Takashi Jindo

ABSTRACT Aim Although exercise is considered effective in preventing dementia, it remains unclear whether different types of exercise are differentially associated with dementia risk. The aim of this study was to clarify the relationship between specific types of exercise and the risk of developing dementia. Methods We conducted postal surveys of 5074 community‐dwelling older adults in Japan in June 2013 (pre‐baseline wave) and August 2017 (baseline wave). Participants were followed for 4 years, until July 2021. Dementia was assessed using the nationally standardized scale developed by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan. Participants were grouped based on engagement in 17 exercise types or classified as a non‐exerciser group if they did not participate in any of these activities. Five exercise types with ≥ 150 participants—calisthenics, walking, Japanese croquet, golf, and strength exercise—were included in the analysis. Adjusted Cox proportional hazards models with robust variance estimators were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dementia development by comparing each exercise group with the non‐exerciser group. Results During the follow‐up period (median, 4.0 years; interquartile range, 4.0–4.0 years), 430 participants (8.5%) developed dementia. Compared with non‐exercisers, participation in Japanese croquet and strength exercise was associated with a significantly lower risk of developing dementia, with adjusted HRs of 0.68 (95% CI, 0.46–0.99) and 0.26 (95% CI, 0.08–0.81), respectively. Conclusions Participation in Japanese croquet and strength exercise may be beneficial for the prevention of dementia.

OBJECTIVES: We examined the effects of a one-year multicomponent workplace intervention that introduced short active breaks from prolonged sitting on occupational movement behaviors and health among Japanese office workers. METHODS: This quasi-experimental study was conducted in Tokyo, Japan (2019-2020). In the intervention group (N=172), activity breaks from sitting were introduced to the work schedule (approximately 10 minutes/working hour) together with support strategies to encourage participation (eg, social support, provision of information). Workers in the control group (N=323), who worked at the same company group as those in the intervention group, did not receive any intervention. We evaluated accelerometer-measured sedentary behavior and physical activity during working hours as primary outcomes, and mental health and subjective job performance as secondary outcomes. Propensity score weighting using overlap weights was performed to examine between-group differences in outcomes at one year. RESULTS: At the one-year follow-up assessment, sedentary behaviors during working hours in the intervention group decreased by 24.4 minutes (95% confidence interval 31.6-17.3), with physical activity increasing by a comparable amount (P for group difference <0.05). However, at the one-year follow-up, psychological distress had worsened and work engagement had declined in the intervention group relative to baseline (P for group difference <0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that this program is a feasible approach to reducing sedentary behavior and promoting physical activity during work hours among office workers. However, methodological limitations prevent the definitive attribution of the effects to the intervention. Further rigorous research is needed to assess its effectiveness and external validity before broad implementation.