Associations between chronotype and physical activity and well-being in adults

Figures & data

Table 1. Descriptive statistics of the study sample. Mean±SD or n (column %).

Variable	Men (n = 64)	Women (n = 149)	All (N = 213)
Age	24.9 ± 4.5	24.5 ± 6.3	24.6 ± 5.8
Studying/working students students + odd jobs workers part-time workers full-time	16 (25.0) 24 (37.5) 2 (3.1) 22 (34.4)	44 (29.5) 66 (44.3) 7 (4.7) 32 (21.5)	60 (28.2) 90 (42.3) 9 (4.2) 54 (25.4)
Level of education primary vocational secondary higher	1 (1.6) 3 (4.7) 35 (54.7) 25 (39.1)	0 (0.0) 2 (1.3) 95 (63.8) 52 (34.9)	1 (0.5) 5 (2.3) 130 (61.0) 77 (36.2)
Chronotype M-type N-type E-type	7 (10.9) 46 (71.9) 11 (17.2)	16 (10.7) 101 (67.8) 32 (21.5)	23 (10.8) 147 (69.0) 43 (20.2)
CSM score	33.3 ± 7.6	32.4 ± 7.6	32.7 ± 7.6
Well-being score	11.7 ± 4.6	10.0 ± 4.8	10.5 ± 4.8
Physical activity score	4595.5 ± 4590.1	2352.9 ± 2703.7	3057.7 ± 3553.6
Time spend on sitting (min.)	400.4 ± 197.3	383.5 ± 192.3	388.7 ± 193.4

Table 2. CSM and life quality parameters scores comparison between men and women.

Variable	Women			Men			Mann-Whitney test value
	n	R	Me±Q	n	R	Me±Q	Z	p
CSM score	149	104.6	32 ± 6	64	112.6	34 ± 5	−0.87	0.3867
Well-being score (points)	149	100.4	10 ± 3	64	122.4	12.5 ± 3.5	−2.38	0.0172
Physical activity score (points)	120	79.1	1629 ± 1134.13	55	107.5	3093 ± 2694.75	−3.44	<0.001
Timespent sitting (minutes)	119	85.1	360 ± 150	53	89.8	360 ± 100	−0.57	0.5673

R – mean rank, Me – median value, Q – quartile deviation.

Figure 1. Scatter plot of CSM score and well-being score for men and women.

Figure 2. Scatter plot of CSM score and time spent sitting for men and women.

Table 3. Spearman rank correlation coefficients (r_s) between CSM points, physical activity, well-being and time spent sitting for all participants.

Variables	CSM score	Well-being score	Physical activity score
Well-being score	0.29*
Physical activity score	0.15	0.24*
Time spent sitting (min.)	−0.18*	−0.29*	−0.17*

Figure 3. Chronotype category and sum of well-being (mean ± 95% CI).

Figure 4. Chronotype category and time spent sitting (mean ± 95% CI).

Table 4. GLM model of life quality parameters (dependent variables, three separate models) in sex and chronotype categories (predictors in each model) controlling age as a covariate.

# model	df1, df2	F	p
1. Well-being score (points)
intercept	1. 208	54.11	<0.001
chronotype	2. 208	8.59	<0.001
sex	1. 208	4.91	0.0278
age	1. 208	0.01	ns
adjusted R-squared of the model	R^2Adj. = 0.09
2. Physical activity score (points)
intercept	1. 170	12.8	<0.001
chronotype	2. 170	1.52	ns
sex	1. 170	16.17	<0.001
age	1. 170	0.33	ns
adjusted R-squared of the model	R^2Adj. = 0.08
3. Time spent sitting (minutes)
intercept	1. 167	30.39	<0.001
chronotype	2. 167	4.73	0.01
sex	1. 167	0.63	ns
age	1. 167	0.14	ns
adjusted R-squared of the model	R^2Adj. = 0.03

ns – non significant (p > 0.05).