In an investigation published in the European Review of Aging and Physical Activity, researchers evaluated how naturally occurring combinations of sedentary time and physical activity relate to physical fitness and functional capacity in older adults. Traditional investigations frequently examine sedentary behaviour, light-intensity physical activity, and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity as isolated factors, potentially overlooking the combined and synergistic effects that emerge when these activities coexist across waking hours. To address this methodological gap, the study employed latent profile analysis, a person-centred analytical technique that identifies distinct subgroups sharing similar behavioural compositions across their daily routines. By categorizing older adults into profiles based on objective accelerometer data, the investigators demonstrated that individuals who accumulate substantial light activity and reduce sedentary time exhibit markedly superior physical fitness and physical function compared to highly sedentary peers, even when moderate-to-vigorous activity targets are not fully satisfied.
The study analysed cross-sectional data collected between 2017 and 2018 from a nationally representative sample within the Portuguese physical activity and sports monitoring system. Participants were recruited from community senior and social centres, public and private institutions, sports clubs, and social or sports events across mainland Portugal, covering the Alentejo, Algarve, Center, Lisbon Metropolitan Area, and North regions through proportionate stratified random sampling. The final analytical sample comprised 1,095 community-dwelling older adults aged 65 to 98 years, including 765 females and 330 males, all of whom provided complete and valid accelerometry records. Ethical approval was granted by the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Human Kinetics at the University of Lisbon, and all participants provided informed consent in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.
To capture movement patterns objectively, participants wore an Actigraph GT3X or GT1M accelerometer positioned near the iliac crest on the right hip for seven consecutive days, removing the device only during sleep or water-based activities. Acceleration data were collected in 15-second epochs using Actilife software, and a day was classified as valid if wear time exceeded 10 hours. Analysis was restricted to participants who registered at least three valid wear days, with at least one occurring on a weekend day. Accelerometer cut points defined sedentary behaviour, light-intensity physical activity, and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity. To account for variations in daily monitoring duration, each movement intensity was expressed as a percentage of total waking wear time, calculated by dividing the daily minutes in each intensity by total wear time and multiplying by 100.
Physical fitness was measured using the Senior Fitness Test battery alongside an assessment of handgrip strength. The battery evaluated physiological components critical for functional mobility: the 30-second chair-stand test assessed lower body strength, the arm-curl test measured upper body strength, the chair sit-and-reach and back-scratch tests evaluated lower and upper body flexibility respectively, the 8-foot up-and-go test measured agility and dynamic balance, and the 6-minute walk test captured functional aerobic endurance. Handgrip strength was assessed using a Jamar hydraulic hand dynamometer across three alternating trials per hand in a standing posture, retaining the highest mean value and adjusting for stature by dividing by squared height in square metres. Self-reported physical function was evaluated via the 12-item Composite Physical Function questionnaire, which scores independence across basic, instrumental, and advanced activities of daily living.
Latent profile analysis, conducted separately by sex to account for baseline behavioural and physiological differences, identified three distinct physical behaviour profiles among both females and males. Model estimation examined two to six profile solutions, with fit indices and elbow plots indicating that model fit plateaued at three distinct profiles. The first profile, designated as balanced movers, represented 304 females and 111 males who dedicated approximately half of their waking hours to sedentary behaviour (50.1% in females, 49.1% in males) and the remainder to activity. Among females in this profile, light activity averaged 46.4% (about 6 hours and 7 minutes per day) and moderate-to-vigorous activity averaged 3.5% (about 27 minutes per day). For males, light activity averaged 45.8% (about 6 hours and 5 minutes per day) and moderate-to-vigorous activity averaged 5.1% (about 40 minutes per day), making this the only profile that met the World Health Organization threshold of at least 21.4 daily minutes of moderate-to-vigorous activity on average.
The second profile, categorized as intermediate movers, included 288 females and 146 males who exhibited higher sedentary time and lower total physical activity than balanced movers. Sedentary behaviour accounted for 65.6% of waking time in females (approximately 8 hours and 38 minutes daily) and 66.4% in males (approximately 8 hours and 45 minutes daily). Daily activity in this intermediate profile comprised 32.9% light activity (about 4 hours and 19 minutes) and 1.5% moderate-to-vigorous activity (around 11 minutes) among females, whereas males registered 31.0% light activity (about 4 hours and 6 minutes) and 2.6% moderate-to-vigorous activity (around 21 minutes). Although intermediate mover males averaged near the World Health Organization threshold, only 39.73% of males and 17.36% of females within this group met the recommendation.
The third group, designated as highly sedentary, comprised 173 females and 73 males whose daily routines were overwhelmingly inactive. Sedentary behaviour occupied 79.9% of waking hours in females (approximately 10 hours and 21 minutes per day) and 79.8% in males (approximately 10 hours and 25 minutes per day). Total physical activity in this cohort was limited to 20.2% of the day, reflecting minimal light activity (20.0% in females, 19.9% in males; roughly 2 hours and 43 to 46 minutes daily) and negligible moderate-to-vigorous activity (0.2%, averaging 2 to 3 minutes daily). None of the participants categorized within the highly sedentary profile satisfied the recommended moderate-to-vigorous physical activity guidelines. Demographic analysis showed that highly sedentary participants were significantly older, averaging 81.76 years for females and 80.77 years for males, compared to their more active counterparts.
Generalised linear models adjusted for age demonstrated that physical behaviour profiles were significantly associated with physical fitness and function. Among females, both balanced movers and intermediate movers achieved superior results compared to highly sedentary peers across nearly all metrics. In lower body strength, balanced and intermediate movers completed 38% and 36% more chair-stand repetitions, respectively. In upper body strength, they completed 32% and 28% more arm curls. Agility was markedly higher, with balanced and intermediate female movers finishing the 8-foot up-and-go test 43% and 41% faster, recording mean times of 7.14 and 7.46 seconds versus 12.55 seconds in the sedentary group. Functional endurance also differed substantially: balanced movers walked 179.52 metres farther and intermediate movers walked 122.45 metres farther in the 6-minute walk test. Self-reported physical function scores were 5.72 and 3.89 points higher in balanced and intermediate movers compared to sedentary females. Significant differences between balanced and intermediate female movers emerged only in functional endurance and composite physical function.
A matching pattern appeared among males, where physical behaviour profiles significantly associated with every assessed fitness and function parameter. Both male balanced movers and intermediate movers completed 42% more chair stands and achieved 37% and 31% more arm-curl repetitions than sedentary males, respectively. In agility testing, balanced movers and intermediate movers recorded 38% and 39% faster times on the 8-foot up-and-go, with average durations of 6.44 and 6.28 seconds compared to 10.33 seconds for sedentary males. In the 6-minute walk test, balanced movers covered 166.48 metres more and intermediate movers covered 181.68 metres more than highly sedentary individuals. Handgrip strength in males was also significantly associated with profile membership, with intermediate movers displaying greater strength than the sedentary group. Importantly, male balanced and intermediate movers showed no statistically significant differences from each other across any outcome.
Despite the functional advantages observed in more active profiles, criterion-referenced evaluations indicated that many participants still failed to meet established thresholds for preserving independence until age 90 and beyond. Specifically, while 77.9% of female and 67.6% of male balanced movers attained upper body strength standards, and 70.7% of females and 64.1% of males met lower body strength standards, benchmarks for other fitness domains dropped to around 50% even in active cohorts. Among highly sedentary participants, over 90% of both sexes exhibited risk values for agility and aerobic endurance, and self-reported scores suggested 74% of sedentary females and 61% of sedentary males were at risk of losing functional independence. The authors highlighted key study limitations, including the cross-sectional design which precludes causal inference, accelerometer limitations in recording resistance training or water-based exercises, adjustment limited strictly to age without accounting for socioeconomic status or comorbidity covariates, and restriction to community-dwelling Portuguese seniors.
Subject of Research: Physical behaviour profiles and physical fitness and function in older adults
Article Title: Physical behaviour profiles and their associations with fitness and function in older adults: a cross-sectional latent profile analysis
Article References: Zymbal, V., P. Magalhães, J., Baptista, F., B. Rosa, G., B. Cruz, E., & B. Sardinha, L. (2026). Physical behaviour profiles and their associations with fitness and function in older adults: a cross-sectional latent profile analysis. European Review of Aging and Physical Activity, 23(1), Article 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s11556-025-00397-4
Image Credits: AI Generated
DOI: 10.1186/s11556-025-00397-4
Keywords: accelerometry, latent profile analysis, physical activity, sedentary behaviour, light physical activity, moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, older adults, physical fitness, physical function, Senior Fitness Test, Composite Physical Function, chair stand test, arm curl test, 8-foot up-and-go, 6-minute walk test, functional independence, healthy ageing
