Purpose: The main purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between sedentary time and metabolic syndrome. Association of accelerometer and self-reported sedentary time on metabolic syndrome were also compared. Methods: A total of 1,354 adults (men, 492; women, 862), aged 19 to 65 years, who wore the accelerometer from the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey were included in the analysis. Four subgroups were created based on quartiles of daily sedentary time for analytical purposes. Metabolic syndrome was defined according to the International Diabetes Federation. Logistic regression was used to predict the odds ratio (OR), and 95% confidence interval (CI) of the relationship between sedentary time and metabolic syndrome after adjusting for sex, age, education level, family income, smoking, alcohol consumption, body mass index, and accelerometer wear time. Results: Accelerometer measured sedentary time displayed stronger associations with the metabolic syndrome than did self-reported sedentary time. When controlling for covariates, participants in the fourth quartile of the accelerometer measured sedentary time predicted the highest odds of having metabolic syndrome (OR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.18– 3.34). However, participants in the second quartile only of self-reported sedentary time predicted the odds of having metabolic syndrome (OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.01– 2.52). Conclusion Sedentary time was related to metabolic syndrome. This relationship tended to be more consistent and stronger for accelerometer measured sedentary time than for self-report. Current results suggest that reducing daily sedentary time may help prevent metabolic syndrome.

Purpose: This study was performed to investigate the association between step volume and intensity with the prevalence of metabolic syndrome (MS) in Korean adults. Methods: The study analyzed 2,038 adults from the 2014 to 2017 Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, defining MS based on waist circumference, blood pressure, triglycerides, glucose, and high-density lipoprotein cholesterols. Step volume and intensity were calculated using average number of steps per day and peak 30-minute cadence, respectively. Logistic regression analysis was used to calculate the odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of MS by tertiles of step volume and intensity. A joint analysis was conducted to examine the combined association between step volume and intensity with the prevalence of MS. We divided the participants into nine groups according to their step volume (tertiles) and intensity (tertiles). Results: There were 478 MS cases. Compared to the lowest tertile of volume, the ORs of MS were 1.06 (95% CI, 0.79–1.42) and 0.64 (95% CI, 0.47–0.88) in the middle and highest tertile of volume. Compared to the lowest tertile of intensity, the ORs were 1.02 (95% CI, 0.76–1.36) and 0.74 (95% CI, 0.55–1.01) in the middle and highest tertile of intensity. In the joint analysis, compared to the group with both lowest volume and intensity, the ORs were significantly lower in all groups with the highest volume, except the group with the lowest intensity. Conclusion Although only greater step volume, not intensity, was independently related to MS, both step volume and intensity appear to be important for preventing MS.