Table 1 presents the demographic characteristics of the participants. A total of 10,802 young adults were dichotomized into groups in terms of frequency, intensity, and time of engagement in LTPA. Over 20% of the participants were classified into the regular LTPA group; this group exhibited a higher proportion of men (65.5%), normal weight (56.9%), and higher levels of education (78.6% holding a college degree or higher). Approximately 0% were retired, and 85.0% self-reported that they were in excellent or good health. Except for BMI, significant differences were observed across all demographic characteristics between the two groups.
Table 1
Demographic characteristics
Variables | LTPA Status | p-value |
| Regular LTPA (n = 2,592) | Non-regular LTPA (n = 8,210) | |
Age (y) | | | < 0.0001* |
18-24 | 809 (31.20%) | 1598 (19.50%) | |
25-29 | 480 (18.50%) | 1412 (17.20%) | |
30-34 | 443 (17.10%) | 1429 (17.40%) | |
35-39 | 403 (15.50%) | 1880 (22.90%) | |
40-44 | 457 (17.60%) | 1891 (23.00%) | |
Gender (% men) | 1,698 (65.5%) | 4,001 (48.7%) | < 0.0001* |
Height (cm) | 169.26±8.68 | 165.75±8.31 | < 0.0001* |
Body weight (kg) | 66.49±13.26 | 63.80±14.07 | < 0.0001* |
BMI (kg/m2) | 23.08±3.55 | 23.07±4.05 | 0.960 |
Obese Status (%) | | | < 0.0001* |
Underweight | 184 (7.10%) | 737 (9.00%) | |
Normal weight | 1475 (56.90%) | 4285 (52.20%) | |
Overweight | 485 (18.70%) | 1598 (19.50%) | |
Obese | 353 (13.60%) | 1230 (15.00%) | |
Education (%) | | | < 0.0001* |
Elementary school or lower | 2 (0.10%) | 30 (0.40%) | |
Junior or senior school | 553 (21.40%) | 2547 (31.10%) | |
College or higher | 2035 (78.60%) | 5608 (68.50%) | |
Occupation (%) | | | < 0.0001* |
White collar | 588 (22.80%) | 2033 (24.90%) | |
Government servant | 228 (8.80%) | 497 (6.10%) | |
Blue collar | 380 (14.70%) | 1970 (24.10%) | |
Owner/manager | 139 (5.40%) | 337 (4.10%) | |
Specialists | 289 (11.20%) | 812 (10.00%) | |
Student | 616 (23.90%) | 895 (11.00%) | |
Housewife | 80 (3.10%) | 641 (7.90%) | |
Retired | 1 (0.00%) | 13 (0.20%) | |
Free lancer | 104 (4.00%) | 248 (3.00%) | |
Jobless | 119 (4.60%) | 636 (7.80%) | |
Other | 36 (1.40%) | 78 (1.00%) | |
Self-reported health status (%) | | | < 0.0001* |
Excellent or good | 2185 (85.00%) | 6071 (75.50%) | |
Fair | 103 (4.00%) | 520 (6.50%) | |
Very bad or poor | 282 (11.00%) | 1449 (18.00%) | |
Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index; LTPA, leisure-time physical activity. |
*p < 0.05. |
aValues expressed as means ± standard deviation for continuous variables. |
Table 2 presents a comparison of the happiness scores between the young adults in the regular LTPA and nonregular LTPA groups. In terms of gender, a significant difference was observed between the LTPA status and happiness of men in two age groups (18–24 and 30–34 years; p < 0.05) and that of women aged 25–39 years. A significant difference was observed between LTPA status and happiness in the 18–24 and 30–34 age group (p < 0.005) when the groups were pooled.
Table 2
Happiness scores of Taiwanese young adults in regular and non-regular LTPA groups
Variables | LTPA Status | P-value |
Regular LTPA | Non-regular LTPA |
Men (n = 5,611 ) | | | |
18-24 | 4.02 ± 0.53 | 3.88 ± 0.64 | < 0.0001* |
25-29 | 3.80 ± 0.75 | 3.84 ± 0.64 | 0.341 |
30-34 | 3.95 ± 0.59 | 3.74 ± 0.82 | < 0.0001* |
35-39 | 3.82 ± 0.69 | 3.78 ± 0.73 | 0.497 |
40-44 | 3.75 ± 0.75 | 3.76 ± 0.71 | 0.943 |
Women (n = 5,029 ) | | | |
18-24 | 4.05 ± 0.56 | 3.99 ± 0.54 | 0.131 |
25-29 | 3.96 ± 0.41 | 3.83 ± 0.60 | 0.001* |
30-34 | 3.92 ± 0.46 | 3.81 ± 0.69 | 0.017* |
35-39 | 3.91 ± 0.62 | 3.76 ± 0.72 | 0.004* |
40-44 | 3.86 ± 0.61 | 3.80 ± 0.68 | 0.246 |
Total (n = 10,640 ) | | | |
18-24 | 4.03 ± 0.54 | 3.94 ± 0.60 | < 0.0001* |
25-29 | 3.85 ± 0.66 | 3.84 ± 0.62 | 0.624 |
30-34 | 3.94 ± 0.56 | 3.78 ± 0.75 | < 0.0001* |
35-39 | 3.86 ± 0.66 | 3.77 ± 0.73 | 0.018* |
40-44 | 3.80 ± 0.70 | 3.78 ± 0.69 | 0.721 |
Abbreviations: LTPA, leisure-time physical activity. |
*p < 0.05. |
Table 3 presents the results of the comparison of happiness between young adults in the regular and nonregular LTPA groups. A significant difference in happiness was observed between men and women in both the regular LTPA and nonregular LTPA groups, but this difference was across different age groups (p < 0.05). However, a significant difference in happiness was observed between two age groups of men in the both regular LTPA and nonregular LTPA groups (18–24 and 30–34 years). A significant difference in happiness was observed between two ages groups of women in both the regular LTPA and nonregular LTPA groups (30–34 and 35–39 years). In addition, in both the regular LTPA and nonregular LTPA groups, unhappiness was more prevalent than happiness. Moreover, when the groups were pooled, the results indicated a significant difference in happiness among three age groups in both the regular LTPA and nonregular LTPA groups (18–24, 30–34, and 35–39 years).
Table 3
Prevalence of happiness and unhappiness in Taiwanese young adults in regular and non-regular LTPA groups
Variables | LTPA Status | p-value |
Regular LTPA | Non-regular LTPA |
Men (n = 5,611) | | | |
18-24 | Happy | 36 (6.50%) | 101 (12.50%) | < 0.0001* |
| Unhappy | 517 (93.50%) | 704 (87.50%) | |
25-29 | Happy | 52 (16.90%) | 100 (12.90%) | 0.087 |
| Unhappy | 256 (83.10%) | 676 (87.10%) | |
30-34 | Happy | 35 (11.30%) | 127 (19.30%) | 0.002* |
| Unhappy | 274 (88.70%) | 530 (80.70%) | |
35-39 | Happy | 34 (14.20%) | 150 (17.30%) | 0.246 |
| Unhappy | 206 (85.80%) | 716 (82.70%) | |
40-44 | Happy | 41 (15.00%) | 165 (20.00%) | 0.066 |
| Unhappy | 232 (85.00%) | 659 (80.00%) | |
Women (n = 5,029) | | | |
18-24 | Happy | 16 (6.30%) | 51 (6.50%) | 0.911 |
| Unhappy | 239 (93.70%) | 737 (93.50%) | |
25-29 | Happy | 16 (9.50%) | 89 (14.30%) | 0.099 |
| Unhappy | 153 (90.50%) | 532 (85.70%) | |
30-34 | Happy | 11 (8.60%) | 127 (16.90%) | 0.017* |
| Unhappy | 117 (91.40%) | 624 (83.10%) | |
35-39 | Happy | 17 (10.40%) | 162 (17.10%) | 0.032* |
| Unhappy | 146 (89.60%) | 784 (82.90%) | |
40-44 | Happy | 22 (12.70%) | 170 (16.40%) | 0.220 |
| Unhappy | 151 (87.30%) | 867 (83.60%) | |
Total (n =10,639) | | | |
18-24 | Happy | 52 (6.40%) | 152 (9.50%) | 0.010* |
| Unhappy | 756 (93.60%) | 1441 (90.50%) | |
25-29 | Happy | 68 (14.30%) | 189 (13.50%) | 0.679 |
| Unhappy | 408 (85.70%) | 1208 (86.50%) | |
30-34 | Happy | 46 (10.50%) | 254 (18.00%) | < 0.0001* |
| Unhappy | 391 (89.50%) | 1154 (82.00%) | |
35-39 | Happy | 51 (12.70%) | 313 (17.30%) | 0.025* |
| Unhappy | 351 (87.30%) | 1500 (82.70%) | |
40-44 | Happy | 63 (14.10%) | 335 (18.00%) | 0.051 |
| Unhappy | 383 (85.90%) | 1525 (82.00%) | |
Abbreviations: LTPA, leisure-time physical activity. |
*p < 0.05. |
Table 4 presents the results of the multivariate regression analysis of the relationship between regular LTPA and happiness scores. The results indicated a positive association between regular LTPA and happiness (p < 0.05). However, after adjustment for age, BMI, self-reported health status, occupation, and education, the regression coefficients of each variable decreased (men, β = 0.043; women, β = 0.050; total, β = 0.043).
Table 4
Multivariate regression analysis of the association between regular LTPA and happiness scores
Variables | Model 1 (unadjusted) | | Model 2 (adjusteda) |
β | SE | p-value | | β | SE | p-value |
Men | | | | | | | |
Regular LTPA | 0.067 | 0.023 | < 0.0001* | | 0.043 | 0.022 | 0.001* |
Non-regular LTPA | Ref. | ‒ | ‒ | | Ref. | ‒ | ‒ |
Women | | | | | | | |
Regular LTPA | 0.065 | 0.022 | < 0.0001* | | 0.050 | 0.022 | < 0.0001* |
Non-regular LTPA | Ref. | ‒ | ‒ | | Ref. | ‒ | ‒ |
Total | | | | | | | |
Regular LTPA | 0.063 | 0.016 | < 0.0001* | | 0.043 | 0.016 | < 0.0001* |
Non-regular LTPA | Ref. | ‒ | ‒ | | Ref. | ‒ | ‒ |
Abbreviations: LTPA, leisure-time physical activity; SE, standard error. |
*p < 0.05. |
aAdjusted for age, obese status, self-reported health status, occupation, and education. |
In the multivariate analysis (Table 5), regular LTPA was most strongly associated with increased happiness, and the significant associations were observed in men, women, and total participants (p < 0.05). However, after adjustment for age, BMI, self-reported health status, occupation, and education, the associations between happiness and each variable were strong (men, OR = 1.41; women, OR = 1.424; total, OR = 1.392).
Table 5
Multivariate logistic regression analysis of the association between regular LTPA and happiness
Variables | Model 1 (unadjusted) | | Model 2 (adjusteda) |
| OR | 95% CI | p-value | | OR | 95% CI | p-value |
Men | | | | | | | |
Regular LTPA | 1.571 | 1.323-1.866 | < 0.0001* | | 1.410 | 1.173-1.693 | < 0.0001* |
Non-regular LTPA | Ref. | ‒ | ‒ | | Ref. | ‒ | ‒ |
Women | | | | | | | |
Regular LTPA | 1.592 | 1.318-1.923 | < 0.0001* | | 1.424 | 1.169-1.735 | < 0.0001* |
Non-regular LTPA | Ref. | ‒ | ‒ | | Ref. | ‒ | ‒ |
Total | | | | | | | |
Regular LTPA | 1.557 | 1.371-1.767 | < 0.0001* | | 1.392 | 1.218-1.592 | < 0.0001* |
Non-regular LTPA | Ref. | ‒ | ‒ | | Ref. | ‒ | ‒ |
Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; LTPA, leisure-time physical activity; OR, odds ratio. |
*p < 0.05. |
aAdjusted for age, obese status, self-reported health status, occupation, and education. |