text:
- Research
- Open Access
The effect of a cluster randomised control trial on objectively measured sedentary time and parental reports of time spent in sedentary activities in Belgian preschoolers: the ToyBox-study
© De Craemer et al. 2016
- Received: 18 November 2014
- Accepted: 23 December 2015
- Published: 5 January 2016
In preschoolers, high levels of sedentary behaviour are associated with several adverse health outcomes. The purpose of this study is to report the effects of the ToyBox-intervention (a European 24-week cluster randomised controlled trial) on sedentary behaviour in preschoolers.
In Belgium, 859 preschoolers from 27 kindergartens (15 intervention and 12 control) wore an accelerometer to objectively measure their sedentary time and 1715 parents/caregivers completed a questionnaire to assess sedentary activities in which preschoolers participate at home. Main outcomes were objectively measured sedentary time, time spent watching TV, using the computer and time spent in quiet play. Multilevel repeated measures analyses were conducted to take clustering into account. Intention to treat analysis was used to handle missing data.
A sample of 859 (29.5 % of all contacted children) preschoolers (4.4 ± 0.6 years, 54.4 % boys) provided valid accelerometer data at either baseline or follow-up and parents of 1715 (58.9 % of all contacted children) preschoolers (4.4 ± 0.5 years, 52.5 % boys) completed a questionnaire at either baseline or follow-up. No intervention effects were found on objectively and subjectively measured total sedentary time in the total sample. However, some effects on objectively and subjectively measured sedentary time were found in specific subgroups. Preschoolers from the intervention group from high SES kindergartens and preschoolers with high levels of sedentary time at baseline decreased their sedentary time, while preschoolers from the control group increased their sedentary time. Girls in the intervention group decreased their TV viewing time during weekend days (-5.83 min/day), while girls' &TV viewing in the control group increased (+4.15 min/day). In low SES kindergartens, a smaller increase for computer time during weekend days was found in preschoolers in intervention kindergartens (+6.06 min/day) than in control kindergartens (+12.49 min/day).
While some small positive effects were found in some sub-groups, the ToyBox-intervention had no effect on objectively and subjectively measured sedentary time in the total sample. A longer period to implement the intervention and a more active involvement of parents/caregivers might enhance intervention effects.
The ToyBox-study is registered with the clinical trials registry clinicaltrials.gov, ID: NCT02116296.
- Sedentary behaviour
- Screen time
- Intervention
- Preschoolers
- Randomized cluster trial
Preschool children spend high proportions (50–80 %) of their waking time in sedentary behaviour [1–5]. Research has demonstrated that sedentary behaviour is not the opposite of physical activity. These behaviours are two unique behavioural constructs and are independently related to health outcomes [6]. High levels of sedentary behaviour (and in particular screen viewing behaviours) moderately track from early childhood to later childhood [1, 7] and these behaviours are also likely to track into adulthood [8, 9] and are related to adverse health outcomes [10–13]. For example, high levels of sedentary behaviour contribute to the imbalance in different energy balance-related behaviours (EBRB's) (i.e., physical activity, dietary intake, sedentary behaviour) and are associated with excessive weight gain in young children [14]. For that reason, sedentary behaviour guidelines for preschoolers have been established that suggest to limit prolonged periods of sitting [15–17]. Sedentary behaviour guidelines for preschoolers also include specific recommendations for the amount of screen time per day, as screen time is the most common sedentary behaviour in preschoolers, and is therefore frequently used as a proxy marker of overall sedentary behaviour [18, 19]. These guidelines recommend that preschool children should limit watching television (TV) and the use of other electronic media – like computer, DVDs and other electronic games – to less than one hour per day [15]. Some studies showed that only a small percentage of preschool children adhere to these guidelines. For example, in a Canadian cross-sectional study, 17.9 % of three- to four-year-old preschool children complied with the screen time guideline of spending less than one hour of screen time per day [20]. Similar results were found in an Australian sample of preschoolers (mean age of 4.5 years), with 21.8 % of preschool children adhering to these screen time guidelines [21].
Because of the negative health outcomes related to sedentary behaviour, reducing children's sedentary time is suggested to be included in health promotion interventions [22]. Different reviews summarized the effects of interventions that focused on this behaviour in children and reported small intervention effects [22–28]. Because preschoolers often have easy access to televisions (TVs), intervention studies have focused on this context of preschoolers' sedentary behaviour to decrease this type of sedentary behaviour. The school-based intervention study by Dennison et al. (2004) in 2- to 5-year-old US preschoolers implemented seven educational sessions in which suggestions for alternative activities to watch TV were made; for example, 'no TV signs' were crafted and stories were read [29]. After the intervention period, TV and video viewing time of preschoolers in the intervention group decreased by 3.1 hours per week, compared to the control group in which children increased their TV viewing time by 1.6 hours per week. Another intervention study executed by Epstein et al. (2008) was implemented in the home environment of 4- to 7-year-old US preschoolers and used the 'TV Allowance device', to control and monitor the use of screen viewing devices at home [30]. After the intervention period, both groups decreased their TV viewing time, but preschoolers from the intervention group showed a stronger decrease (17.5 hours per week) in screen time compared to preschoolers from the control group (5.2 hours per week). These two effective intervention studies only focused on decreasing preschoolers' screen viewing time and did not include other sedentary activities in which preschoolers often engage (e.g., quiet play, looking at books, passive transportation). However, it is recommended to focus on different forms of sedentary behaviour (i.e., screen viewing activities and non-screen viewing activities), because it is more likely that a decrease of time spent in one sedentary behaviour will be allocated to other sedentary activities, rather than in light or moderate physical activity [22].
The ToyBox-study applied a multi-factorial evidence-based approach that used behavioural models in understanding and promoting fun, healthy food, play and policy for the prevention of overweight in early childhood and has developed a theory and evidence-based kindergarten intervention with family involvement [31]. The main purpose of the ToyBox-intervention was to change four different EBRB's (water consumption, healthy snacking, physical activity and sedentary behaviour) in relation to the prevention of overweight in preschool children aged 4- to 6-years-old [31]. Different forms of preschoolers' sedentary behaviour, namely a decrease of preschoolers' total sedentary time, screen time and quiet play (e.g., looking at books, playing with blocks, making puzzles, drawing) were targeted in the sedentary behaviour module [32]. As overall sedentary time does not consist of screen time alone, it is important to measure preschoolers' time spent in quiet play as well, since quiet play is categorised as productive sedentary behaviour [19]. Because socio-ecological models point out that health behaviours are influenced by different factors (i.e., personal factors, environmental factors) [33–35], these behaviours can interact at multiple levels such as at the home or the school environment. Therefore, a multi-level approach was chosen. Since a large population of preschoolers across ethnic and socio-economic groups can be reached in kindergartens or child-care settings [36], these settings were used for the implementation of this health promotion intervention. Apart from teachers in the kindergarten environment, also parents/caregivers in the home environment participated in this intervention, as parents/caregivers have an important influence on children's behaviours in early childhood [37].
The present study aimed at evaluating the effects of the ToyBox-intervention module focusing on decreasing preschoolers' sedentary behaviour in Belgian preschoolers. The first aim of this study was to examine the effect on preschoolers' objectively measured total sedentary time, separately examined for weekdays, weekend days, during and after school hours. Furthermore, we also wanted to examine the effect of the intervention on different types of sedentary activities. The second aim of this study was therefore to examine the effect of the intervention on preschoolers' screen time and the time they spent in quiet play. Because an association between sedentary behaviour and child's gender [38–41] and parental education as an indicator of socio-economic status (SES) was found in previous studies [42, 43], the third aim of our study was to investigate if possible intervention effects differed according to child's gender and kindergartens' SES. Finally, we also examined the intervention effects in a sub-group of preschoolers who had the highest levels of sedentary time at baseline.
Study protocol and subjects
The ToyBox-intervention was implemented in a randomized controlled cluster intervention with a pre-test post-test design including kindergartens or kindergarten centres in an intervention and control condition in six European countries (Belgium, Bulgaria, Germany, Greece, Spain, and Poland) (www.toybox-study.eu). Preschoolers and their families across these countries were recruited at kindergartens, day-care centres or preschool settings, depending on the country regulations and legislation. In order to avoid confusion for the reader, the settings in which Belgian preschoolers were recruited will be referred to as "kindergartens" throughout this paper. Belgian preschoolers can attend kindergarten from 2.5 to 6 years old. It is not compulsory but about 98 % of preschool-aged children in Belgium attend kindergarten [44]. Kindergartens run from Mondays until Fridays and preschoolers spend approximately 30 hours per week at kindergarten [45]. In Belgian kindergartens, teachers pursue the developmental goals in terms of knowledge, insight, skills and attitudes that are imposed by the government [46]. Accelerometers to objectively measure preschoolers' sedentary time were only used in one country (Belgium), which is why only the Belgian data were used in the present study.
As described in the standardized protocol of the ToyBox-study, tertiles of municipalities in two provinces (East- and West-Flanders) in Flanders, the northern part of Belgium, were created for the implementation of the intervention. First, all municipalities in those two provinces were listed and SES levels (i.e., low, medium and high SES) of each municipality was determined based on the educational level of the respective residents which was collected through the National Statistical Service [47]. A random sample of municipalities from each tertile with low, medium or high SES was taken and kindergartens located in those selected municipalities were contacted. A total sample of 97 kindergartens with a low, medium or high SES, based on the SES level of the municipality and located in this municipality, were invited to participate in the study. The project was first explained to the kindergartens' principals by phone. If kindergartens requested, a personal visit was performed in order to provide the kindergarten staff with more details about the ToyBox-study. Twenty-seven kindergartens (27.8 %) agreed to participate. The main reason for kindergartens not to take part in the study was the fact that they did not want to overload their teachers. All preschoolers of the first (i.e., three-year-olds) and second (i.e., four-year-olds) kindergarten class (including preschoolers born in January 2007 and December 2008) received an information letter to take home in which the purpose of the study was explained to the parents. In this information letter, parents were invited to participate in the project, to complete a questionnaire with questions regarding preschoolers' sedentary behaviour and to let their child wear an accelerometer for six consecutive days. After the recruitment of the kindergartens had finished, each municipality was randomly drawn to the intervention or the control condition (2:1) by the project coordinator (Greece) with the use of a command in Excel, which means that the randomisation occurred automatically and electronically. The teachers who were allocated to the control condition kindergartens did not participate in the training session or received the intervention materials. They were informed that they would receive the intervention package after the follow-up measurements and were asked to continue with their normal curriculum during the school year 2012–2013.
Power analyses were performed before the start of the study using the software http://www.statisticalsolutions.net, and were based on a previous kindergarten-based intervention study [48]. As the main outcome of the ToyBox-intervention was preschoolers' body mass index (BMI), differences in BMI were used in the power analyses. Based on current literature [49], a baseline value for preschoolers' BMI was 16.35 kg/m2, an expected follow-up value of 16.17 kg/m2, a standard deviation of 1.73, an α-value of 0.05 and a power of 0.80 were used, resulting in a minimum sample of 726 preschool children which should be achieved. For this reason, at least 800 preschool children with complete data at baseline and follow-up per intervention country were aimed for. To account for potential drop-out, each country had to recruit a sample of minimum 1100 preschoolers [50].
A baseline measurement period (before the implementation of the intervention) and a follow-up measurement period were prescribed in the project protocol. Baseline collection started on schooldays in March 2012 and lasted until the end of June 2012, while follow-up data collection occurred one year later between March and June 2013 to account for possible seasonal effects. Baseline measurements (March-June 2012) took place before summer holidays (July-August 2012) and before the intervention (September 2012-March 2013). Follow-up measurements took place during the last month of the intervention and after the intervention (March-June 2013). During both these measurement periods, the study outcomes were collected in both the intervention and control kindergartens. Children with written informed consent to wear an accelerometer were fitted with the device to obtain objectively measured data on their sedentary time. Furthermore, all preschoolers who participated in the project received a questionnaire to take home and parents were invited to fill in this questionnaire. At follow-up, parents received the same questionnaire and accelerometer data from the same preschoolers were collected. The ToyBox-study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University Hospital of Ghent (EC/2010/037). Furthermore, the ToyBox-study is registered with the clinical trials registry clinicaltrials.gov, ID: NCT02116296.
The sedentary behaviour module of the ToyBox-intervention
The structured planning and development of the ToyBox-intervention, including the sedentary behaviour module, was done using the Intervention Mapping Protocol [51]. A detailed description of the development of the sedentary behaviour module in the ToyBox-intervention can be found elsewhere [32]. This kindergarten-based family-involved intervention was implemented by the kindergarten teachers and before the intervention started, two one-hour teachers' trainings per kindergarten were conducted. The first training session was conducted before the start of school year 2012-2013 to inform teachers about environmental changes they could perform in their classroom. In the second training session, which was performed in September 2012, the sedentary behaviour intervention was explained to the teachers and teachers were also provided with all the intervention material. Before the start of the repetition period (which will be explained below), teachers received a third teacher training session.
Details about the ToyBox-intervention materials for the sedentary behaviour module
Classroom Activities Guide
Part 1:
Environmental changes in the classroom:
Throughout whole school year
- Standing play stations
- Doing activities while standing
- Use the hallway
Part 2:
Child performing the actual behaviour; i.e. short movement breaks:
Throughout whole school year
- Spin the wheel
- Play statue
- Flamingo
- Fireworks
- …
During the first focus (weeks 13–16) and repetition period (weeks 23–24)
Part 3:
Classroom activities:
- Kangaroo stories
- Longer movement breaks
- Movement corners
- Television bingo
- "No TV"-signs
- Weekly calendar
- …
Kangaroo hand puppet
The kangaroo is used to support the activities that are being carried out. The kangaroo is a mascot of the study.
Throughout whole school year
Newsletter 1:
- General information about sedentary behaviour
- Guidelines regarding screen time and sedentary behaviour
- Tips to limit children's time spent sedentary
- Activities that are being carried out at kindergarten
- Tips for movement breaks
During the first focus (weeks 13–16)
Newsletter 2:
- Guidelines regarding screen time
- Tips to decrease children's screen time
- Activities that are being carried out at kindergarten
- Parents are a role model
During the repetition period (weeks 23–24)
Tip-card 1:
- Tips to replace sedentary behaviour into active behaviour
- Tips on how to motivate the child
During the first focus (weeks 13–16)
Tip-card 2:
- Tips on how to decrease screen-related activities
- Tips for parent-child activities
During the repetition period (weeks 23–24)
Key messages:
- Don't sit down for a long time – get up and be active!
- Do not eat in front of screens!
- Limit screen viewing activities – make your own experiences!
- Include active movement breaks in the children's daily lives!
During the first focus (weeks 13–16)
During the implementation of the sedentary behaviour module in the kindergartens, parents/caregivers received two newsletters and two tip-cards, containing different tips and strategies to decrease preschoolers' sedentary behaviour and screen time at home. In these newsletters, also the recommendation to limit screen time to less than one hour per day was provided. Finally, a poster including key messages to decrease sedentary behaviour was also handed out by the teachers to the preschoolers to take home.
Process evaluation tools were developed to gain insight into the role of the main implementers and their fidelity in implementing the ToyBox-intervention (i.e., teachers and parents/caregivers). Teachers received monthly logbooks, containing questions on changes made to the kindergarten environment, preschoolers' performing movement breaks, execution of classroom activities, whether they handed out the intervention materials and what their feedback was on the intervention materials. At the end of the ToyBox-intervention, preschoolers' parents/caregivers received a questionnaire containing questions on whether they received and read the newsletters, tip-cards and poster, and how they perceived these materials (e.g., reliable, understandable, useful).
Measurement of sedentary time
Three models of ActiGraph accelerometer monitors were used to objectively assess preschoolers' sedentary time, namely the GT1M (3.8 cm × 3.7 cm × 1.8 cm; 27 g), the GT3X (3.8 cm × 3.7 cm × 1.8 cm; 27 g) and the GT3X+ (4.6 cm × 3.3 cm × 1.5 cm; 19 g). The use of three different accelerometer models was inevitable as all available accelerometers had to be used in order to measure a large sample in a limited amount of time. Only the vertical axis output was used in the present study. There is a strong agreement between the GT1M, GT3X and GT3X+ accelerometer, which makes it acceptable to use these activity monitors together in one study [52].
Before the accelerometers were fitted on the preschoolers, they were initialized using the Actilife Lite software, version 6.5.4 with an epoch measurement interval of 15 seconds [53]. The preschoolers wore the accelerometer on the right hip, secured with an elastic belt around the waist for six consecutive days, including two weekend days. A manual on how to attach the accelerometer was provided to the parents and they were instructed to remove the accelerometer only for sleeping and during water-based activities. Meterplus software, version 4.3 was used to score and clean the accelerometer data assessed during the measurement days (Meterplus, Santech, Inc). The first and the last measurement day were deleted because these days were incomplete. Children were included in the final dataset if they had at least two weekdays and one weekend day with valid data [54]. Non-wearing time was calculated as periods of more than 10 minutes of consecutive zero counts and a valid day was considered when the accelerometer was worn for a minimum of 6 hours per day [53, 55]. Minutes of sedentary time were afterwards estimated using the cut-points from Evenson et al. [56], with ≤ 100 counts per minute categorized as sedentary time as this cut-point is suggested by different studies to provide a good estimate of free-living sedentary time [57, 58].
Measurement of screen time and quiet play
A Primary Caregivers Questionnaire (PCQ) was developed to assess preschoolers' sociodemographic factors, and to assess information about parents' and preschoolers' physical activity, sedentary behaviour and dietary behaviour. The development of the PCQ was based on previously developed questionnaires from large European studies such as IDEFICS [59], HELENA [60] and ENERGY [61]. More information about the development of the PCQ can be found elsewhere [62]. Parents completed the PCQ both at baseline and follow-up, and questions regarding preschoolers' TV viewing time ("About how many hours a day does your child usually watch television (including DVDs and videos) in his/her free time?"; ICCweek = 0.67; ICCweekend = 0.67), computer use ("About how many hours a day does your child use the computer for activities like playing games on a computer, game consoles (e.g., Playstation, Xbox, GameCube) during leisure time?"; ICCweek = 0.72; ICCweekend = 0.81) and quiet play ("About how many hours a day does your child have quiet play ((looking at books, playing with blocks, playing with dolls, drawing, construction) during leisure time?"; ICCweek = 0.42; ICCweekend = 0.50) were included in the data analyses [62]. Preschoolers' time spent in these activities during their leisure time on weekdays and weekend days was assessed by asking parents to indicate how many hours a day their child watched TV/DVDs/videos, how many hours their child used the computer, and how many hours they spent in quiet play with answer possibilities ranging from never, <30 min, 30 min-1 hour/day, 1–2 hours/day, 3–4 hours/day, 5–6 hours/day, 7–8 hours/day, 8 hours/day to > 8 hours per day. Overall, the PCQ showed moderate test-retest reliability for these questions [62]. Test-retest reliability of the PCQ was examined by letting 93 parents from the intervention countries (i.e., Belgium, Bulgaria, Germany, Greece, Poland, and Spain) complete the PCQ twice with a two-week interval [62].
Anthropometric measurements
Trained researchers visited preschool children at kindergartens and measured their body weight and height according to standardized protocols [63]. Body weight was measured with the SECA 861 calibrated electronic scale (accuracy of 0.1 kg), and body height was measured with the SECA 225 Leicester Portable stadiometer (accuracy of 0.1 cm). Two readings of each measurement were obtained and the mean was used for the analyses. When the two readings differed by more than 1 %, a third measurement was conducted and the mean of the two least deferring values was used. Body Mass Index was calculated as weight/height2 (kg/m2). Weight status (underweight, normal weight, overweight, obese) was obtained based on the International Obesity Task Force thresholds [64].
Statistical analyses
For objectively measured sedentary time (primary outcome), all outcomes were separately calculated for weekdays, weekend days, and during school (between 8 AM and 4 PM) and after school hours (between 4 PM and 8 PM). All outcomes were expressed in percentages of the total wearing time by dividing all outcome variables by the total wearing time and multiplying by 100. For measurements of screen time (i.e. TV viewing and computer use) and quiet play (primary outcomes), all variables were recoded into minutes per day using the midpoint method [65] to ensure that numerical outcomes could be used to investigate possible intervention effects. Intention to treat (ITT) analysis was carried out to handle missing data, which means that preschoolers with minimum one valid accelerometer measurement (either at baseline or follow-up), and parents who minimally filled in one complete PCQ (either at baseline or follow-up) were included in the analyses. To impute the missing data, we used the "last observation carried forward" method. Prior to all analyses, all outcome measures were first checked for normal distribution (skewness < 0.70) and appeared to be normally distributed. Descriptive statistics were computed to describe sample characteristics as percentage or means and standard deviations.
To investigate possible changes in objectively measured sedentary time, screen time and quiet play according to the condition, multilevel repeated measures analyses were performed using MLwiN 2.28 (Centre for Multilevel Modelling, University of Bristol, UK). To indicate potential interaction effects according to child's gender and municipality based SES-level of the kindergarten (secondary outcomes), a three-way interaction effect (time*condition*gender and time*condition*SES) was investigated for each outcome. Furthermore, also a three-way interaction effect (time*condition*group) was investigated for a sub-group of preschoolers who had the highest levels of sedentary time at baseline (i.e., total sedentary time above the 70th percentile at baseline). In case of a significant three-way interaction effect for an outcome variable, analyses were stratified by gender, SES or group. To ensure that clustering of two measurements of children in different classes in the different kindergartens was taken into account, four levels were defined for the multilevel modelling (measurement – child – class – kindergarten). In the total sample and in the subgroups regarding SES and high levels of sedentary time at baseline, we adjusted for gender and age. In the subgroup regarding gender, we only could adjust for age. Two different β-values were calculated during the analyses: (1) the β for the 'time effect' is the amount of change in the three outcomes (objectively measured sedentary time, screen time and quiet play) associated with going from pre-test to follow-up, (2) the β-value for the 'interaction effect' (time*condition) indicated the difference in the change in objectively measured sedentary time, screen time and quiet play going from pre-test to follow-up according to the condition (intervention vs. control). To indicate the effect size of the significant interaction effects, Cohen's d statistic values are reported in the text (small effect = 0.20, moderate effect = 0.50, large effect = 0.80) [66]. Statistical significance level was set at p < 0.05 to account for multiple testing. Furthermore, the 95 % confidence intervals were calculated as well.
Descriptive characteristics of sedentary behaviour at baseline and follow-up in Belgian preschool children in intervention (n = 15) and control (n = 12) kindergartens
Gender (% boys)
Age (years)
4.4 ± 0.6
4.3 ± 0.6
Weight status
- Underweight (%)
- Normal weight (%)
- Overweight (%)
- Obese (%)
SB weekday (%/day)
44.8 ± 6.5
45.8 ± 6.8
44.5 ± 6.9
46.3 ± 10.5
SB weekend day (%/day)
45.9 ± 10.0
46.7 ± 9.7
45.0 ± 10.4
45.8 ± 10.8
Gender (% boys)
Age (years)
4.5 ± 0.5
4.4 ± 0.5
Weight status
- Underweight (%)
- Normal weight (%)
- Overweight (%)
- Obese (%)
TV week (min/day)
61.1 ± 43.1
67.9 ± 55.8
60.6 ± 44.3
68.6 ± 55.7
TV weekend (min/day)
108.6 ± 72.5
117.7 ± 85.3
105.8 ± 69.8
119.1 ± 84.5
PC week (min/day)
11.1 ± 25.5
11.8 ± 24.5
15.6 ± 30.6
16.4 ± 29.3
PC weekend (min/day)
23.1 ± 42.9
23.5 ± 39.3
30.2 ± 44.7
32.3 ± 45.9
Quiet play week (min/day)
71.7 ± 51.8
81.7 ± 66.1
70.7 ± 52.4
77.3 ± 61.8
Quiet play weekend (min/day)
154.2 ± 95.2
158.9 ± 101.5
145.3 ± 113.6
151.6 ± 96.3
A total of 1715 parents/caregivers (58.9 %) (parents/caregivers of preschoolers in low SES kindergartens = 678, 39.5 %; medium SES kindergartens = 547, 31.9 %; high SES kindergartens = 490, 28.6 %) completed the questionnaire at either one of both measurement periods. Preschoolers whose parents/caregivers completed the questionnaire at either baseline or follow-up had a mean age of 4.4 ± 0.5 years at baseline, of which 52.5 % were boys. In total, 754 preschoolers (44.0 %) were located in the control kindergartens and 961 preschoolers (56.0 %) in the intervention kindergartens (Table 2).
Effect of the ToyBox-intervention on preschoolers' sedentary time (accelerometers)
Time and interaction effects for sedentary behaviour outcomes in the total sample (adjusted for age and gender)
Mean difference (follow-up - baseline)
Time* Condition
β (SE)
β (SE)
SB weekday
+0.96 %
0.96 (0.62)
−0.26 to 2.19
−1.31 (0.78)
−2.84 to 0.21
−0.35 %
SB weekend day
−0.86 %
−1.12 (0.75)
−2.59 to 0.35
0.26 (0.94)
−1.58 to 2.10
−1.12 %
Total SB
−0.41 %
0.52 (0.56)
−0.57 to 1.62
−0.93 (0.70)
−2.30 to 0.43
+0.52 %
SB school hours
−1.19 %
−0.18 (0.55)
−1.25 to 0.90
−1.01 (0.69)
−2.36 to 0.33
−0.18 %
SB after school hours
−0.96 %
−1.37 (0.78)
−2.90 to 0.16
0.41 (0.97)
−1.49 to 2.32
−1.37 %
TV week
+0.13 min/day
0.73 (1.57)
−2.36 to 4.78
−0.59 (2.06)
−4.63 to 3.44
+0.73 min/day
TV weekend
−2.61 min/day
1.90 (2.56)
−3.11 to 6.92
−4.51 (3.35)
−11.07 to 2.05
+1.90 min/day
PC week
+4.79 min/day
5.83 (1.04)***
3.79 to 7.86
−1.04 (1.36)
−3.69 to 1.62
+5.83 min/day
PC weekend
+8.12 min/day
11.17 (1.50)***
8.23 to 14.11
−3.05 (1.96)
−6.90 to 0.80
+11.17 min/day
Quiet play week
−0.87 min/day
−4.44 (2.33)
−9.00 to 0.13
3.56 (3.05)
−2.41 to 9.53
−4.44 min/day
Quiet play weekend
−9.19 min/day
−7.05 (4.59)
−16.05 to 1.95
−2.14 (5.99)
−13.89 to 9.60
−7.05 min/day
Time and interaction effects for sedentary behaviour outcomes in Belgian boys and girls (adjusted for age)
Mean difference (follow-up - baseline)
Time * Condition
β (SE)
β (SE)
SB weekday
+0.29 %
−0.29 (0.46)
−1.19 to 0.60
0.32 (0.78)
−1.21 to 1.85
+0.03 %
SB weekend day
−0.50 %
−0.50 (0.71)
−1.88 to 0.89
-0.64 (1.21)
−3.00 to 1.73
−1.13 %
Total SB
−0.23 %
−0.06 (0.60)
−1.22 to 1.11
-0.17 (0.74)
−1.61 to 1.27
−0.06 %
SB school hours
−1.26 %
−0.85 (0.74)
−2.31 to 0.61
-0.41 (0.92)
−2.20 to 1.39
−0.85 %
SB after school hours
−0.34 %
−2.90 (1.10)**
−5.05 to -0.75
2.56 (1.53)
−0.09 to 5.21
−2.90 %
TV week
−0.22 min/day
1.31 (2.16)
−2.92 to 5.55
−1.53 (2.83)
−7.92 to 4.86
+1.31 min/day
TV weekend
+0.29 min/day
−0.10 (3.44)
−6.85 to 6.64
0.39 (4.50)
−8.43 to 9.22
−0.10 min/day
PC week
+4.24 min/day
6.96 (1.30)***
4.42 to 9.51
−2.72 (1.70)
−7.76 to 2.32
+6.96 min/day
PC weekend
+8.26 min/day
13.69 (2.15)***
9.48 to 17.90
−5.42 (2.82)
−10.94 to 0.10
+13.69 min/day
Quiet play week
−1.92 min/day
−4.87 (2.81)
−10.37 to 0.64
2.95 (3.68)
−4.26 to 10.15
−4.87 min/day
Quiet play weekend
−5.24 min/day
−10.31 (6.85)
−23.72 to 3.11
5.07 (8.95)
−12.48 to 22.61
−10.31 min/day
SB weekday
−0.42 %
1.98 (1.12)
−0.22 to 4.19
−2.41 (1.42)
−5.20 to 0.38
+1.98 %
SB weekend day
−1.32 %
−1.10 (1.16)
−3.37 to 1.17
-0.21 (1.47)
−3.08 to 2.66
−1.10 %
Total SB
−0.66 %
1.15 (0.98)
−0.77 to 3.08
-1.81 (1.25)
−4.25 to 0.63
+1.15 %
SB school hours
−1.10 %
0.56 (0.81)
−1.03 to 2.15
-1.66 (1.03)
−3.68 to 0.36
+0.56 %
SB after school hours
−1.74 %
0.30 (1.09)
−1.84 to 2.43
-2.03 (1.38)
−4.74 to 0.67
+0.30 %
TV week
+0.52 min/day
0.06 (2.30)
−4.45 to 4.56
0.47 (3.00)
−5.41 to 6.34
+0.06 min/day
TV weekend
−5.83 min/day
4.15 (3.81)
−3.32 to 11.62
−9.98 (4.98)*
−19.74 to -0.23
+4.15 min/day
PC week
+5.40 min/day
4.56 (1.64)**
1.34 to 7.79
0.84 (2.15)
−3.37 to 5.05
+4.56 min/day
PC weekend
+7.97 min/day
8.33 (2.08)***
4.26 to 12.39
−0.36 (2.71)
−5.68 to 4.95
+8.33 min/day
Quiet play week
+0.28 min/day
−3.96 (3.80)
−11.41 to 3.49
4.24 (4.97)
−5.49 to 13.97
−3.96 min/day
Quiet play weekend
−13.59 min/day
−3.34 (5.97)
−15.04 to 8.37
−10.25 (7.78)
−25.51 to 5.00
−3.34 min/day
Time and interaction effects for sedentary behaviour outcomes in preschoolers from low, medium and high SES kindergartens (adjusted for age and gender)
Mean difference (follow-up - baseline)
Time* Condition
β (SE)
β (SE)
LOW SES KINDERGARTENSa
SB weekday
−0.04 %
−0.04 (0.69)
−1.40 to 1.32
0.00 (0.92)
−1.80 to 1.80
−0.04 %
SB weekend day
−1.51 %
−1.50 (1.07)
−3.59 to 0.60
-0.01 (1.42)
−2.79 to 2.77
−1.50 %
Total SB
−0.47 %
−0.08 (0.62)
−1.31 to 1.14
-0.39 (0.83)
−2.01 to 1.23
−0.08 %
SB school hours
−0.28 %
0.06 (0.85)
−1.61 to 1.72
−0.34 (1.13)
−2.55 to 1.88
−0.06 %
SB after school hours
−2.07 %
−3.01 (1.12)**
−5.20 to -0.81
0.94 (1.48)
−1.97 to 3.84
−3.01 %
TV week
+0.63 min/day
2.24 (2.05)
−1.77 to 6.25
1.61 (2.83)
−7.16 to 3.94
+2.24 min/day
TV weekend
−3.55 min/day
−4.38 (3.78)
−11.79 to 3.03
0.83 (5.24)
−9.44 to 11.10
−4.38 min/day
PC week
+4.01 min/day
5.83 (1.32)***
3.25 to 8.41
−1.81 (1.82)
−5.38 to 1.76
+5.83 min/day
PC weekend
+6.06 min/day
12.49 (2.14)***
8.29 to 16.69
−6.43 (2.98)*
−12.27 to -0.59
+12.49 min/day
Quiet play week
−2.76 min/day
−4.39 (3.24)
−10.74 to 1.95
1.64 (4.50)
−7.18 to 10.45
−4.39 min/day
Quiet play weekend
−10.04 min/day
−6.65 (7.58)
−21.49 to 8.20
−3.39 (10.51)
−23.98 to 17.20
−6.65 min/day
MEDIUM SES KINDERGARTENSb
SB weekday
−0.01 %
0.24 (0.85)
−1.43 to 1.90
-0.25 (0.99)
−2.19 to 1.70
+0.24 %
SB weekend day
−0.33 %
-0.14 (1.52)
−3.11 to 2.84
-0.19 (1.78)
−3.68 to 3.29
+0.14 %
Total SB
+0.03 %
0.13 (0.83)
−1.50 to 1.76
-0.10 (0.97)
−2.01 to 1.81
+0.13 %
SB school hours
−1.30 %
-1.21 (1.01)
−3.19 to 0.78
-0.10 (1.19)
−2.42 to 2.23
−1.21 %
SB after school hours
+0.16 %
−0.12 (1.30)
−2.67 to 2.43
0.28 (1.52)
−2.71 to 3.26
−0.12 %
TV week
+1.66 min/day
1.95 (3.49)
−4.89 to 8.78
−0.29 (4.25)
−8.61 to 8.04
+1.95 min/day
TV weekend
−0.98 min/day
7.79 (5.37)
−2.74 to 18.31
−8.76 (1.79)
−21.62 to 4.09
+7.79 min/day
PC week
+6.25 min/day
5.38 (2.74)*
0.01 to 10.75
0.86 (3.34)
−5.68 to 7.41
+5.38 min/day
PC weekend
+10.45 min/day
7.39 (3.47)*
0.58 to 14.19
3.07 (4.23)
−5.23 to 11.36
+7.38 min/day
Quiet play week
+3.08 min/day
−7.67 (4.50)
−16.49 to 1.15
10.75 (5.49)
−0.01 to 25.51
−7.67 min/day
Quiet play weekend
−0.51 min/day
−12.44 (7.93)
−27.98 to 3.09
11.93 (9.66)
−6.99 to 30.86
−12.44 min/day
HIGH SES KINDERGARTENSc
SB weekday
−0.42 %
3.24 (1.61)*
0.08 to 6.40
−4.20 (1.93)*
−7.98 to -0.43
+3.24 %
SB weekend day
−1.54 %
−1.49 (1.35)
−4.13 to 1.15
−0.05 (1.61)
−3.21 to 3.11
−1.49 %
Total SB
−1.14 %
1.85 (1.40)
−0.89 to 4.60
−2.99 (1.68)
−6.28 to 0.30
+1.85 %
SB school hours
−2.00 %
0.48 (1.03)
−1.54 to 2.49
-2.48 (1.23)*
−4.88 to -0.07
+0.47 %
SB after school hours
−1.51 %
−0.06 (1.64)
−3.27 to 3.16
-1.45 (1.96)
−5.30 to 2.39
−0.06 %
TV week
−2.25 min/day
−2.62 (3.06)
−8.62 to 3.38
0.37 (4.00)
−7.48 to 8.22
−2.62 min/day
TV weekend
−3.35 min/day
7.04 (4.50)
−1.79 to 15.87
−10.39 (5.88)
−21.92 to 1.14
+7.04 min/day
PC week
+4.07 min/day
6.19 (1.58)***
3.10 to 9.27
−2.11 (2.06)
−6.15 to 1.93
+6.19 min/day
PC weekend
+7.98 min/day
12.04 (2.47)***
7.20 to 16.87
−4.05 (3.23)
−10.39 to 2.28
+12.04 min/day
Quiet play week
−3.15 min/day
−1.98 (4.79)
−11.37 to 7.42
−1.18 (6.28)
−13.49 to 11.13
−1.98 min/day
Quiet play weekend
−18.28 min/day
−3.48 (8.10)
−19.35 to 12.39
−14.81 (10.57)
−35.52 to 5.91
−3.48 min/day
Effect of the ToyBox-intervention on preschoolers' screen time and quiet play (Primary Caregivers' Questionnaire)
In the total sample, no significant intervention effects were found for subjectively measured sedentary behaviour (all p > 0.05). After stratifying the data according to gender, a significant intervention effect was found for preschool girls for TV viewing on weekend days (β = -9.98; p = 0.04; d = 0.23). More specifically, preschool girls from the intervention group had a decrease in TV viewing on weekend days going from baseline to follow-up (-5.83 min/day), compared to the control group in which preschool girls had an increase in TV viewing on weekend days (+4.15 min/day). No significant intervention effects on subjectively measured sedentary behaviour were found for preschool boys (all at p > 0.05).
Furthermore, a significant intervention effect was found for computer use on weekend days in preschoolers from low SES kindergartens (β = -6.43; p = 0.03; d = 0.11). Preschoolers from the intervention group had a smaller increase in computer use on weekend days (+6.06 min/day) going from baseline to follow-up compared to preschoolers from the control group in which a steeper increase was found (+12.49 min/day). No significant intervention effects on subjectively measured sedentary behaviour were found for preschoolers from medium and high SES kindergartens (all at p > 0.05).
Effect of the intervention on preschoolers with the highest levels of sedentary time at baseline
Time and interaction effects for sedentary behaviour outcomes in the high risk groupa (adjusted for age and gender)
Mean difference (follow-up - baseline)
Time* Condition
β (SE)
β (SE)
SB weekday
−3.47 %
0.80 (1.68)
−2.49 to 4.09
−4.27 (2.10)*
−8.39 to -0.15
+0.80 %
SB weekend day
−6.24 %
−4.90 (1.56)***
−7.97 to -1.84
−1.34 (1.96)
−5.18 to 2.50
−4.90 %
Total SB
−4.17 %
−0.41 (1.47)
−3.29 to 2.48
−3.76 (1.85)*
−7.38 to -0.15
−0.41 %
SB school hours
−3.96 %
−1.22 (1.18)
−3.53 to 1.09
−2.74 (1.48)
−5.64 to 0.16
−1.22 %
SB after school hours
−5.86 %
−3.38 (1.56)*
−6.43 to -0.34
−2.48 (1.95)
−6.30 to 1.34
−3.38 %
The present study investigated the effect of the sedentary behaviour module of the ToyBox-intervention on Belgian preschoolers' sedentary behaviour. In contrast with other studies [29, 67], this intervention study not only focused on TV viewing time or screen viewing time, given that a decrease of total sedentary time and other sedentary activities were targeted as well. In the total sample, no intervention effect was found on preschoolers' objectively and subjectively measured total sedentary time. However, some favourable effects were found in different sub-groups, namely in girls, high SES kindergartens and preschoolers with the highest levels of sedentary behaviour at baseline. However, the effect sizes are small, which means that these results should be interpreted with caution and that the biological relevance might be questioned.
In the current study, only in preschool girls an intervention effect was found for TV viewing on weekend days. This was surprising, as previous studies have shown that preschool boys spend more time in screen-based activities compared to girls [68, 69], and for that reason, one might have expected significant effects in preschool boys. Although the same intervention was applied for boys and girls, this result might suggest that the intervention materials were better suited for preschool girls compared to preschool boys.
The development of the ToyBox-intervention was based on the socio-ecological model and targeted kindergartens with different SES levels. Therefore, potential differences in intervention effects for low, medium and high SES kindergarten levels were investigated. Only in high SES kindergartens, an intervention effect was found for objectively measured sedentary time, namely during weekdays and during school hours. There was a 0.4 % decrease in sedentary time during weekdays in preschoolers from the intervention group compared to a 3.2 % increase in preschoolers from the control group. Taking an accelerometer wearing time of ten hours per day into account, this 2.8 % decrease in sedentary time corresponds to 2.4 minutes.
In low SES kindergartens, an effect of the intervention was found for computer use during weekend days. In both intervention and control groups, computer use on weekend days increased, but the ToyBox-intervention was effective in slowing down this increase in preschoolers from low SES kindergartens. This result is promising, although one should keep in mind that computer use was proxy-reported by the parents and thus not objectively measured, which might have introduced bias.
Kindergarten SES was based on the SES of the municipality, which means that low or high SES kindergartens were located in low or high SES neighbourhoods. Children from low SES neighbourhoods have less access to a private garden at home, a park or suitable nearby nature [70]. It might be possible that these preschool children spend more time on their computer, and less time outside. Thus, a possible explanation might be that preschoolers' parents in these low SES neighbourhoods are aware of this problem, and that they were motivated to put the tips and tricks on computer use (included on the intervention materials) into practice which might have caused the smaller increase in computer use on weekend days. However, another explanation might be that the parents from preschoolers from these low SES kindergartens were more likely to be subject to reporting bias. Either way, the results seem to suggest that a passive parent approach in preschool children from low SES neighbourhoods might work and might induce a smaller increase in computer use.
Finally, the ToyBox-intervention was effective in decreasing the sedentary time during weekdays and for total sedentary behaviour in preschoolers from the high risk group, which means that the intervention was effective in preschoolers with the highest levels of objectively measured sedentary time at baseline. These results show that the ToyBox-intervention worked within the group of preschoolers that needed the intervention the most.
The ToyBox-intervention focussed on four different behaviours (i.e., water consumption, healthy snacking, physical activity and sedentary behaviour) during one school year. This means that only a limited period of time was available to implement the sedentary behaviour module. However, teachers were encouraged to continue the implementation of several parts of the sedentary behaviour intervention throughout the school year. Because sedentary behaviour has a strong habitual component, this behaviour might be difficult to change during a relative short intervention period. A recent meta-analysis indicated that interventions to reduce sedentary time that lasted less than 4 months only had small intervention effects [22], so future interventions might consider implementing interventions for a longer period of time to enhance the present intervention effects [23]. Another possible reason for the lack of more intervention effects in the current study might be the fact that sedentary behaviour is a new concept for most kindergarten teachers. It is possible that they were not convinced of the possible health effects and that this is a reason for not implementing the intervention as intended or for struggling with the intervention content. However, this is only a hypothesis which should be further clarified through process evaluation data. Furthermore, no intervention effects were found for time spent in quiet play. It is possible that parents as well as teachers did not find it necessary to decrease preschoolers' time spent in quiet play as they perceived it essential that preschoolers perform quiet play activities (e.g., puzzling, playing with blocks, colouring, etc.) for the development of their cognitive development and their fine movement skills (i.e. productive sedentary behaviour) [19]. These activities are indeed essential for preschoolers' development, but further research should focus on increasing parents' and teachers' awareness on how prolonged periods in quiet play can be interrupted or can be performed while standing. For example, colouring or painting can easily be done while standing up instead of sitting down. This was also included in the Intervention Mapping approach [32], in which performance objectives for preschool children, parents and teachers were formulated regarding decreasing the total sitting time and switching from sitting down to standing up for different activities. This is why the intervention material mainly focused on interrupting prolonged periods of sitting time and screen viewing time. However, it might have been better to include literal messages regarding quiet play instead of focussing on interrupting sitting time. Future interventions could try to provide clear and simple messages for both parents and teachers regarding preschoolers' quiet play. In addition, it might be possible that the accelerometers did not capture these small breaks in sedentary time, as accelerometers cannot distinguish different postures such as sitting, standing up or lying down [71, 72]. Future studies might benefit from using inclinometers – such as the ActivPal – to measure the breaks in sedentary time during the day [73].
In the ToyBox-intervention, parents/caregivers were involved in a rather passive way. They were provided with educational materials, including tips and tricks, and suggestions for parent-child activities to affect a decrease in sedentary time over time [74]. To achieve a decrease of time spent in different sedentary activities, a more intense delivery style of the intervention and the inclusion of parents as direct intervention targets might be necessary [75]. This might increase parental motivation to focus on decreasing their child's sedentary behaviour at home. Finally, analysing the detailed process-evaluation about the implementation of the intervention by teachers and parents/caregivers will provide insight in how and which activities teachers implemented at kindergarten, how the educational materials were perceived by the parents/caregivers and if the execution of parts of the sedentary behaviour module were continued throughout the school year.
Study limitations include the reliance on parental reports of their children's screen viewing time and time spent in quiet play and the large drop-out of preschoolers due to the lack of valid accelerometer data. In addition, using proxy-reports to assess preschoolers' time spent in sedentary activities might induce bias as well, as preschoolers' parents are unable to constantly monitor their child's behaviour [76]. For this reason, the generalizability of the findings might be questioned. Furthermore, the lack of a follow-up study and the lack of including process evaluation data might be considered as a limitation. Finally, it should be acknowledged that the timing of the baseline and follow-up measurements was not ideal. It is possible that between the baseline measurements and the actual start of the implementation of the intervention activities (e.g., theme week where kindergarten teachers try to increase preschoolers' physical activity levels) were performed at kindergarten or at home that could potentially influence preschoolers' sedentary behaviour. Furthermore, some of the follow-up measurements were also performed before the actual end of the intervention period. The execution of the first two parts of the classroom activity guide continued until the end of the school year and potential intervention effects that were present at the end of the school year could therefore not be detected.
Important strengths of this study were the assessment of preschoolers' sedentary behaviour with both objective and subjective measurement tools in a large sample of 4- to 6-year-old Belgian preschool children, which enabled the measurement of intensity, frequency, duration, as well as type and context of preschool children's sedentary behaviour [77]. Another strength was the use of a randomized controlled cluster intervention with a pre-test post-test design to examine intervention effects.
The ToyBox-intervention had no effect on objectively and subjectively measured sedentary time in the total sample. However, some small effects were found in specific sub-groups (preschool girls, preschoolers from low and high SES kindergartens, preschoolers with higher levels of sedentary time at baseline). Because the ToyBox-intervention was a multi-component intervention implemented at kindergarten, only a limited period of time was available to implement the sedentary behaviour component and parents/caregivers were included in a rather passive way. To enlarge effects of interventions focusing on decreasing preschoolers' sedentary behaviour, longer intervention periods focusing on sedentary behaviour and a more active involvement of parents might be necessary.
The ToyBox-study is funded by the Seventh Framework Programme (CORDIS FP7) of the European Commission under grant agreement n° 245200. The content of this article reflects only the authors' views and the European Community is not liable for any use that may be made of the information contained therein. The ToyBox-study group consists of: Co-ordinator: Yannis Manios; Steering Committee: Yannis Manios, Berthold Koletzko, Ilse De Bourdeaudhuij, Mai Chin A Paw, Luis Moreno, Carolyn Summerbell, Tim Lobstein, Lieven Annemans, Goof Buijs; External Advisors: John Reilly, Boyd Swinburn, Dianne Ward; Harokopio University (Greece): Yannis Manios, Odysseas Androutsos, Eva Grammatikaki, Christina Katsarou, Eftychia Apostolidou, Eirini Efstathopoulou; Ludwig Maximilians Universitaet Muenchen (Germany): Berthold Koletzko, Kristin Duvinage, Sabine Ibrügger, Angelika Strauß, Birgit Herbert, Julia Birnbaum, Annette Payr, Christine Geyer; Ghent University (Belgium): Department of Movement and Sports Sciences: Ilse De Bourdeaudhuij, Greet Cardon, Marieke De Craemer, Ellen De Decker and Department of Public Health: Lieven Annemans, Stefaan De Henauw, Lea Maes, Carine Vereecken, Jo Van Assche, Lore Pil; VU University Medical Center EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research (the Netherlands): EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research: Mai Chin A Paw, Saskia te Velde; University of Zaragoza (Spain): Luis Moreno, Theodora Mouratidou, Juan Fernandez, Maribel Mesana, Pilar De Miguel-Etayo, Esther González, Luis Gracia-Marco, Beatriz Oves; Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences (Norway): Agneta Yngve, Susanna Kugelberg, Christel Lynch, Annhild Mosdøl; University of Durham (UK): Carolyn Summerbell, Helen Moore, Wayne Douthwaite, Catherine Nixon; State Institute of Early Childhood Research (Germany): Susanne Kreichauf, Andreas Wildgruber; Children's Memorial Health Institute (Poland): Piotr Socha, Zbigniew Kulaga, Kamila Zych, Magdalena Góźdź, Beata Gurzkowska, Katarzyna Szot; Medical University of Varna (Bulgaria): Violeta Iotova, Mina Lateva, Natalya Usheva, Sonya Galcheva, Vanya Marinova, Zhaneta Radkova, Nevyana Feschieva; International Association for the Study of Obesity (UK): Tim Lobstein, Andrea Aikenhead; CBO B.V. (The Netherlands): Goof Buijs, Annemiek Dorgelo, Aviva Nethe, Jan Jansen; AOK- Verlag (Germany): Otto Gmeiner, Jutta Retterath, Julia Wildeis, Axel Günthersberger; Roehampton University (UK): Leigh Gibson; University of Luxembourg (Luxembourg): Claus Voegele.
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
Authors' Affiliations
- Kelly LA, Reilly JJ, Jackson DM, Montgomery C, Grant S, Paton JY. Tracking physical activity and sedentary behavior in young children. Pediatr Exerc Sci. 2007;19:51–60.Google Scholar
- Bower JK, Hales DP, Tate DF, Rubin DA, Benjamin SE, Ward DS. The childcare environment and children's physical activity. Am J Prev Med. 2008;34:23–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Fisher A, Reilly JJ, Montgomery C, Kelly LA, Williamson A, Jackson DM, et al. Seasonality in physical activity and sedentary behavior in young children. Pediatr Exerc Sci. 2005;17:31–40.Google Scholar
- Metallinos-Katsaras ES, Freedson PS, Fulton JE, Sherry B. The association between an objective measure of physical activity and weight status in preschoolers. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2007;15:686–94.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Pate RR, Pfeiffer KA, Trost SG, Ziegler P, Dowda M. Physical activity among children attending preschools. Pediatrics. 2004;114:1258–63.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Salmon J, Dunstan DW, Owen N. Should we be concerned about children spending extended periods of time in sedentary pursuits even among the highly active? Int J Pediatr Obes. 2008;3:66–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Janz KF, Burns TL, Levy SM. Tracking of activity and sedentary behaviors in childhood: the Iowa Bone Development Study. Am J Prev Med. 2005;29:171–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Craigie A, Lake A, Kelly S, Adamson A, Mathers J. Tracking of obesity-related behaviours from childhood to adulthood: A systematic review. Maturitas. 2011;70:266–84.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Haidar Y, Cosman B. Obesity epidemiology. Clin Colon Rectal Surg. 2011;24:205–10.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Biddle SJH, Gorely T, Stensel DJ. Health-enhancing physical activity and sedentary behaviour in children and adolescents. J Sports Sci. 2004;22:679–701.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Hancox RJ, Poulton R. Watching television is associated with childhood obesity: but is it clinically important? Int J Obes (Lond). 2005;30:171–5.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Marshall SJ, Biddle SJH, Gorely T, Cameron N, Murdey I. Relationships between media use, body fatness and physical activity in children and youth: a meta-analysis. Int J Obes (Lond). 2004;28:1238–46.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- LeBlanc AG, Spence JC, Carson V, Connor Gorber S, Dillman C, Janssen I, et al. Systematic review of sedentary behaviour and health indicators in the early years (aged 0–4 years). Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2012;37:753–72.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Kremers S, de Bruijn G, Visscher T, van Mechelen W, de Vries N, Brug J. Environmental influences on energy balance-related behaviors: a dual-process view. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2006;15:1–10.Google Scholar
- Get up and grow: Healthy eating and physical activity for early childhood [http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/npra-0-5yrs-brochure]. Accessed date 28 July 2013.
- Vlaamse consensustekst in verband met evenwichtige voeding en beweging, ten behoeve van zorgverstrekkers, http://www.zorg-en-gezondheid.be/uploadedFiles/NLsite_v2/Gezond_leven_en_milieu/Gezonde_voeding_en_beweging/Eetexpert%20project%20consensustekst%2025-07-2012.pdf [http://www.zorg-en-gezondheid.be/uploadedFiles/NLsite_v2/Gezond_leven_en_milieu/Gezonde_voeding_en_beweging/Eetexpert%20project%20consensustekst%2025-07-2012.pdf]. Accessed date 28 July 2013.
- National Association for Sport and Physical Education (NASPE). Active Start: A Statement of Physical Activity Guidelines for Children From Birth to Age 5. Secondth ed. Oxon Hill: AAHPERD Publications; 2009.Google Scholar
- Atkin AJ, Gorely T, Clemes SA, Yates T, Edwardson C, Brage S, et al. Methods of Measurement in epidemiology: sedentary Behaviour. Int J Epidemiol. 2012;41:1460–71.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- National physical activity recommendations for children 0-5 years [http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/content/health-pubhlth-strateg-phys-act-guidelines]. Accessed date 19 Nov 2014.
- Colley RC, Garriguet D, Adamo KB, Carson V, Janssen I, Timmons BW, et al. Physical activity and sedentary behavior during the early years in Canada: a cross-sectional study. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2013;10:54.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Hinkley T, Salmon J, Okely AD, Crawford D, Hesketh K. Preschoolers' physical activity, screen time, and compliance with recommendations. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2012;44:458–65.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Biddle SJ, O'Connell S, Braithwaite RE. Sedentary behaviour interventions in young people: a meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med. 2011;45:937–42.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Kamath C, Vickers K, Ehrlich A, McGovern L, Johnson J, Singhal V, et al. Clinical review: behavioral interventions to prevent childhood obesity: a systematic review and metaanalyses of randomized trials. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2008;93:4606–15.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Leung M, Agaronov A, Grytsenko K, Yeh M. Intervening to Reduce Sedentary Behaviors and Childhood Obesity among School-Age Youth: A Systematic Review of Randomized Trials. J Obes. 2012;685430:1–14.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- van Grieken A, Ezendamn N, Paulis W, van der Wouden J, Raat H. Primary prevention of overweight in children and adolescents: a meta-analysis of the effectiveness of interventions aiming to decrease sedentary behaviour. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2012;9:61.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Wahi G, Parkin PC, Beyene J, Uleryk EM, Birken CS. Effectiveness of Interventions Aimed at Reducing Screen Time in Children. A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2011;165:979.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- DeMattia L, Lemont L, Meurer L. Do interventions to limit sedentary behaviours change behaviour and reduce childhood obesity? A critical review of the literature. Obes Rev. 2007;8:69–81.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Maniccia DM, Davison KK, Marshall SJ, Manganello JA, Dennison BA. A Meta-analysis of Interventions That Target Children's Screen Time for Reduction. Pediatrics. 2011;128:e193–210.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Dennison BA, Russo TJ, Burdick PA, Jenkins PL. An intervention to reduce television viewing by preschool children. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2004;158:170–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Epstein LH, Roemmich JN, Robinson JL, Paluch RA, Winiewicz DD, Fuerch JH, et al. A randomized trial of the effects of reducing television viewing and computer use on body mass index in young children. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2008;162:239–45.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Manios Y, Grammatikaki E, Androutsos O, Chinapaw MJ, Gibson EL, Buijs G, et al. A systematic approach for the development of a kindergarten-based intervention for the prevention of obesity in preschool age children: the ToyBox-study. Obes Rev. 2012;13 Suppl 1:3–12.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- De Decker E, De Craemer M, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Verbestel V, Duvinage K, Iotova V, et al. Using the intervention mapping protocol to reduce European preschoolers' sedentary behavior, an application to the ToyBox-Study. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2014;11:19.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- McLeroy K, Bibeau D, Steckler A, Glanz K. An ecological perspective on health promotion programs. Health Educ Q. 1988;15:351–77.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Sallis J, Owen N. Ecological models. In: Glanz K, Lewis FM, Rimer BK, editors. Health behavior and health education: Theory, research, and practice. 2nd ed. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass; 1996.Google Scholar
- Stokols D. Establishing and maintaining healthy environments. Toward a social ecology of health promotion. Am Psychol. 1992;47:6–22.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Brown T, Summerbell C. Systematic review of school-based interventions that focus on changing dietary intake and physical activity levels to prevent childhood obesity: an update to the obesity guidance produced by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Obes Rev. 2009;10:110–41.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Hesketh K, Hinkley T, Campbell K. Children's physical activity and screen time: qualitative comparison of views of parents of infants and preschool children. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2012;9:152.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Montgomery C, Reilly J, Jackson D, Kelly L, Slater C, Paton J, et al. Relation between physical activity and energy expenditure in a representative sample of young children. Am J Clin Nutr. 2004;80:591–6.Google Scholar
- Fisher A, Reilly J, Kelly L, Montgomery C, Williamson A, Paton J, et al. Fundamental movement skills and habitual physical activity in young children. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2005;37:684–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Taylor RW, Murdoch L, Carter P, Gerrard DF, Williams SM, Taylor BJ. Longitudinal Study of Physical Activity and Inactivity in Preschoolers: the Flame study. Med Sci Sport Exer. 2009;41:96–102.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Jago R, Baranowski T, Thompson D, Baranowski J. Sedentary behavior, not TV viewing, predicts physical activity among 3-to 7-year-old children. Pediatr Exerc Sci. 2005;17:364–76.Google Scholar
- Miller SA, Taveras EM, Rifas-Shiman SL, Gillman MW. Association between television viewing and poor diet quality in young children. Int J Pediatr Obes. 2008;3:168–76.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Proctor M, Moore L, Gao D, Cupples L, Bradlee M, Hood M, et al. Television viewing and change in body fat from preschool to early adolescence: The Framingham Children's Study. Int J Obes (Lond). 2003;27:827–33.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Vlaams onderwijs in cijfers 2013-2014 [Flemish education in figures 2013-2014] [http://www.vlaanderen.be/nl/publicaties/detail/vlaams-onderwijs-in-cijfers-2013-2014]. Accessed date 28 May 2015.
- Schooljaar, schoolweek, schooldag in het basisonderwijs [school year, school week, school day in primary schools] [http://www.onderwijs.vlaanderen.be/schooljaar-schoolweek-schooldag-in-basisonderwijs]. Accessed date 28 May 2015.
- Basisonderwijs - Kleuteronderwijs - Algemene uitgangspunten [Primary education - preschool education - General information] [http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/curriculum/basisonderwijs/kleuteronderwijs/algemene-uitgangspunten/index.htm]. Accessed date 28 May 2015.
- Statistics Belgium [http://statbel.fgov.be/nl/statistieken/cijfers/]. Accessed date 28 May 2015.
- Bayer O, von Kries R, Strauss A, Mitschek C, Toschke AM, Hose A, et al. Short- and mid-term effects of a setting based prevention program to reduce obesity risk factors in children: a cluster-randomized trial. Clin Nutr. 2009;28:122–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- de Silva-Sanigorski A, Prosser L, Carpenter L, Honisett S, Gibbs L, Moodie M, et al. Evaluation of the childhood obesity prevention program Kids--'Go for your life'. BMC Public Health. 2010;10:288.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Manios Y. Designing and implementing a kindergarten-based, family-involved intervention to prevent obesity in early childhood. Obesity Reviews: The ToyBox-study; 2014.Google Scholar
- Bartholomew L, Parcel G, Kok G, Gottlieb N, Fernández M. Planning Health Promotion Programs: An Intervention Mapping Approach. Thirdth ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2011.Google Scholar
- Robusto KM, Trost SG. Comparison of three generations of ActiGraph activity monitors in children and adolescents. J Sports Sci. 2012;30:1429–35.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Cliff DP, Reilly JJ, Okely AD. Methodological considerations in using accelerometers to assess habitual physical activity in children aged 0-5 years. J Sci Med Sport. 2009;12:557–67.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Jackson DM, Reilly JJ, Kelly LA, Montgomery C, Grant S, Paton JY. Objectively Measured Physical Activity in a Representative Sample of 3- to 4-Year-Old Children. Obes Res. 2003;11:420–5.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Penpraze V, Reilly JJ, MacLean CM, Montgomery C, Kelly LA, Paton JY, et al. Monitoring of physical activity in young children: How much is enough? Pediatr Exerc Sci. 2006;18:483–91.Google Scholar
- Evenson KR, Catellier DJ, Gill K, Ondrak KS, McMurray RG. Calibration of two objective measures of physical activity for children. J Sports Sci. 2008;26:1557–65.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Ridgers ND, Salmon J, Ridley K, O'Connell E, Arundell L, Timperio A. Agreement between activPAL and ActiGraph for assessing children's sedentary time. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2012;9:15.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Trost SG, Loprinzi PD, Moore R, Pfeiffer KA. Comparison of Accelerometer Cut Points for Predicting Activity Intensity in Youth. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011;43:1360–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Ahrens W, Bammann K, Siani A, Buchecker K, De Henauw S, Iacoviello L, et al. The IDEFICS cohort: design, characteristics and participation in the baseline survey. Int J Obes (Lond). 2011;35 Suppl 1:S3–S15.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Moreno LA, De Henauw S, Gonzalez-Gross M, Kersting M, Molnar D, Gottrand F, et al. Design and implementation of the Healthy Lifestyle in Europe by Nutrition in Adolescence Cross-Sectional Study. Int J Obes (Lond). 2008;32 Suppl 5:S4–S11.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Brug J, te Velde SJ, Chinapaw MJ, Bere E, de Bourdeaudhuij I, Moore H, et al. Evidence-based development of school-based and family-involved prevention of overweight across Europe: the ENERGY-project's design and conceptual framework. BMC Public Health. 2010;10:276.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Gonzalez-Gil EM, Mouratidou T, Cardon G, Androutsos O, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Gozdz M, et al. Reliability of primary caregivers reports on lifestyle behaviours of European pre-school children: the ToyBox-study. Obes Rev. 2014;15 Suppl 3:61–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- De Miguel-Etayo P, Mesana MI, Cardon G, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Gozdz M, Socha P, et al. Reliability of anthropometric measurements in European preschool children: the ToyBox-study. Obes Rev. 2014;15 Suppl 3:67–73.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Cole TJ, Lobstein T. Extended international (IOTF) body mass index cut-offs for thinness, overweight and obesity. Pediatr Obes. 2012;7:284–94.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- De Craemer M, Lateva M, Iotova V, De Decker E, Verloigne M, De Bourdeaudhuij I, et al. Differences in Energy Balance-Related Behaviours in European Preschool Children: The ToyBox-Study. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0118303.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioural science. 2nd ed. Hillsdale: Erlbaum; 1988.Google Scholar
- Puder J, Marques-Vidal P, Schindler C, Zahner L, Niederer I, Bürgi F, et al. Effect of multidimensional lifestyle intervention on fitness and adiposity in predominantly migrant preschool children (Ballabeina): cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2011;343:d6195.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Huston A, Wright J, Marquis J, Green S. How young children spend their time: television and other activities. Dev Psychol. 1999;35(4):912–25.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Cherney I, London K. Gender-linked Differences in the Toys, Television Shows, Computer Games, and Outdoor Activities of 5- to 13-year-old Children. Sex Roles. 2006;54:717–26.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Evans GW, Kantrowitz E. Socioeconomic status and health: the potential role of environmental risk exposure. Annu Rev Public Health. 2002;23:303–31.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Chen KY, Bassett Jr DR. The technology of accelerometry-based activity monitors: current and future. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2005;37:S490–500.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Owen N, Healy GN, Matthews CE, Dunstan DW. Too much sitting: the population health science of sedentary behavior. Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 2010;38:105–13.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- De Decker E, De Craemer M, Santos-Lozano A, Van Cauwenberghe E, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Cardon G. Validity of the ActivPAL and the ActiGraph Monitors in Preschoolers. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2013;45(10):2002–11.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Fitzgibbon M, Stolley M, Schiffer L, Van Horn L, KauferChristoffel K, Dyer A. Hip-Hop to Health Jr. for Latino Preschool Children. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2006;18:1616–25.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Golan M. Parents as agents of change in childhood obesity--from research to practice. Int J Pediatr Obes. 2006;1(12):66–76.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Corder K, van Sluijs EM, Wright A, Whincup P, Wareham NJ, Ekelund U. Is it possible to assess free-living physical activity and energy expenditure in young people by self-report? Am J Clin Nutr. 2009;89:862–70.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Oliver M, Schofield GM, Kolt GS. Physical activity in preschoolers: understanding prevalence and measurement issues. Sports Med. 2007;37:1045–70.View ArticleGoogle Scholar


text:
Oracle answers Etisalat's call for human resources
Etisalat, the UAE teleco, has implemented a new solution from Oracle to help it manage and store its human resources data.
Etisalat, the UAE teleco, has implemented a new solution from Oracle to help it manage and store its human resources data. The telecoms firm has deployed Oracle's Human Resources Management System (HRMS) to help it manage data concerning its more than 10,000 employees across the region. The system replaces an earlier Ingres platform, which the company had built inhouse, and which it had used for at least 15 years. Etisalat rated the Oracle solution for its efficiency and resource utilisation, Abdelhakeem Almushtaghil, human resources management systems manager at Etisalat, told IT Weekly. The system also complemented the financials, supply chain, logistics and contracts modules of the Oracle E-Business Suite; software which Etisalat already operated and thus allowed for integration between the modules, he added. Benefits of the solution are that it helps control labor and administrative costs; manages workforce risks; has self-service processes for employees; and has provision of options for customisation through local language or in-house specialist projects, the company said. With its clear layout of the staff on the payroll, the system will also enable Etisalat to make quick staffing decisions when considering new projects around the region, it said. "Our people are the backbone of Etisalat's strength, and they constitute a strategic investment in the long-term growth of the company," commented AbdulAziz Al Sawaleh, chief human resources officer at Etisalat. This enables the operator to "implement world-class shared services systems, linked with compensation schemes, training, analytics and other human resource-linked activities, the Oracle HRMS solution integrated with Oracle E-Business suite will deliver speedy returns to our HR team as well as senior management," he claimed.

subset: commoncrawl


text: This is a short history of a section of Burlington, Vermont. The UVM Historic Preservation students of the class of 2004 were given the task of researching structures in Burlington to find out which buildings constructed between 1853 and 1869 are still standing today. This section of Burlington was the center of commerce during this time. The waterfront was used for shipping and the booming lumber business. Church Street and the surrounding area housed many different shops and hotels. Many of the houses in this section were rented or owned by laborers, many of whom worked for the lumber companies. The following is a site map of the area:


text:
So it was a boring afternoon at the office, and i was exploring my smurf side here. That quiz tell me that i am a mixture between Brainy Smurf, Clumsy Smurf, Grouchy Smurf, Jokey Smurf, and Smurfette! I know you guys don't even care, but here is the details, which i found very interesting:
and last but not least, my fave has to be Smurfette :)
Heehee cute, isn't it? Go find what smurfs are you, and be smurfed! :p
PS: And i also try the "What is Your Smurf Name" quiz, and my smurf name is "Trustworthy Smurf". Aha!
Dhany as Smurfette, a trustworthy smurf <3


text:
If you follow me on Twitter, you've probably seen me mentioning a strong want to start fresh, wipe the slate clean and move forward with a new brand. I thought it was just a fleeting thought, but then I realized this wasn't the first time I had this feeling. And it wasn't just a by-the-way type feeling, this time, I felt it in the pit of my gut.
So I slept on it, wrote some things, sketched some things, and didn't act. I thought it was ridiculous that after only being in this space, under this rebrand, for eight months, I was already itching to pack up and go through the process again. And boy, is it a process. New name, new design, refreshed content.
But I noticed, all of those things were coming to me, quickly and almost effortlessly. The name came to me almost instantly, and stuck. I wrote it, typed and and said it out loud and all it felt right. It fits likes my favorite pair of jeans.
I opened up to my blogger and real-life friend Jordan about where my mind was regarding the blog and potential rebrand. I was looking for someone to tell me I was crazy, and to focus on the space I was in currently. Luckily for me, Jordan isn't that kind of friend. She sees the ridiculous and nontraditional and encourages it, and just like that, encouraged me to press forward with how I was feeling.
So, with a little more motivation, I got to work -designing and writing, planning and mapping. Within the next 24 hours, there was a logo and a brand board in the works. Yesterday's mood board (as I somewhat eluded to) is the bones of this rebrand. Shortly thereafter, a domain name had been purchased.
I'm not sure how long the process will take, but I know that I don't want to rush it. This brand has its own feel, mind, and spirit.
There will be some changes, some big and some small; other things will stay the same. I still want to produce content that you all will enjoy. So, I've put together a quick survey (will take less than 3 minutes to complete) to help me as I move forward with this project. I'd love if you would share your feedback!


text:
Blackjack Springs Wilderness
IntroductionThe United States Congress designated the Blackjack Springs Wilderness (map) in 1978 and it now has a total of 5,912 acres. All of this wilderness is located in Wisconsin and is managed by the Forest Service.
DescriptionThe Blackjack Springs Wilderness was established by Congress in 1978 and is located in Northeast Wisconsin on the Eagle River Ranger District of the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest. Much of the area was changed by logging and fire in the early 1900's with subsequent reforestation, road building, and timber harvest under National Forest management. Portions of abandoned logging roads and railroad grades are still visible. In the midst of the wilderness, four large crystal-clear springs, for which the wilderness is named, form the headwaters of Blackjack Creek. Here, glaciation from the last ice age has produced a rolling and uneven terrain. In the northeastern section of the wilderness, you will find the delightfully named Whispering Lake, surrounded by forest that provides habitat for black bears, deer, fishers, ruffed grouse, and a variety of sweet-throated songbirds. Three streams drain the area, and produce occasional ponds and wetlands. Much of the use of the Wilderness revolves around camping, hiking, fishing, bird watching, and hunting. Several trails enter the area, providing four miles of maintained trail, though many additional opportunities for hiking also are provided on the abandoned road grades still evident in the area.
Planning to Visit the Blackjack Springs Wilderness?
- Print a fact sheet
- General things to consider when visiting any wilderness
- Regulations, Permits
- Contact the Forest Service
- Visit the National Forest wilderness website
Leave No TraceHow to follow the seven standard Leave No Trace principles differs in different parts of the country (desert vs. Rocky Mountains). Click on any of the principles listed below to learn more about how they apply in the Blackjack Springs Wilderness.
- Plan Ahead and Prepare
- Travel and Camp on Durable Surfaces
- Dispose of Waste Properly
- Leave What You Find
- Minimize Campfire Impacts
- Respect Wildlife
- Be Considerate of Other Visitors


text:
The Department of Chemistry started functioning in October, 2006 in a small rented building in Bannu Township, Bannu. In the 1st year of its establishment, BS (Hon) and Master of Science in Chemistry were introduced. These programs are offered with terminal system of examinations. Initially specializations of Organic Chemistry and Physical Chemistry, were offered at the Master level. But last year, specializations in Biochemistry and Inorganic / Analytical Chemistry were introduced together with start of M.Phil program as the qualified staff was inducted gradually. The research facilities for these programs are under establishing phase. There is a constant endeavour to improve and strengthen teaching and research facilities and to create an environment conductive for research activity.
Dr. Hidayat Ullah Khan
Assistant Professor / Acting Chairman
Contact No. 0928-633022


text:
Thursday, 19 February 2015
JOHNNY HATES JAZZ: Turn Back The Clock
2 comments:
- Simon said...
Calvin Hayes was Mickie Most's son. He had been the drummer in Kim Wilde's band (she was signed to Most's label RAK when she appeared). I seem to remember him being Wilde's boyfriend at some point lucky fella.
- 19 February 2015 at 16:12
- Robin Carmody said...
Very fine writing. Very good on melancholy, the passing of time and the need to last out as long as you can, despite everything.
As you know, for personal reasons I always like the thought of anyone from non-metropolitan southern England being strongly against Thatcherism as it was actually happening, especially people who'd have been lumped in with it - if they were thought about at all - circa Britpop (on a similar theme, I've no doubt that Girls Aloud will be more talked about, and maybe even revered, by the time TPL gets to them; it's inevitable that they'd now be in a memory hole). Possibly part of the reason why Level 42 were critically reviled is that their geographical background was in itself a credibility gap for mostly Left-leaning rock crits (and when those for whom it was The Only Real England, the people I've never had the liberty to ignore, did finally discover pop, it would only be ... ooh ... entry #754, maybe?). Mark Sinker would have been in a similar situation, of course, and maybe that's partially why he sensed a distinct English Soul there.
Indeed one positive and revealing element of this era of TPL has been to be reminded that, sometimes, Thatcherism was being criticised from unexpected circles, and not necessarily always by those acts from the places where its impact was most traumatic both in the short and long terms (c.f. the previous entry). Part of the mass appeal of albums like 'Popped In Souled Out' is that they can, as you said, connect to people with utterly and diametrically opposed experiences of the era they're from and its legacy, but with an album like that you realise the sense in which classlessness can itself be accidentally reactionary.
(re. July 1988 Capital Radio, the broadcaster I referred to in a recent comment had a mainstream Sunday morning, non-reggae show ... that would have been good I think.)
- 19 February 2015 at 21:02


text:
Dota2 : Nyx Assassin
Dota2 : Nyx Assassin wallpapers for your PC, Android Device, Iphone or Tablet PC. If you want to download Dota2 : Nyx Assassin High Quality wallpapers for your desktop, please download this wallpapers above and click «set as desktop background». You can share this wallpaper in social networks, we will be very grateful to you.
The ancient book stores information about the race, scarab beetles, telepathic abilities which could subdue the strongest minds.
As usual insects, scarabs were divided into castes and submitted to cruel hierarchy. But Nyx Assassin bug was special, his limbs were not designed to work, and pointed for an instant any murder victim. Mind it was stronger than anyone before him, so telepathic abilities can not only control another creature, but also kill one by thought.
He was selected for the ultimate goal – to kill for the sake of the goddess Nyx. Nyx Assassin was anointed extract of the goddess, and then reborn with new features absolutely unprecedented.
A skillful scarab intelligence allows him to use the most sophisticated traps for your enemies. Underground tunnels keep many hidden spikes Impale, which at any moment can hit different kinds of onlookers.
Telepathic abilities Nyx Assassin could bend the minds of the wisest mages. The more resistance they repaired Mana Burn, the more damage received.
Armor scarabs does not differ a great strength, but Nyx Assassin learned to enhance it with a Spiked Carapace. They protect it from any kind of attack and allow the attacker to harm the enemy.
Like any skilled assassin, assassin Knicks have to kill his victim so that she did not feel the danger until the very last moment. After hitting the target with Vendetta just will not be likely to survive, and the scarab served its purpose.
If you choose an ally among ordinary mortals, the scarab chooses Crystal Maiden, because it allows to kill enemies without stopping and resting.
Underwater guard Slardar not let subdue your brain, because it is not very much rely on him, he no longer uses the brute force than intelligence.


text:
Shoreham Football Club added more new faces to their squad on Tuesday evening ahead of their first pre-season friendly this weekend.
Defender Niall O'Hagan has signed from Arundel, goalkeeper Nick Collick joins from Crowborough and Mark Zydonik and Josh Heyburn have also returned to the club, having played under Mussels boss Bryan O'Toole three seasons ago.
Shoreham entertain local rivals Southwick in their first pre-season friendly on Saturday and O'Toole is delighted with the signings he has made so far.
The quartet are added to Rob O'Toole, Andy Pearson, Joe Keehan, George Gaskin, Scott Packer, Mitchell Hand, Jack Rowe-Hurst and Kevin Keehan, who is assistant manager/player.
O'Toole said: "Mark has played for me before and is a person and a player I really like. He is a good defender, physical, quick and strong and I'm looking forward to having him back.
"Niall is quick and another big presence. He ticks all the boxes of players I want here and can also play right-back, so only makes us stronger as a squad.
"Nick has the right attitude, kicks the ball well and is another good addition to the squad, as is Josh.
"I just want to get started now. We're only going to have had two training sessions before we play our first friendly against Southwick on Saturday.
"We've got eight or nine friendlies lined up and will only have about six training sessions but there's no point in running the players into the ground as that's no good for anyone.
"We'll just make sure we are ready for the first game of the season on August 6 and will then take it one game at a time, like I always say.
"Every game is going to be difficult this season, especially when we have games coming thick and fast, Saturday, Tuesday, Saturday, Tuesday. That's why I won't be training every Thursday during the season. I don't want things to become a chore for the players as I want them looking forward to every game."
Southwick will use Saturday's game to have a look at their new signings and potential new players, while they have re-signed the majority of last season's squad.
Southwick boss John Kilgarriff said: "Most of last season's squad have re-signed and we hope to sign two or three new players but I won't say anything until they've signed on.
"We'll be running an under-21 team instead of a reserve side this season and hopefully a few of those younger players will come through during the season.
"We finished in the top five last season and we'll be looking forward to the new season when the aim will be to finish as high as we can again and above our local rivals Mile Oak."
Don't miss out on all the latest breaking news where you live.
Here are four ways you can be sure you'll be amongst the first to know what's going on.
1) Make our website your homepage at www.shorehamherald.co.uk/
2) Like our Facebook page at www.facebook.com/ShorehamHerald
3) Follow us on Twitter @Shoreham_Herald
4) Register with us by clicking on 'sign in' (top right corner). You can then receive our daily newsletter AND add your point of view to stories that you read here.
And do share with your family and friends - so they don't miss out!
The Shoreham Herald - always the first with your local news.
Be part of it.


text:
Anckaert Confectie NVAnckaert Confectie NV
Creation and production of the GYMP brand is in the hands of the Belgian fashion company 'Anckaert Confectie NV' (Anckaert Clothing Manufacture PLC), a family firm run by three brothers and a sister. Geert, Jo (pronounced 'Yo'), Marianne and Pol Anckaert (thus GYMP) The roots go back to the 1960s. Their parents expanded the Grandmother's one person embroidery business into a fully-fledged fabric manufacturer, specialised in cradle and bed linen. In the course of time baby clothes were introduced to the range, followed by children's clothing In the 1980s, stimulated by the third generation, the company chose to create a high quality collection under the brand name 'Anne K'. Since then, focus has been on boutiques and specialised retail business. In 2000, the 'Anne K' brand transformed into 'GYMP'. From that time, Anckaert Confectie grew into the thriving SME that it is today, with around 25 employees in Waregem providing work for number of ateliers in Tunisia, and currently supplying more than 400 retail clients throughout Europe.
Waregemstraat 14 Desselgem 8792 Belgium
Les InséparablesLes Inséparables
Les Inséparables est un projet collectif réunissant deux designers Textile, Magali Londot et Eve Hourrègue qui vivent et travaillent à Bruxelles
Elles sont très attachées à l'idée de proposer des objets confectionnés en Belgique en collaboration étroite avec une bonneterie belge. Les accessoires sont réalisés dans des matériaux de choix; laine angora, laine mohair et laine mérinos provenant de filatures italiennes. Les Inséparables revisitent chaque hiver notre vestiaire d'accessoires doux et chauds: écharpes, bonnets, mitaines, plaids, chaussettes, guêtres et bijoux… Les motifs jacquards dessinés à quatre mains par les deux designers donnent le ton à la saison. Chaque nouvelle collection, Episode, est un prétexte pour écrire une autre histoire et se réapproprier ces objets du quotidien.
ZiltonZiltonContact: Paul Declercq Yves Dejonghe
Made in Belgium
From producer of caps to fashion brand: the history of Zilton
"Our passion for fashion has been around for over a century", says Paul Declercq, CEO of Belgian fashion brand Zilton.
This is a major exception in the world of fashion which is governed chiefly by short-term trends.
Zilton history
Paul Declercq: "My great-grandparents started making caps in 1898 and following the death of my great-grandfather in 1917, production was taken over by his wife and two sons. Demand rose so much that in 1926 they decided to open a factory in Ardooie. In 1930, 'City Sport' designs were launched and my father Daniel and his cousin Godfried, the third generation, managed the factory.
During the war, production was at a low level but after the war there was an enormous boom.
The sixties were more difficult because the hippies weren't really into caps; they preferred ribbons in their hair. (laughs)
On the pretext of: "Not everyone wears a cap, but does wear trousers", my father started producing trousers in 1973 as well as caps. The highest quality, a perfect fit and reliability came first and foremost. A number of years later my brother and I took over the business and in 1995 we launched ourselves under the name 'Zilton'. From then on, things moved quickly and we soon had a full clothing collection, trousers combined with blazers, coats, knitwear, shirts, scarves, belts."
Zilton Over onsThe family business' many years of experience in terms of materials, wear comfort, patterns and cuts, combined with the young and dynamic input of our current team have made Zilton a unique and strong Belgian brand. A solid and successful shop-in-shop concept has been developed to propose Zilton's craftmanship in full to our fashionable customer."
All of this has not escaped the eye of our neighbours in France and Holland. You'll find the collection in many quality standard multibrand shops.
Following the new trend, men dress up more, so you can expect even more creativity from us. Don't hesitate to visit our newest website – http://www.zilton.com – to keep up with our latest offers and fashion trends!
Kortrijksestraat 8-10 Ardooie 8850 Belgium


text:
Tonight, I managed to get to the bank before it closed to exchange the $251 US my husband had found yesterday. I probably shouldn't have calculated the exchange ahead of time because I didn't factor in their commission rates, so instead of getting the $349 and change I had previously calculated, they originally offered me $340.
The teller then said, "Let me see if I can give you a better rate" without me having asked, and then gave me $344.45 instead. Not too shabby, I suppose 🙂 Even so, our goal to become financially stable still won't happen until March 4. However, if we manage to find an extra $323.90 before then, we'll be able to pull that date up to February 29 and then start paying down our debt!
I'm actually pretty confident that we should be able to do it since Mr. U has been working overtime and my budgeting hasn't factored that in. Plus, I've volunteered to work on Monday (Family Day) which is paid at triple time! Of course, my IDs have yet to be activated, so even though they desperately need me to work, I may not be able to, but here's to hoping anyway!


text:
I Want Some Hospital Food (01/01/99)
Eels, Electro-Shock Blues (Dreamworks 1998) - Talented pop musician Mark Oliver Everett (E) released two Beatles-influenced albums (including the fine debut, A Man Called E) which quickly sank from view.
Reinventing himself, E formed the band Eels with drummer Butch Norton and bass player Tommy Waller. (However, Waller does not appear on the new recording.) Eels debut album, Beautiful Freak, was a big seller and included the international hits, "Novacaine for the Soul" and "Susan's House."
Yet Electro-Shock Blues finds E making a huge step forward in musical vision and maturity. Following the death of two family members (including his sister, a depressive who had tried several times to take her own life), Electro-Shock Blues becomes a cohesive theme album focusing on death and E's ability to move beyond his misery/guts image.
Explains E, "The record is partly a tribute to my sister, but it is also my story, about how you can be in the middle of all this and come out the other end okay. Because it's quite a struggle, you know. It is pretty strange being the last member of your family."
Adds E, "Hopefully, I won't get overwhelmed, like I have done in the past. But I know that it's completely possible that I will. The point is that I am really trying not to have that happen."
E's new connection to life, tempered by his acceptance of death, is reflected on such songs as "Hospital Food," and "Last Stop: This Town," and "The Medication is Wearing Off." Joined by friends Grant Lee Phillips, Lisa Germano, and Jon Brion, Eels combine geek rock, techno, and pop to deliver a coherent and filling whole.
One of the year's most thoughtful and thought-provoking albums, Electro-Shock Blues deserves to be heard by a wide audience.
Flat Duo Jets, Lucky Eye (Outpost 1998) - Having released eight indie records during a 14-year career, the Flat Duo Jets are well known in their homebase of Chapel Hill, North Carolina. On Lucky Eye, the pair paints from a full palate, ranging from over-the-top rockabilly to pop to hip shakin' swing.
Flat Duo Jets consist of Dexter Romweber (vocals and guitar and piano), and Crowe (drums). Produced by Scott Litt (whose credits include R.E.M., Nirvana, and the Indigo Girls), the new album is broadened by horns (courtesy of the Squirrel Nut Zippers), bass (provided by Chris Stamey, formerly of the dB's), and additional guitar work by Eric Peterson.
Yet the core of Crowe and Dexter, with his amazing Silvertone guitar, are at the heart of Lucky Eye. While containing elements of folkabilly and surf, the Duos sound is a countrified Nick Cave - raunchy guitar work mixed with the deep voice of Dexter.
Thus, tracks like "Hustle 'n Bustle" and "Boogie Boogie" are all-night rockers, while the title track and "Dark Night" reflect a brooding rock sound.
Think of Dexter and Crowe as a twisted version of Toy Matinee, the talented pop pair consisting of the late Kevin Gilbert and Patrick Leonard. Fans of original rock 'n roll will enjoy Lucky Eye.
Blue Flannel, XL (Universal Records 1998) - Making their debut appearance is Blue Flannel, a four-piece outfit from Columbus, Georgia. With a sound that is filled by strings and full-blown studio arrangements, XL is not your usual rock/punk release.
The group named themselves "Blue Flannel" in parody of the burgeoning grunge scene, and embellish their songs with such un-grunge elements as kazoos and xylophones. Explains singer Derrick Coile, "It started out just for fun. Suddenly we were getting offers. We thought, 'Maybe we're onto something.'"
Continues Coile, "We're not just a rock band. We want to reach all types of people - young and old - from pop audiences to punk audiences. There's no reason we can't play a song straight one time, and then turn it into something entirely different the next."
The band includes David Montgomery on guitar, John Barry on bass, and Eric Talbott on drums. With tracks like "Animal Song" and "Unfair Comparison," XL has a rounded sound.
On the other hand, songs like "Havin' a Bad Day" carry on the best tradition of the Ramones, while "Sleepy Boy" lampoons a friend of the band who dozes off all the time.
With their unrestrained attitude, Blue Flannel should be a lot of fun in concert. Listen for the single, "Havin' a Bad Day," and enjoy XL.
- Randy Krbechek © 1999
Check CD Shakedown for Weekly
Reviews of Music CDs and New Albums