairment (HR: 0.49, 95% C.I.: 0.28-0.86). Additionally, MVPA% was inversely associated with change in memory z-scores (P<0.01), while the highest quartile of HLPA% was inversely associated with change in executive function and memory z-scores (P<0.01).
Conclusion: Higher levels of objectively measured MVPA% were independently associated with lower prevalence and incidence of cognitive impairment, and better memory and executive function in older adults. Higher levels of HLPA% were also independently associated with better memory and executive function. The amount of MVPA associated with lower risk of cognitive impairment (259 min/week) is >70% higher than the minimal amount of MVPA recommended by PA guidelines.
Eleven women (46.9±7.0 years) not participating in regular exercise and self-reporting insomnia completed a graded maximal exercise test followed by a crossover trial of three randomly assigned conditions separated by a 1-week washout. Participants performed moderate-intensity [MIC, 30 minutes, 65-70% maximum heart rate (HRmax)] or high-intensity (HIT, 20 minutes, 1-minute bouts at 90-95% HRmax alternating with 1-minute active recovery) treadmill walking or a no-exercise control (NEC) on two consecutive weekdays 4-6 hours prior to typical bed time. A dual-function wrist-worn accelerometer/temperature monitor recorded movement and skin temperature from which sleep-onset latency (SOL), sleep maintenance, sleep efficiency, total sleep time (TST), and peripheral skin temperature changes were calculated. Participants self-reported sleep outcomes weekly, enjoyment of exercise the morning after HIT and MIC, and exercise intensity preference upon completing all conditions. Mixed models analysis of variance examined differences between and within conditions controlling for demographic characteristics and habitual physical activity.
HIT resulted in up to a 90-minute TST increase on night four (448 minutes, 95% CI 422.4-474.2) compared to nights one-three. MIC nights three (43.5 minutes, 95% CI 30.4-56.6) and four (42.1 minutes 95% CI 29.0-55.2) showed nearly a 30-minute SOL worsening compared to nights one-two. No other actigraphy-measured sleep parameters differenced within or between conditions. Self-reported sleep outcomes, peripheral skin temperature change, and exercise enjoyment between conditions were similar (p>0.05). More participants preferred lower (n=3) to higher (n=1) intensity activities.
Early evening high-intensity and moderate-intensity exercise had no effect on sleep outcomes compared to a control in non-exercising adults reporting sleep complaints. Sleep benefits from HIT may require exercise on successive days. Participants indicated partiality for lower intensity exercise. More information on timing and mode of physical activity to improve sleep in this population is warranted.
Purpose: To compare the acute effects of ACT, voluntary cycling (VC), and no cycling (NC) on upper and lower extremity motor function and executive function in adults with chronic stroke (age: 60 ± 16 years; months since stroke: 96 ± 85).
Methods: Twenty-two participants (gender: female = 6, male = 16; types: ischemic = 12, hemorrhagic = 10; sides: left lesion = 15, right lesion = 7) completed one session of ACT, one session of VC and one session of NC on separate days using a 3 x 3 crossover design.
Results: ACT lead to greater improvements in lower and upper extremity function on the paretic and non-paretic side than VC or NC (all p < 0.05), except in the non-paretic lower extremity where ACT and VC produced similar improvement (both p < 0.05). ACT and VC, but not NC, were associated with improvements in inhibition (p < 0.05). A positive relationship between cadence and motor function (P < 0.05) was found. Ratings of perceived exertion shared an inverted-U shaped relationship with measures of processing speed (p < 0.05) and a negative linear relationship with measures of executive function (p < 0.05).
Conclusion: ACT appears to benefit paretic and non-paretic motor function globally whereas the benefits of VC are more task specific. Faster cycling cadence was associated with greater improvements in global motor function. ACT and VC seem to carry similar acute benefits in inhibition.