Physical activities on campus with minimum exercise facilities

https://doi.org/10.22146/bkm.51300

Siti Fatimah(1*)

(1) Health Promotion Major of Karya Husada Yogyakarta Health Polytechnic
(*) Corresponding Author

Abstract


Purpose: The purpose of this model is to discover an idea of physical activity on campus having less than adequate facilities, especially in Poltekkes Karya Husada Yogyakarta.

Method: This is a review of physical activity on campus, that does not require a lot of facilities. References are taken through articles that are open access from Google Scholar. Keywords used in this review are “physical activity on campus” that were published from 2009-2019. After finding a suitable one, a model was developed with specific references based on the types of physical activity.

Results: Physical activity that is suitable in minimal campus facilities include walking or cycling to campus, using stairs, and stretching between work and college.

Conclusion: Stretching in study hours, going up and down the stairs, and cycling to campus are activities that can be performed anywhere without requiring expensive additional facilities. It can result in 43 minutes of physical activity without having scheduled time. This review can be applied for physical activity on Poltekkes Karya Husada and another campus with minimal facilities.


Keywords


physical activity; healthy campus; minimum facility

Full Text:

PDF


References

  1. Asian University Network-Health Promotion Network (AUN-HPN). AUN Healthy University Framework. 2017. Available: http://www.aunsec.org/photo2019-1/2019-8-20-HUF.pdf
  2. United States. Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy People 2010 : Understanding and Improving Health. 2000.
  3. McKenzie TL, Lounsbery MAF. School Physical Education: The Pill Not Taken. American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine. 2009. pp. 219–225. doi:10.1177/1559827609331562
  4. Hills AP, Dengel DR, Lubans DR. Supporting public health priorities: recommendations for physical education and physical activity promotion in schools. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2015;57: 368–374.
  5. Ridgers ND, Stratton G, Fairclough SJ. Assessing physical activity during recess using accelerometry. Prev Med. 2005;41: 102–107.
  6. Deliens T, Deforche B, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Clarys P. Determinants of physical activity and sedentary behaviour in university students: a qualitative study using focus group discussions. BMC Public Health. 2015. doi:10.1186/s12889-015-1553-4
  7. Crombie AP, Ilich JZ, Dutton GR, Panton LB, Abood DA. The freshman weight gain phenomenon revisited. Nutr Rev. 2009;67: 83–94.
  8. Vella-Zarb RA, Elgar FJ. The “Freshman 5”: A Meta-Analysis of Weight Gain in the Freshman Year of College. Journal of American College Health. 2009. pp. 161–166. doi:10.1080/07448480903221392
  9. Lubans DR, Morgan PJ, Aguiar EJ, Callister R. Randomized controlled trial of the Physical Activity Leaders (PALs) program for adolescent boys from disadvantaged secondary schools. Prev Med. 2011;52: 239–246.
  10. Lubans DR, Morgan PJ, Okely AD, Dewar D, Collins CE, Batterham M, et al. Preventing Obesity Among Adolescent Girls: One-Year Outcomes of the Nutrition and Enjoyable Activity for Teen Girls (NEAT Girls) Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2012;166: 821–827.
  11. Greaney ML, Less FD, White AA, Dayton SF, Riebe D, Blissmer B, et al. College Students’ Barriers and Enablers for Healthful Weight Management: A Qualitative Study. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior. 2009. pp. 281–286. doi:10.1016/j.jneb.2008.04.354
  12. Nelson MC, Kocos R, Lytle LA, Perry CL. Understanding the perceived determinants of weight-related behaviors in late adolescence: a qualitative analysis among college youth. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2009;41: 287–292.
  13. Hu FB. Sedentary lifestyle and risk of obesity and type 2 diabetes. Lipids. 2003. pp. 103–108. doi:10.1007/s11745-003-1038-4
  14. Must A, Tybor DJ. Physical activity and sedentary behavior: a review of longitudinal studies of weight and adiposity in youth. Int J Obes . 2005;29 Suppl 2: S84–96.
  15. WHO. Global recommendations on physical activity for health. 2010. Available: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/44399/9789245599975_chi.pdf
  16. TTHS | Comprehensive School Physical Activity Programs. [cited 3 Feb 2020]. Available: https://www.cdc.gov/healthyschools/professional_development/e-learning/cspap/page12.html
  17. Martens MP, Buscemi J, Smith AE, Murphy JG. The short-term efficacy of a brief motivational intervention designed to increase physical activity among college students. J Phys Act Health. 2012;9: 525–532.
  18. Katz DL, Cushman D, Reynolds J, Njike V, Treu JA, Katz C, et al. Peer Reviewed: Putting Physical Activity Where It Fits in the School Day: Preliminary Results of the ABC (Activity Bursts in the Classroom) for Fitness Program. Prev Chronic Dis. 2010;7. Available: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2901580/
  19. Lee SM, Burgeson CR, Fulton JE, Spain CG. Physical education and physical activity: results from the School Health Policies and Programs Study 2006. J Sch Health. 2007;77: 435–463.
  20. Sutrisno, B., & Khafadi, M. B. Pendidikan Jasmani, Olahraga, dan Kesehatan 2. Surakarta: Kementrian Pendidikan Nasional. 2010.
  21. Mahendra, A. Senam. Jakarta: Dirjen Dikdasmen Depdiknas. 2000.
  22. Priyoto, P. & Wahyuning, B. Pengaruh Pemberian Intervensi Senam Peregangan Di Tempat Kerja Terhadap Penurunan Gangguan Msds Dan Kadar Asam Urat Darah. Jurnal Keperawatan. 2019. Available: https://jurnalkeperawatan.lppmdianhusada.ac.id/index.php/jk/article/view/77/46
  23. Sari NLMRW, Ni Luh Made Reny, Luh Made Indah Sri, Made Muliarta I, Adiputra N, Wayan Surata I, et al. Perbaikan Kondisi Kerja Serta Pemberian McKenzie exercise Dan Peregangan Statis Memperbaiki Respon Fisiologis Dan Meningkatkan Produktivitas Pekerja Pada Industri Pembuatan Dupa Di UD. Manik Galih Tabanan. Jurnal Ergonomi Indonesia (The Indonesian Journal of Ergonomic). 2019. p. 1. doi:10.24843/jei.2019.v05.i01.p01
  24. Anggraeni AD, Jubaedi A, Wiyono W. Pengaruh naik turun bangku dan naik turun tangga terhadap peningkatan kebugaran jasmani. JUPE (Jurnal Penjaskesrek). 2014;2. Available: http://jurnal.fkip.unila.ac.id/index.php/JUPE/article/view/2724
  25. Ismail FP, Arwin A, Sugihartono T. Perbedaan latihan naik turun tangga tunggal (satu tangga) dengan naik turun tangga jamak (enam tangga) terhadap kemampuan lari sprint 60 meter siswa kelas V SD Negeri 69 Kota Bengkulu. KINESTETIK. 2017;1. doi:10.33369/jk.v1i1.3369
  26. Iqbal Arys Agustavian M. Perbedaan bersepeda dan berjalan kaki ke sekolah terhadap tingkat kebugaran jasmani siswa (Studi Pada Siswa Kelas VII SMP Negeri 1 Sempu Kabupaten Banyuwangi). Jurnal Pendidikan Olahraga dan Kesehatan. 2013;1. Available: https://jurnalmahasiswa.unesa.ac.id/index.php/jurnal-pendidikan-jasmani/article/view/2814
  27. Fishman E, Schepers P, Kamphuis CBM. Dutch Cycling: Quantifying the Health and Related Economic Benefits. Am J Public Health. 2015;105: e13–5.



DOI: https://doi.org/10.22146/bkm.51300

Article Metrics

Abstract views : 991 | views : 610

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Bookmark and Share


Copyright (c) 2020 Berita Kedokteran Masyarakat

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Berita Kedokteran Masyarakat ISSN 0215-1936 (PRINT), ISSN: 2614-8412 (ONLINE).

Indexed by:

 

Web Analytics Visitor Counter