physical education activities in college

• Browse By Category
• View ALL Lessons
• Submit Your Idea
• Shop Lesson Books
• Search our Lessons
• Browse All Assessments
• New Assessments
• Paper & Pencil Assessments
• Alternative Assessments
• Student Assessments
• View Kids Work
• Submit Your Ideas
• Browse All Best Practices
• New Best Practices
• How BPs Work
• Most Popular
• Alphabetical
• Submit Your Best Practice
• Browse All Prof. Dev.
• Online PD Courses
• Onsite Workshops
• Hall of Shame
• Becoming a PE Teacher
• PE Articles
• Defending PE
• Substitute Guidelines
• Online Classes
• PE Research
• Browse All Boards
• Board of the Week
• Submit Your Bulletin Board
• Browse All Class Mngt
• Lesson Ideas
• New Teacher Tips
• Reducing Off-Task Behavior
• Browse All Videos
• Find Grants
• Kids Quote of the Week
• Weekly Activities
• Advertise on PEC
• FREE Newsletter

PE Central has partnered with S&S Discount Sports to provide a full range of sports and PE products for your program.

Get Free Shipping plus 15% OFF on orders over $59! Use offer code B4260. Shop Now!

• Shop Online Courses:
• Classroom Management
• Integrating Literacy & Math
• Grad Credit
• All PE Courses

• Cooperative Fitness Challenge
• Cooperative Skills Challenge
• Log It (Activity Tracker)

• Instant Activities
• Grades 9-12
• Dance of the Month
• Special Events Menu
• Cues/Performance Tips
• College Lessons
• Search All Lessons

• Paper & Pencil Assessments
• Shop Assessment

• How BP's Work

• Shop Bulletin Board Books

• Apps for PE Main Menu
• Submit Your App
• Ask our App Expert
• Active Gaming

• What is Adapted PE
• Ask Our Expert
• Adapting Activities
• IEP Information
• Adapted Web Sites
• Shop Adapted Store

• PreK Lesson Ideas
• PreK Videos
• Homemade PreK PE Equip
• Shop PreK Books

• Shop Class Mngt Products

• Search Jobs
• Interview Questions
• Interview Tips
• Portfolio Development

• Becoming PE Teacher
• Fundraising/Grants

• New Products
• T-Shirts/Accessories
• Class Management
• Middle School
• High School
• Curriculums
• Limited Space

• Search Our Lessons

Sign up for our free weekly newsletter and receive

physical education lesson ideas, assessment tips and more!

Your browser does not support iframes.

No thanks, I don't need to stay current on what works in physical education.

PE Central Copyright 1996-2020 All Rights Reserved

PE Central 2516 Blossom Trl W Blacksburg, VA 24060 E-mail : [email protected] Phone : 540-953-1043 Fax : 540-301-0112

Copyright 1996-2016 PE Central® www.pecentral.org All Rights Reserved Web Debut : 08/26/1996

Publications

• Journal Articles
• Books: Books, Chapters, Reviews
• Working Papers
• The Effect of Physical Activity on Student Performance in College: An Experimental Evaluation

Hans Fricke

Michael Lechner

Andreas Steinmayr

What is the role of physical activity in the process of human capital accumu-lation? Brain research provides growing evidence of the importance of physical activity for various aspects of cognitive functions. An increasingly sedentary lifestyle could thus be not only harmful to population health, but also disrupt human capital accumulation. This paper analyzes the effects of on-campus recreational sports and exercise on educational outcomes of university students. To identify causal effects, we randomize financial incentives to encourage students' participation in on-campus sports and exercise. The incentives increased participation frequency by 0.26 times per week (47%) and improved grades by 0.14 standard deviations. This effect is primarily driven by male students and students at higher quantiles of the grade distribution. Results from survey data suggest that students substitute off-campus with on-campus physical activities during the day but do not significantly increase the overall frequency. Our findings suggest that students spend more time on campus and are better able to integrate studying and exercising, which may enhance the effectiveness of studying and thus improve student performance.

Primary Research Area:

Topic areas:.

• Other , Student Success

Education Level:

• Higher Education

APA Citation

You are here.

Educating the Student Body: Taking Physical Activity and Physical Education to School (2013)

Chapter: 4 physical activity, fitness, and physical education: effects on academic performance.

Physical Activity, Fitness, and Physical Education: Effects on Academic Performance

Key Messages

•  Evidence suggests that increasing physical activity and physical fitness may improve academic performance and that time in the school day dedicated to recess, physical education class, and physical activity in the classroom may also facilitate academic performance.

•  Available evidence suggests that mathematics and reading are the academic topics that are most influenced by physical activity. These topics depend on efficient and effective executive function, which has been linked to physical activity and physical fitness.

•  Executive function and brain health underlie academic performance. Basic cognitive functions related to attention and memory facilitate learning, and these functions are enhanced by physical activity and higher aerobic fitness.

•  Single sessions of and long-term participation in physical activity improve cognitive performance and brain health. Children who participate in vigorous- or moderate-intensity physical activity benefit the most.

•  Given the importance of time on task to learning, students should be provided with frequent physical activity breaks that are developmentally appropriate.

•  Although presently understudied, physically active lessons offered in the classroom may increase time on task and attention to task in the classroom setting.

A lthough academic performance stems from a complex interaction between intellect and contextual variables, health is a vital moderating factor in a child’s ability to learn. The idea that healthy children learn better is empirically supported and well accepted (Basch, 2010), and multiple studies have confirmed that health benefits are associated with physical activity, including cardiovascular and muscular fitness, bone health, psychosocial outcomes, and cognitive and brain health (Strong et al., 2005; see Chapter 3 ). The relationship of physical activity and physical fitness to cognitive and brain health and to academic performance is the subject of this chapter.

Given that the brain is responsible for both mental processes and physical actions of the human body, brain health is important across the life span. In adults, brain health, representing absence of disease and optimal structure and function, is measured in terms of quality of life and effective functioning in activities of daily living. In children, brain health can be measured in terms of successful development of attention, on-task behavior, memory, and academic performance in an educational setting. This chapter reviews the findings of recent research regarding the contribution of engagement in physical activity and the attainment of a health-enhancing level of physical fitness to cognitive and brain health in children. Correlational research examining the relationship among academic performance, physical fitness, and physical activity also is described. Because research in older adults has served as a model for understanding the effects of physical activity and fitness on the developing brain during childhood, the adult research is briefly discussed. The short- and long-term cognitive benefits of both a single session of and regular participation in physical activity are summarized.

Before outlining the health benefits of physical activity and fitness, it is important to note that many factors influence academic performance. Among these are socioeconomic status (Sirin, 2005), parental involvement

(Fan and Chen, 2001), and a host of other demographic factors. A valuable predictor of student academic performance is a parent having clear expectations for the child’s academic success. Attendance is another factor confirmed as having a significant impact on academic performance (Stanca, 2006; Baxter et al., 2011). Because children must be present to learn the desired content, attendance should be measured in considering factors related to academic performance.

PHYSICAL FITNESS AND PHYSICAL ACTIVITY: RELATION TO ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

State-mandated academic achievement testing has had the unintended consequence of reducing opportunities for children to be physically active during the school day and beyond. In addition to a general shifting of time in school away from physical education to allow for more time on academic subjects, some children are withheld from physical education classes or recess to participate in remedial or enriched learning experiences designed to increase academic performance (Pellegrini and Bohn, 2005; see Chapter 5 ). Yet little evidence supports the notion that more time allocated to subject matter will translate into better test scores. Indeed, 11 of 14 correlational studies of physical activity during the school day demonstrate a positive relationship to academic performance (Rasberry et al., 2011). Overall, a rapidly growing body of work suggests that time spent engaged in physical activity is related not only to a healthier body but also to a healthier mind (Hillman et al., 2008).

Children respond faster and with greater accuracy to a variety of cognitive tasks after participating in a session of physical activity (Tomporowski, 2003; Budde et al., 2008; Hillman et al., 2009; Pesce et al., 2009; Ellemberg and St-Louis-Deschênes, 2010). A single bout of moderate-intensity physical activity has been found to increase neural and behavioral concomitants associated with the allocation of attention to a specific cognitive task (Hillman et al., 2009; Pontifex et al., 2012). And when children who participated in 30 minutes of aerobic physical activity were compared with children who watched television for the same amount of time, the former children cognitively outperformed the latter (Ellemberg and St-Louis-Desêhenes, 2010). Visual task switching data among 69 overweight and inactive children did not show differences between cognitive performance after treadmill walking and sitting (Tomporowski et al., 2008b).

When physical activity is used as a break from academic learning time, postengagement effects include better attention (Grieco et al., 2009; Bartholomew and Jowers, 2011), increased on-task behaviors (Mahar et al., 2006), and improved academic performance (Donnelly and Lambourne, 2011). Comparisons between 1st-grade students housed in a classroom

with stand-sit desks where the child could stand at his/her discretion and in classrooms containing traditional furniture showed that the former children were highly likely to stand, thus expending significantly more energy than those who were seated (Benden et al., 2011). More important, teachers can offer physical activity breaks as part of a supplemental curriculum or simply as a way to reset student attention during a lesson (Kibbe et al., 2011; see Chapter 6 ) and when provided with minimal training can efficaciously produce vigorous or moderate energy expenditure in students (Stewart et al., 2004). Further, after-school physical activity programs have demonstrated the ability to improve cardiovascular endurance, and this increase in aerobic fitness has been shown to mediate improvements in academic performance (Fredericks et al., 2006), as well as the allocation of neural resources underlying performance on a working memory task (Kamijo et al., 2011).

Over the past three decades, several reviews and meta-analyses have described the relationship among physical fitness, physical activity, and cognition (broadly defined as all mental processes). The majority of these reviews have focused on the relationship between academic performance and physical fitness—a physiological trait commonly defined in terms of cardiorespiratory capacity (e.g., maximal oxygen consumption; see Chapter 3 ). More recently, reviews have attempted to describe the effects of an acute or single bout of physical activity, as a behavior, on academic performance. These reviews have focused on brain health in older adults (Colcombe and Kramer, 2003), as well as the effects of acute physical activity on cognition in adults (Tomporowski, 2003). Some have considered age as part of the analysis (Etnier et al., 1997, 2006). Reviews focusing on research conducted in children (Sibley and Etnier, 2003) have examined the relationship among physical activity, participation in sports, and academic performance (Trudeau and Shephard, 2008, 2010; Singh et al., 2012); physical activity and mental and cognitive health (Biddle and Asare, 2011); and physical activity, nutrition, and academic performance (Burkhalter and Hillman, 2011). The findings of most of these reviews align with the conclusions presented in a meta-analytic review conducted by Fedewa and Ahn (2011). The studies reviewed by Fedewa and Ahn include experimental/quasi-experimental as well as cross-sectional and correlational designs, with the experimental designs yielding the highest effect sizes. The strongest relationships were found between aerobic fitness and achievement in mathematics, followed by IQ and reading performance. The range of cognitive performance measures, participant characteristics, and types of research design all mediated the relationship among physical activity, fitness, and academic performance. With regard to physical activity interventions, which were carried out both within and beyond the school day, those involving small groups of peers (around 10 youth of a similar age) were associated with the greatest gains in academic performance.

The number of peer-reviewed publications on this topic is growing exponentially. Further evidence of the growth of this line of inquiry is its increased global presence. Positive relationships among physical activity, physical fitness, and academic performance have been found among students from the Netherlands (Singh et al., 2012) and Taiwan (Chih and Chen, 2011). Broadly speaking, however, many of these studies show small to moderate effects and suffer from poor research designs (Biddle and Asare, 2011; Singh et al., 2012).

Basch (2010) conducted a comprehensive review of how children’s health and health disparities influence academic performance and learning. The author’s report draws on empirical evidence suggesting that education reform will be ineffective unless children’s health is made a priority. Basch concludes that schools may be the only place where health inequities can be addressed and that, if children’s basic health needs are not met, they will struggle to learn regardless of the effectiveness of the instructional materials used. More recently, Efrat (2011) conducted a review of physical activity, fitness, and academic performance to examine the achievement gap. He discovered that only seven studies had included socioeconomic status as a variable, despite its known relationship to education (Sirin, 2005).

Physical Fitness as a Learning Outcome of Physical Education and Its Relation to Academic Performance

Achieving and maintaining a healthy level of aerobic fitness, as defined using criterion-referenced standards from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES; Welk et al., 2011), is a desired learning outcome of physical education programming. Regular participation in physical activity also is a national learning standard for physical education, a standard intended to facilitate the establishment of habitual and meaningful engagement in physical activity (NASPE, 2004). Yet although physical fitness and participation in physical activity are established as learning outcomes in all 50 states, there is little evidence to suggest that children actually achieve and maintain these standards (see Chapter 2 ).

Statewide and national datasets containing data on youth physical fitness and academic performance have increased access to student-level data on this subject (Grissom, 2005; Cottrell et al., 2007; Carlson et al., 2008; Chomitz et al., 2008; Wittberg et al., 2010; Van Dusen et al., 2011). Early research in South Australia focused on quantifying the benefits of physical activity and physical education during the school day; the benefits noted included increased physical fitness, decreased body fat, and reduced risk for cardiovascular disease (Dwyer et al., 1979, 1983). Even today, Dwyer and colleagues are among the few scholars who regularly include in their research measures of physical activity intensity in the school environment,

which is believed to be a key reason why they are able to report differentiated effects of different intensities. A longitudinal study in Trois-Rivières, Québec, Canada, tracked how the academic performance of children from grades 1 through 6 was related to student health, motor skills, and time spent in physical education. The researchers concluded that additional time dedicated to physical education did not inhibit academic performance (Shephard et al., 1984; Shephard, 1986; Trudeau and Shephard, 2008).

Longitudinal follow-up investigating the long-term benefits of enhanced physical education experiences is encouraging but largely inconclusive. In a study examining the effects of daily physical education during elementary school on physical activity during adulthood, 720 men and women completed the Québec Health Survey (Trudeau et al., 1999). Findings suggest that physical education was associated with physical activity in later life for females but not males (Trudeau et al., 1999); most of the associations were significant but weak (Trudeau et al., 2004). Adult body mass index (BMI) at age 34 was related to childhood BMI at ages 10-12 in females but not males (Trudeau et al., 2001). Longitudinal studies such as those conducted in Sweden and Finland also suggest that physical education experiences may be related to adult engagement in physical activity (Glenmark, 1994; Telama et al., 1997). From an academic performance perspective, longitudinal data on men who enlisted for military service imply that cardiovascular fitness at age 18 predicted cognitive performance in later life (Aberg et al., 2009), thereby supporting the idea of offering physical education and physical activity opportunities well into emerging adulthood through secondary and postsecondary education.

Castelli and colleagues (2007) investigated younger children (in 3rd and 5th grades) and the differential contributions of the various subcomponents of the Fitnessgram ® . Specifically, they examined the individual contributions of aerobic capacity, muscle strength, muscle flexibility, and body composition to performance in mathematics and reading on the Illinois Standardized Achievement Test among a sample of 259 children. Their findings corroborate those of the California Department of Education (Grissom, 2005), indicating a general relationship between fitness and achievement test performance. When the individual components of the Fitnessgram were decomposed, the researchers determined that only aerobic capacity was related to test performance. Muscle strength and flexibility showed no relationship, while an inverse association of BMI with test performance was observed, such that higher BMI was associated with lower test performance. Although Baxter and colleagues (2011) confirmed the importance of attending school in relation to academic performance through the use of 4th-grade student recall, correlations with BMI were not significant.

State-mandated implementation of the coordinated school health model requires all schools in Texas to conduct annual fitness testing

using the Fitnessgram among students in grades 3-12. In a special issue of Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport (2010), multiple articles describe the current state of physical fitness among children in Texas; confirm the associations among school performance levels, academic achievement, and physical fitness (Welk et al., 2010; Zhu et al., 2010); and demonstrate the ability of qualified physical education teachers to administer physical fitness tests (Zhu et al., 2010). Also using data from Texas schools, Van Dusen and colleagues (2011) found that cardiovascular fitness had the strongest association with academic performance, particularly in mathematics over reading. Unlike previous research, which demonstrated a steady decline in fitness by developmental stage (Duncan et al., 2007), this study found that cardiovascular fitness did decrease but not significantly (Van Dusen et al., 2011). Aerobic fitness, then, may be important to academic performance, as there may be a dose-response relationship (Van Dusen et al., 2011).

Using a large sample of students in grades 4-8, Chomitz and colleagues (2008) found that the likelihood of passing both mathematics and English achievement tests increased with the number of fitness tests passed during physical education class, and the odds of passing the mathematics achievement tests were inversely related to higher body weight. Similar to the findings of Castelli and colleagues (2007), socioeconomic status and demographic factors explained little of the relationship between aerobic fitness and academic performance; however, socioeconomic status may be an explanatory variable for students of low fitness (London and Castrechini, 2011).

In sum, numerous cross-sectional and correlational studies demonstrate small-to-moderate positive or null associations between physical fitness (Grissom, 2005; Cottrell et al., 2007; Edwards et al., 2009; Eveland-Sayers et al., 2009; Cooper et al., 2010; Welk et al., 2010; Wittberg et al., 2010; Zhu et al., 2010; Van Dusen et al., 2011), particularly aerobic fitness, and academic performance (Castelli et al, 2007; Chomitz et al., 2008; Roberts et al., 2010; Welk et al., 2010; Chih and Chen, 2011; London and Castrechini, 2011; Van Dusen et al., 2011). Moreover, the findings may support a dose-response association, suggesting that the more components of physical fitness (e.g., cardiovascular endurance, strength, muscle endurance) considered acceptable for the specific age and gender that are present, the greater the likelihood of successful academic performance. From a public health and policy standpoint, the conclusions these findings support are limited by few causal inferences, a lack of data confirmation, and inadequate reliability because the data were often collected by nonresearchers or through self-report methods. It may also be noted that this research includes no known longitudinal studies and few randomized controlled trials (examples are included later in this chapter in the discussion of the developing brain).

Physical Activity, Physical Education, and Academic Performance

In contrast with the correlational data presented above for physical fitness, more information is needed on the direct effects of participation in physical activity programming and physical education classes on academic performance.

In a meta-analysis, Sibley and Etnier (2003) found a positive relationship between physical activity and cognition in school-age youth (aged 4-18), suggesting that physical activity, as well as physical fitness, may be related to cognitive outcomes during development. Participation in physical activity was related to cognitive performance in eight measurement categories (perceptual skills, IQ, achievement, verbal tests, mathematics tests, memory, developmental level/academic readiness, and “other”), with results indicating a beneficial relationship of physical activity to all cognitive outcomes except memory (Sibley and Etnier, 2003). Since that meta-analysis, however, several papers have reported robust relationships between aerobic fitness and different aspects of memory in children (e.g., Chaddock et al., 2010a, 2011; Kamijo et al., 2011; Monti et al., 2012). Regardless, the comprehensive review of Sibley and Etnier (2003) was important because it helped bring attention to an emerging literature suggesting that physical activity may benefit cognitive development even as it also demonstrated the need for further study to better understand the multifaceted relationship between physical activity and cognitive and brain health.

The regular engagement in physical activity achieved during physical education programming can also be related to academic performance, especially when the class is taught by a physical education teacher. The Sports, Play, and Active Recreation for Kids (SPARK) study examined the effects of a 2-year health-related physical education program on academic performance in children (Sallis et al., 1999). In an experimental design, seven elementary schools were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: (1) a specialist condition in which certified physical education teachers delivered the SPARK curriculum, (2) a trained-teacher condition in which classroom teachers implemented the curriculum, and (3) a control condition in which classroom teachers implemented the local physical education curriculum. No significant differences by condition were found for mathematics testing; however, reading scores were significantly higher in the specialist condition relative to the control condition (Sallis et al., 1999), while language scores were significantly lower in the specialist condition than in the other two conditions. The authors conclude that spending time in physical education with a specialist did not have a negative effect on academic performance. Shortcomings of this research include the amount of data loss from pre- to posttest, the use of results of 2nd-grade testing that exceeded the national

average in performance as baseline data, and the use of norm-referenced rather than criterion-based testing.

In seminal research conducted by Gabbard and Barton (1979), six different conditions of physical activity (no activity; 20, 30, 40, and 50 minutes; and posttest no activity) were completed by 106 2nd graders during physical education. Each physical activity session was followed by 5 minutes of rest and the completion of 36 math problems. The authors found a potential threshold effect whereby only the 50-minute condition improved mathematical performance, with no differences by gender.

A longitudinal study of the kindergarten class of 1998-1999, using data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, investigated the association between enrollment in physical education and academic achievement (Carlson et al., 2008). Higher amounts of physical education were correlated with better academic performance in mathematics among females, but this finding did not hold true for males.

Ahamed and colleagues (2007) found in a cluster randomized trial that, after 16 months of a classroom-based physical activity intervention, there was no significant difference between the treatment and control groups in performance on the standardized Cognitive Abilities Test, Third Edition (CAT-3). Others have found, however, that coordinative exercise (Budde et al., 2008) or bouts of vigorous physical activity during free time (Coe et al., 2006) contribute to higher levels of academic performance. Specifically, Coe and colleagues examined the association of enrollment in physical education and self-reported vigorous- or moderate-intensity physical activity outside school with performance in core academic courses and on the Terra Nova Standardized Achievement Test among more than 200 6th-grade students. Their findings indicate that academic performance was unaffected by enrollment in physical education classes, which were found to average only 19 minutes of vigorous- or moderate-intensity physical activity. When time spent engaged in vigorous- or moderate-intensity physical activity outside of school was considered, however, a significant positive relation to academic performance emerged, with more time engaged in vigorous- or moderate-intensity physical activity being related to better grades but not test scores (Coe et al., 2006).

Studies of participation in sports and academic achievement have found positive associations (Mechanic and Hansell, 1987; Dexter, 1999; Crosnoe, 2002; Eitle and Eitle, 2002; Stephens and Schaben, 2002; Eitle, 2005; Miller et al., 2005; Fox et al., 2010; Ruiz et al., 2010); higher grade point averages (GPAs) in season than out of season (Silliker and Quirk, 1997); a negative association between cheerleading and science performance (Hanson and Kraus, 1998); and weak and negative associations between the amount of time spent participating in sports and performance in English-language class among 13-, 14-, and 16-year-old students (Daley and Ryan, 2000).

Other studies, however, have found no association between participation in sports and academic performance (Fisher et al., 1996). The findings of these studies need to be interpreted with caution as many of their designs failed to account for the level of participation by individuals in the sport (e.g., amount of playing time, type and intensity of physical activity engagement by sport). Further, it is unclear whether policies required students to have higher GPAs to be eligible for participation. Offering sports opportunities is well justified regardless of the cognitive benefits, however, given that adolescents may be less likely to engage in risky behaviors when involved in sports or other extracurricular activities (Page et al., 1998; Elder et al., 2000; Taliaferro et al., 2010), that participation in sports increases physical fitness, and that affiliation with sports enhances school connectedness.

Although a consensus on the relationship of physical activity to academic achievement has not been reached, the vast majority of available evidence suggests the relationship is either positive or neutral. The meta-analytic review by Fedewa and Ahn (2011) suggests that interventions entailing aerobic physical activity have the greatest impact on academic performance; however, all types of physical activity, except those involving flexibility alone, contribute to enhanced academic performance, as do interventions that use small groups (about 10 students) rather than individuals or large groups. Regardless of the strength of the findings, the literature indicates that time spent engaged in physical activity is beneficial to children because it has not been found to detract from academic performance, and in fact can improve overall health and function (Sallis et al., 1999; Hillman et al., 2008; Tomporowski et al., 2008a; Trudeau and Shephard, 2008; Rasberry et al., 2011).

Single Bouts of Physical Activity

Beyond formal physical education, evidence suggests that multi-component approaches are a viable means of providing physical activity opportunities for children across the school curriculum (see also Chapter 6 ). Although health-related fitness lessons taught by certified physical education teachers result in greater student fitness gains relative to such lessons taught by other teachers (Sallis et al., 1999), non-physical education teachers are capable of providing opportunities to be physically active within the classroom (Kibbe et al., 2011). Single sessions or bouts of physical activity have independent merit, offering immediate benefits that can enhance the learning experience. Studies have found that single bouts of physical activity result in improved attention (Hillman et al., 2003, 2009; Pontifex et al., 2012), better working memory (Pontifex et al., 2009), and increased academic learning time and reduced off-task behaviors (Mahar et al., 2006; Bartholomew and Jowers, 2011). Yet single bouts

of physical activity have differential effects, as very vigorous exercise has been associated with cognitive fatigue and even cognitive decline in adults (Tomporowski, 2003). As seen in Figure 4-1 , high levels of effort, arousal, or activation can influence perception, decision making, response preparation, and actual response. For discussion of the underlying constructs and differential effects of single bouts of physical activity on cognitive performance, see Tomporowski (2003).

For children, classrooms are busy places where they must distinguish relevant information from distractions that emerge from many different sources occurring simultaneously. A student must listen to the teacher, adhere to classroom procedures, focus on a specific task, hold and retain information, and make connections between novel information and previous experiences. Hillman and colleagues (2009) demonstrated that a single bout of moderate-intensity walking (60 percent of maximum heart rate) resulted in significant improvements in performance on a task requiring attentional inhibition (e.g., the ability to focus on a single task). These findings were accompanied by changes in neuroelectric measures underlying the allocation of attention (see Figure 4-2 ) and significant improvements on the reading subtest of the Wide Range Achievement Test. No such effects were observed following a similar duration of quiet rest. These findings were later replicated and extended to demonstrate benefits for both mathematics and reading performance in healthy children and those diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (Pontifex et al., 2013). Further replications of these findings demonstrated that a single bout of moderate-intensity exercise using a treadmill improved performance on a task of attention and inhibition, but similar benefits were not derived from moderate-intensity

FIGURE 4-1 Information processing: Diagram of a simplified version of Sanders’s (1983) cognitive-energetic model of human information processing (adapted from Jones and Hardy, 1989). SOURCE: Tomporowski, 2003. Reprinted with permission.

FIGURE 4-2 Effects of a single session of exercise in preadolescent children. SOURCE: Hillman et al., 2009. Reprinted with permission.

exercise that involved exergaming (O’Leary et al., 2011). It was also found that such benefits were derived following cessation of, but not during, the bout of exercise (Drollette et al., 2012). The applications of such empirical findings within the school setting remain unclear.

A randomized controlled trial entitled Physical Activity Across the Curriculum (PAAC) used cluster randomization among 24 schools to examine the effects of physically active classroom lessons on BMI and academic achievement (Donnelly et al., 2009). The academically oriented physical activities were intended to be of vigorous or moderate intensity (3-6 metabolic equivalents [METs]) and to last approximately 10 minutes and were specifically designed to supplement content in mathematics, language arts, geography, history, spelling, science, and health. The study followed 665 boys and 677 girls for 3 years as they rose from 2nd or 3rd to 4th or 5th grades. Changes in academic achievement, fitness, and blood screening were considered secondary outcomes. During a 3-year period, students who engaged in physically active lessons, on average, improved their academic achievement by 6 percent, while the control groups exhibited a 1 percent decrease. In students who experienced at least 75 minutes of PAAC lessons per week, BMI remained stable (see Figure 4-3 ).

It is important to note that cognitive tasks completed before, during, and after physical activity show varying effects, but the effects were always positive compared with sedentary behavior. In a study carried out by Drollette and colleagues (2012), 36 preadolescent children completed

FIGURE 4-3 Change in academic scores from baseline after physically active classroom lessons in elementary schools in northeast Kansas (2003-2006). NOTE: All differences between the Physical Activity Across the Curriculum (PAAC) group ( N = 117) and control group ( N = 86) were significant ( p <.01). SOURCE: Donnelly et al., 2009. Reprinted with permission.

two cognitive tasks—a flanker task to assess attention and inhibition and a spatial nback task to assess working memory—before, during, and after seated rest and treadmill walking conditions. The children sat or walked on different days for an average of 19 minutes. The results suggest that the physical activity enhanced cognitive performance for the attention task but not for the task requiring working memory. Accordingly, although more research is needed, the authors suggest that the acute effects of exercise may be selective to certain cognitive processes (i.e., attentional inhibition) while unrelated to others (e.g., working memory). Indeed, data collected using a task-switching paradigm (i.e., a task designed to assess multitasking and requiring the scheduling of attention to multiple aspects of the environment) among 69 overweight and inactive children did not show differences in cognitive performance following acute bouts of treadmill walking or sitting (Tomporowski et al., 2008b). Thus, findings to date indicate a robust relationship of acute exercise to transient improvements in attention but appear inconsistent for other aspects of cognition.

Academic Learning Time and On- and Off-Task Behaviors

Excessive time on task, inattention to task, off-task behavior, and delinquency are important considerations in the learning environment

given the importance of academic learning time to academic performance. These behaviors are observable and of concern to teachers as they detract from the learning environment. Systematic observation by trained observers may yield important insight regarding the effects of short physical activity breaks on these behaviors. Indeed, systematic observations of student behavior have been used as an alternative means of measuring academic performance (Mahar et al., 2006; Grieco et al., 2009).

After the development of classroom-based physical activities, called Energizers, teachers were trained in how to implement such activities in their lessons at least twice per week (Mahar et al., 2006). Measurements of baseline physical activity and on-task behaviors were collected in two 3rd-grade and two 4th-grade classes, using pedometers and direct observation. The intervention included 243 students, while 108 served as controls by not engaging in the activities. A subgroup of 62 3rd and 4th graders was observed for on-task behavior in the classroom following the physical activity. Children who participated in Energizers took more steps during the school day than those who did not; they also increased their on-task behaviors by more than 20 percent over baseline measures.

A systematic review of a similar in-class, academically oriented, physical activity plan—Take 10!—was conducted to identify the effects of its implementation after it had been in use for 10 years (Kibbe et al., 2011). The findings suggest that children who experienced Take 10! in the classroom engaged in moderate to vigorous physical activity (6.16 to 6.42 METs) and had lower BMIs than those who did not. Further, children in the Take 10! classrooms had better fluid intelligence (Reed et al., 2010) and higher academic achievement scores (Donnelly et al., 2009).

Some have expressed concern that introducing physical activity into the classroom setting may be distracting to students. Yet in one study it was sedentary students who demonstrated a decrease in time on task, while active students returned to the same level of on-task behavior after an active learning task (Grieco et al., 2009). Among the 97 3rd-grade students in this study, a small but nonsignificant increase in on-task behaviors was seen immediately following these active lessons. Additionally, these improvements were not mediated by BMI.

In sum, although presently understudied, physically active lessons may increase time on task and attention to task in the classroom setting. Given the complexity of the typical classroom, the strategy of including content-specific lessons that incorporate physical activity may be justified.

It is recommended that every child have 20 minutes of recess each day and that this time be outdoors whenever possible, in a safe activity (NASPE,

2006). Consistent engagement in recess can help students refine social skills, learn social mediation skills surrounding fair play, obtain additional minutes of vigorous- or moderate-intensity physical activity that contribute toward the recommend 60 minutes or more per day, and have an opportunity to express their imagination through free play (Pellegrini and Bohn, 2005; see also Chapter 6 ). When children participate in recess before lunch, additional benefits accrue, such as less food waste, increased incidence of appropriate behavior in the cafeteria during lunch, and greater student readiness to learn upon returning to the classroom after lunch (Getlinger et al., 1996; Wechsler et al., 2001).

To examine the effects of engagement in physical activity during recess on classroom behavior, Barros and colleagues (2009) examined data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study on 10,000 8- to 9-year-old children. Teachers provided the number of minutes of recess as well as a ranking of classroom behavior (ranging from “misbehaves frequently” to “behaves exceptionally well”). Results indicate that children who had at least 15 minutes of recess were more likely to exhibit appropriate behavior in the classroom (Barros et al., 2009). In another study, 43 4th-grade students were randomly assigned to 1 or no days of recess to examine the effects on classroom behavior (Jarrett et al., 1998). The researchers concluded that on-task behavior was better among the children who had recess. A moderate effect size (= 0.51) was observed. In a series of studies examining kindergartners’ attention to task following a 20-minute recess, increased time on task was observed during learning centers and story reading (Pellegrini et al., 1995). Despite these positive findings centered on improved attention, it is important to note that few of these studies actually measured the intensity of the physical activity during recess.

From a slightly different perspective, survey data from 547 Virginia elementary school principals suggest that time dedicated to student participation in physical education, art, and music did not negatively influence academic performance (Wilkins et al., 2003). Thus, the strategy of reducing time spent in physical education to increase academic performance may not have the desired effect. The evidence on in-school physical activity supports the provision of physical activity breaks during the school day as a way to increase fluid intelligence, time on task, and attention. However, it remains unclear what portion of these effects can be attributed to a break from academic time and what portion is a direct result of the specific demands/characteristics of the physical activity.

THE DEVELOPING bRAIN, PHYSICAL ACTIVITY, AND BRAIN HEALTH

The study of brain health has grown beyond simply measuring behavioral outcomes such as task performance and reaction time (e.g., cognitive

processing speed). New technology has emerged that has allowed scientists to understand the impact of lifestyle factors on the brain from the body systems level down to the molecular level. A greater understanding of the cognitive components that subserve academic performance and may be amenable to intervention has thereby been gained. Research conducted in both laboratory and field settings has helped define this line of inquiry and identify some preliminary underlying mechanisms.

The Evidence Base on the Relationship of Physical Activity to Brain Health and Cognition in Older Adults

Despite the current focus on the relationship of physical activity to cognitive development, the evidence base is larger on the association of physical activity with brain health and cognition during aging. Much can be learned about how physical activity affects childhood cognition and scholastic achievement through this work. Despite earlier investigations into the relationship of physical activity to cognitive aging (see Etnier et al., 1997, for a review), the field was shaped by the findings of Kramer and colleagues (1999), who examined the effects of aerobic fitness training on older adults using a randomized controlled design. Specifically, 124 older adults aged 60 and 75 were randomly assigned to a 6-month intervention of either walking (i.e., aerobic training) or flexibility (i.e., nonaerobic) training. The walking group but not the flexibility group showed improved cognitive performance, measured as a shorter response time to the presented stimulus. Results from a series of tasks that tapped different aspects of cognitive control indicated that engagement in physical activity is a beneficial means of combating cognitive aging (Kramer et al., 1999).

Cognitive control, or executive control, is involved in the selection, scheduling, and coordination of computational processes underlying perception, memory, and goal-directed action. These processes allow for the optimization of behavioral interactions within the environment through flexible modulation of the ability to control attention (MacDonald et al., 2000; Botvinick et al., 2001). Core cognitive processes that make up cognitive control or executive control include inhibition, working memory, and cognitive flexibility (Diamond, 2006), processes mediated by networks that involve the prefrontal cortex. Inhibition (or inhibitory control) refers to the ability to override a strong internal or external pull so as to act appropriately within the demands imposed by the environment (Davidson et al., 2006). For example, one exerts inhibitory control when one stops speaking when the teacher begins lecturing. Working memory refers to the ability to represent information mentally, manipulate stored information, and act on the information (Davidson et al., 2006). In solving a difficult mathematical problem, for example, one must often remember the remainder. Finally,

cognitive flexibility refers to the ability to switch perspectives, focus attention, and adapt behavior quickly and flexibly for the purposes of goal-directed action (Blair et al., 2005; Davidson et al., 2006; Diamond, 2006). For example, one must shift attention from the teacher who is teaching a lesson to one’s notes to write down information for later study.

Based on their earlier findings on changes in cognitive control induced by aerobic training, Colcombe and Kramer (2003) conducted a meta-analysis to examine the relationship between aerobic training and cognition in older adults aged 55-80 using data from 18 randomized controlled exercise interventions. Their findings suggest that aerobic training is associated with general cognitive benefits that are selectively and disproportionately greater for tasks or task components requiring greater amounts of cognitive control. A second and more recent meta-analysis (Smith et al., 2010) corroborates the findings of Colcombe and Kramer, indicating that aerobic exercise is related to attention, processing speed, memory, and cognitive control; however, it should be noted that smaller effect sizes were observed, likely a result of the studies included in the respective meta-analyses. In older adults, then, aerobic training selectively improves cognition.

Hillman and colleagues (2006) examined the relationship between physical activity and inhibition (one aspect of cognitive control) using a computer-based stimulus-response protocol in 241 individuals aged 15-71. Their results indicate that greater amounts of physical activity are related to decreased response speed across task conditions requiring variable amounts of inhibition, suggesting a generalized relationship between physical activity and response speed. In addition, the authors found physical activity to be related to better accuracy across conditions in older adults, while no such relationship was observed for younger adults. Of interest, this relationship was disproportionately larger for the condition requiring greater amounts of inhibition in the older adults, suggesting that physical activity has both a general and selective association with task performance (Hillman et al., 2006).

With advances in neuroimaging techniques, understanding of the effects of physical activity and aerobic fitness on brain structure and function has advanced rapidly over the past decade. In particular, a series of studies (Colcombe et al., 2003, 2004, 2006; Kramer and Erickson, 2007; Hillman et al., 2008) of older individuals has been conducted to elucidate the relation of aerobic fitness to the brain and cognition. Normal aging results in the loss of brain tissue (Colcombe et al., 2003), with markedly larger loss evidenced in the frontal, temporal, and parietal regions (Raz, 2000). Thus cognitive functions subserved by these brain regions (such as those involved in cognitive control and aspects of memory) are expected to decay more dramatically than other aspects of cognition.

Colcombe and colleagues (2003) investigated the relationship of aerobic fitness to gray and white matter tissue loss using magnetic resonance

imaging (MRI) in 55 healthy older adults aged 55-79. They observed robust age-related decreases in tissue density in the frontal, temporal, and parietal regions using voxel-based morphometry, a technique used to assess brain volume. Reductions in the amount of tissue loss in these regions were observed as a function of fitness. Given that the brain structures most affected by aging also demonstrated the greatest fitness-related sparing, these initial findings provide a biological basis for fitness-related benefits to brain health during aging.

In a second study, Colcombe and colleagues (2006) examined the effects of aerobic fitness training on brain structure using a randomized controlled design with 59 sedentary healthy adults aged 60-79. The treatment group received a 6-month aerobic exercise (i.e., walking) intervention, while the control group received a stretching and toning intervention that did not include aerobic exercise. Results indicated that gray and white matter brain volume increased for those who received the aerobic fitness training intervention. No such results were observed for those assigned to the stretching and toning group. Specifically, those assigned to the aerobic training intervention demonstrated increased gray matter in the frontal lobes, including the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, the supplementary motor area, the middle frontal gyrus, the dorsolateral region of the right inferior frontal gyrus, and the left superior temporal lobe. White matter volume changes also were evidenced following the aerobic fitness intervention, with increases in white matter tracts being observed within the anterior third of the corpus callosum. These brain regions are important for cognition, as they have been implicated in the cognitive control of attention and memory processes. These findings suggest that aerobic training not only spares age-related loss of brain structures but also may in fact enhance the structural health of specific brain regions.

In addition to the structural changes noted above, research has investigated the relationship between aerobic fitness and changes in brain function. That is, aerobic fitness training has also been observed to induce changes in patterns of functional activation. Functional MRI (fMRI) measures, which make it possible to image activity in the brain while an individual is performing a cognitive task, have revealed that aerobic training induces changes in patterns of functional activation. This approach involves inferring changes in neuronal activity from alteration in blood flow or metabolic activity in the brain. In a seminal paper, Colcombe and colleagues (2004) examined the relationship of aerobic fitness to brain function and cognition across two studies with older adults. In the first study, 41 older adult participants (mean age ~66) were divided into higher- and lower-fit groups based on their performance on a maximal exercise test. In the second study, 29 participants (aged 58-77) were recruited and randomly assigned to either a fitness training (i.e., walking) or control (i.e., stretching and toning)

intervention. In both studies, participants were given a task requiring variable amounts of attention and inhibition. Results indicated that fitness (study 1) and fitness training (study 2) were related to greater activation in the middle frontal gyrus and superior parietal cortex; these regions of the brain are involved in attentional control and inhibitory functioning, processes entailed in the regulation of attention and action. These changes in neural activation were related to significant improvements in performance on the cognitive control task of attention and inhibition.

Taken together, the findings across studies suggest that an increase in aerobic fitness, derived from physical activity, is related to improvements in the integrity of brain structure and function and may underlie improvements in cognition across tasks requiring cognitive control. Although developmental differences exist, the general paradigm of this research can be applied to early stages of the life span, and some early attempts to do so have been made, as described below. Given the focus of this chapter on childhood cognition, it should be noted that this section has provided only a brief and arguably narrow look at the research on physical activity and cognitive aging. Considerable work has detailed the relationship of physical activity to other aspects of adult cognition using behavioral and neuroimaging tools (e.g., Boecker, 2011). The interested reader is referred to a number of review papers and meta-analyses describing the relationship of physical activity to various aspects of cognitive and brain health (Etnier et al., 1997; Colcombe and Kramer, 2003; Tomporowski, 2003; Thomas et al., 2012).

Child Development, Brain Structure, and Function

Certain aspects of development have been linked with experience, indicating an intricate interplay between genetic programming and environmental influences. Gray matter, and the organization of synaptic connections in particular, appears to be at least partially dependent on experience (NRC/IOM, 2000; Taylor, 2006), with the brain exhibiting a remarkable ability to reorganize itself in response to input from sensory systems, other cortical systems, or insult (Huttenlocher and Dabholkar, 1997). During typical development, experience shapes the pruning process through the strengthening of neural networks that support relevant thoughts and actions and the elimination of unnecessary or redundant connections. Accordingly, the brain responds to experience in an adaptive or “plastic” manner, resulting in the efficient and effective adoption of thoughts, skills, and actions relevant to one’s interactions within one’s environmental surroundings. Examples of neural plasticity in response to unique environmental interaction have been demonstrated in human neuroimaging studies of participation in music (Elbert et al., 1995; Chan et al., 1998; Münte et al., 2001) and sports (Hatfield and Hillman, 2001; Aglioti et al., 2008), thus supporting

the educational practice of providing music education and opportunities for physical activity to children.

Effects of Regular Engagement in Physical Activity and Physical Fitness on Brain Structure

Recent advances in neuroimaging techniques have rapidly advanced understanding of the role physical activity and aerobic fitness may have in brain structure. In children a growing body of correlational research suggests differential brain structure related to aerobic fitness. Chaddock and colleagues (2010a,b) showed a relationship among aerobic fitness, brain volume, and aspects of cognition and memory. Specifically, Chaddock and colleagues (2010a) assigned 9- to 10-year-old preadolescent children to lower- and higher-fitness groups as a function of their scores on a maximal oxygen uptake (VO 2 max) test, which is considered the gold-standard measure of aerobic fitness. They observed larger bilateral hippocampal volume in higher-fit children using MRI, as well as better performance on a task of relational memory. It is important to note that relational memory has been shown to be mediated by the hippocampus (Cohen and Eichenbaum, 1993; Cohen et al., 1999). Further, no differences emerged for a task condition requiring item memory, which is supported by structures outside the hippocampus, suggesting selectivity among the aspects of memory that benefit from higher amounts of fitness. Lastly, hippocampal volume was positively related to performance on the relational memory task but not the item memory task, and bilateral hippocampal volume was observed to mediate the relationship between fitness and relational memory (Chaddock et al., 2010a). Such findings are consistent with behavioral measures of relational memory in children (Chaddock et al., 2011) and neuroimaging findings in older adults (Erickson et al., 2009, 2011) and support the robust nonhuman animal literature demonstrating the effects of exercise on cell proliferation (Van Praag et al., 1999) and survival (Neeper et al., 1995) in the hippocampus.

In a second investigation (Chaddock et al., 2010b), higher- and lower-fit children (aged 9-10) underwent an MRI to determine whether structural differences might be found that relate to performance on a cognitive control task that taps attention and inhibition. The authors observed differential findings in the basal ganglia, a subcortical structure involved in the interplay of cognition and willed action. Specifically, higher-fit children exhibited greater volume in the dorsal striatum (i.e., caudate nucleus, putamen, globus pallidus) relative to lower-fit children, while no differences were observed in the ventral striatum. Such findings are not surprising given the role of the dorsal striatum in cognitive control and response resolution (Casey et al., 2008; Aron et al., 2009), as well as the growing body

of research in children and adults indicating that higher levels of fitness are associated with better control of attention, memory, and cognition (Colcombe and Kramer, 2003; Hillman et al., 2008; Chang and Etnier, 2009). Chaddock and colleagues (2010b) further observed that higher-fit children exhibited increased inhibitory control and response resolution and that higher basal ganglia volume was related to better task performance. These findings indicate that the dorsal striatum is involved in these aspects of higher-order cognition and that fitness may influence cognitive control during preadolescent development. It should be noted that both studies described above were correlational in nature, leaving open the possibility that other factors related to fitness and/or the maturation of subcortical structures may account for the observed group differences.

Effects of Regular Engagement in Physical Activity and Physical Fitness on Brain Function

Other research has attempted to characterize fitness-related differences in brain function using fMRI and event-related brain potentials (ERPs), which are neuroelectric indices of functional brain activation in the electro-encephalographic time series. To date, few randomized controlled interventions have been conducted. Notably, Davis and colleagues (2011) conducted one such intervention lasting approximately 14 weeks that randomized 20 sedentary overweight preadolescent children into an after-school physical activity intervention or a nonactivity control group. The fMRI data collected during an antisaccade task, which requires inhibitory control, indicated increased bilateral activation of the prefrontal cortex and decreased bilateral activation of the posterior parietal cortex following the physical activity intervention relative to the control group. Such findings illustrate some of the neural substrates influenced by participation in physical activity. Two additional correlational studies (Voss et al., 2011; Chaddock et al., 2012) compared higher- and lower-fit preadolescent children and found differential brain activation and superior task performance as a function of fitness. That is, Chaddock and colleagues (2012) observed increased activation in prefrontal and parietal brain regions during early task blocks and decreased activation during later task blocks in higher-fit relative to lower-fit children. Given that higher-fit children outperformed lower-fit children on the aspects of the task requiring the greatest amount of cognitive control, the authors reason that the higher-fit children were more capable of adapting neural activity to meet the demands imposed by tasks that tapped higher-order cognitive processes such as inhibition and goal maintenance. Voss and colleagues (2011) used a similar task to vary cognitive control requirements and found that higher-fit children outperformed their lower-fit counterparts and that such differences became more pronounced dur-

ing task conditions requiring the upregulation of control. Further, several differences emerged across various brain regions that together make up the network associated with cognitive control. Collectively, these differences suggest that higher-fit children are more efficient in the allocation of resources in support of cognitive control operations.

Other imaging research has examined the neuroelectric system (i.e., ERPs) to investigate which cognitive processes occurring between stimulus engagement and response execution are influenced by fitness. Several studies (Hillman et al., 2005, 2009; Pontifex et al., 2011) have examined the P3 component of the stimulus-locked ERP and demonstrated that higher-fit children have larger-amplitude and shorter-latency ERPs relative to their lower-fit peers. Classical theory suggests that P3 relates to neuronal activity associated with revision of the mental representation of the previous event within the stimulus environment (Donchin, 1981). P3 amplitude reflects the allocation of attentional resources when working memory is updated (Donchin and Coles, 1988) such that P3 is sensitive to the amount of attentional resources allocated to a stimulus (Polich, 1997; Polich and Heine, 2007). P3 latency generally is considered to represent stimulus evaluation and classification speed (Kutas et al., 1977; Duncan-Johnson, 1981) and thus may be considered a measure of stimulus detection and evaluation time (Magliero et al., 1984; Ila and Polich, 1999). Therefore the above findings suggest that higher-fit children allocate greater attentional resources and have faster cognitive processing speed relative to lower-fit children (Hillman et al., 2005, 2009), with additional research suggesting that higher-fit children also exhibit greater flexibility in the allocation of attentional resources, as indexed by greater modulation of P3 amplitude across tasks that vary in the amount of cognitive control required (Pontifex et al., 2011). Given that higher-fit children also demonstrate better performance on cognitive control tasks, the P3 component appears to reflect the effectiveness of a subset of cognitive systems that support willed action (Hillman et al., 2009; Pontifex et al., 2011).

Two ERP studies (Hillman et al., 2009; Pontifex et al., 2011) have focused on aspects of cognition involved in action monitoring. That is, the error-related negativity (ERN) component was investigated in higher- and lower-fit children to determine whether differences in evaluation and regulation of cognitive control operations were influenced by fitness level. The ERN component is observed in response-locked ERP averages. It is often elicited by errors of commission during task performance and is believed to represent either the detection of errors during task performance (Gehring et al., 1993; Holroyd and Coles, 2002) or more generally the detection of response conflict (Botvinick et al., 2001; Yeung et al., 2004), which may be engendered by errors in response production. Several studies have reported that higher-fit children exhibit smaller ERN amplitude during rapid-

response tasks (i.e., instructions emphasizing speed of responding; Hillman et al., 2009) and more flexibility in the allocation of these resources during tasks entailing variable cognitive control demands, as evidenced by changes in ERN amplitude for higher-fit children and no modulation of ERN in lower-fit children (Pontifex et al., 2011). Collectively, this pattern of results suggests that children with lower levels of fitness allocate fewer attentional resources during stimulus engagement (P3 amplitude) and exhibit slower cognitive processing speed (P3 latency) but increased activation of neural resources involved in the monitoring of their actions (ERN amplitude). Alternatively, higher-fit children allocate greater resources to environmental stimuli and demonstrate less reliance on action monitoring (increasing resource allocation only to meet the demands of the task). Under more demanding task conditions, the strategy of lower-fit children appears to fail since they perform more poorly under conditions requiring the upregulation of cognitive control.

Finally, only one randomized controlled trial published to date has used ERPs to assess neurocognitive function in children. Kamijo and colleagues (2011) studied performance on a working memory task before and after a 9-month physical activity intervention compared with a wait-list control group. They observed better performance following the physical activity intervention during task conditions that required the upregulation of working memory relative to the task condition requiring lesser amounts of working memory. Further, increased activation of the contingent negative variation (CNV), an ERP component reflecting cognitive and motor preparation, was observed at posttest over frontal scalp sites in the physical activity intervention group. No differences in performance or brain activation were noted for the wait-list control group. These findings suggest an increase in cognitive preparation processes in support of a more effective working memory network resulting from prolonged participation in physical activity. For children in a school setting, regular participation in physical activity as part of an after-school program is particularly beneficial for tasks that require the use of working memory.

Adiposity and Risk for Metabolic Syndrome as It Relates to Cognitive Health

A related and emerging literature that has recently been popularized investigates the relationship of adiposity to cognitive and brain health and academic performance. Several reports (Datar et al., 2004; Datar and Sturm, 2006; Judge and Jahns, 2007; Gable et al., 2012) on this relationship are based on large-scale datasets derived from the Early Child Longitudinal Study. Further, nonhuman animal research has been used to elucidate the relationships between health indices and cognitive and brain health (see

Figure 4-4 for an overview of these relationships). Collectively, these studies observed poorer future academic performance among children who entered school overweight or moved from a healthy weight to overweight during the course of development. Corroborating evidence for a negative relationship between adiposity and academic performance may be found in smaller but more tightly controlled studies. As noted above, Castelli and colleagues (2007) observed poorer performance on the mathematics and reading portions of the Illinois Standardized Achievement Test in 3rd- and 5th-grade students as a function of higher BMI, and Donnelly and colleagues (2009) used a cluster randomized trial to demonstrate that physical activity in the classroom decreased BMI and improved academic achievement among pre-adolescent children.

Recently published reports describe the relationship between adiposity and cognitive and brain health to advance understanding of the basic cognitive processes and neural substrates that may underlie the adiposity-achievement relationship. Bolstered by findings in adult populations (e.g., Debette et al., 2010; Raji et al., 2010; Carnell et al., 2011), researchers have begun to publish data on preadolescent populations indicating differences

FIGURE 4-4 Relationships between health indices and cognitive and brain health. NOTE: AD = Alzheimer’s disease; PD = Parkinson’s disease. SOURCE: Cotman et al., 2007. Reprinted with permission.

in brain function and cognitive performance related to adiposity (however, see Gunstad et al., 2008, for an instance in which adiposity was unrelated to cognitive outcomes). Specifically, Kamijo and colleagues (2012a) examined the relationship of weight status to cognitive control and academic achievement in 126 children aged 7-9. The children completed a battery of cognitive control tasks, and their body composition was assessed using dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). The authors found that higher BMI and greater amounts of fat mass (particularly in the midsection) were related to poorer performance on cognitive control tasks involving inhibition, as well as lower academic achievement. In follow-up studies, Kamijo and colleagues (2012b) investigated whether neural markers of the relationship between adiposity and cognition may be found through examination of ERP data. These studies compared healthy-weight and obese children and found a differential distribution of the P3 potential (i.e., less frontally distributed) and larger N2 amplitude, as well as smaller ERN magnitude, in obese children during task conditions that required greater amounts of inhibitory control (Kamijo et al., 2012c). Taken together, the above results suggest that obesity is associated with less effective neural processes during stimulus capture and response execution. As a result, obese children perform tasks more slowly (Kamijo et al., 2012a) and are less accurate (Kamijo et al., 2012b,c) in response to tasks requiring variable amounts of cognitive control. Although these data are correlational, they provide a basis for further study using other neuroimaging tools (e.g., MRI, fMRI), as well as a rationale for the design and implementation of randomized controlled studies that would allow for causal interpretation of the relationship of adiposity to cognitive and brain health. The next decade should provide a great deal of information on this relationship.

LIMITATIONS

Despite the promising findings described in this chapter, it should be noted that the study of the relationship of childhood physical activity, aerobic fitness, and adiposity to cognitive and brain health and academic performance is in its early stages. Accordingly, most studies have used designs that afford correlation rather than causation. To date, in fact, only two randomized controlled trials (Davis et al., 2011; Kamijo et al., 2011) on this relationship have been published. However, several others are currently ongoing, and it was necessary to provide evidence through correlational studies before investing the effort, time, and funding required for more demanding causal studies. Given that the evidence base in this area has grown exponentially in the past 10 years through correlational studies and that causal evidence has accumulated through adult and nonhuman animal

studies, the next step will be to increase the amount of causal evidence available on school-age children.

Accomplishing this will require further consideration of demographic factors that may moderate the physical activity–cognition relationship. For instance, socioeconomic status has a unique relationship with physical activity (Estabrooks et al., 2003) and cognitive control (Mezzacappa, 2004). Although many studies have attempted to control for socioeconomic status (see Hillman et al., 2009; Kamijo et al., 2011, 2012a,b,c; Pontifex et al., 2011), further inquiry into its relationship with physical activity, adiposity, and cognition is warranted to determine whether it may serve as a potential mediator or moderator for the observed relationships. A second demographic factor that warrants further consideration is gender. Most authors have failed to describe gender differences when reporting on the physical activity–cognition literature. However, studies of adiposity and cognition have suggested that such a relationship may exist (see Datar and Sturm, 2006). Additionally, further consideration of age is warranted. Most studies have examined a relatively narrow age range, consisting of a few years. Such an approach often is necessary because of maturation and the need to develop comprehensive assessment tools that suit the various stages of development. However, this approach has yielded little understanding of how the physical activity–cognition relationship may change throughout the course of maturation.

Finally, although a number of studies have described the relationship of physical activity, fitness, and adiposity to standardized measures of academic performance, few attempts have been made to observe the relationship within the context of the educational environment. Standardized tests, although necessary to gauge knowledge, may not be the most sensitive measures for (the process of) learning. Future research will need to do a better job of translating promising laboratory findings to the real world to determine the value of this relationship in ecologically valid settings.

From an authentic and practical to a mechanistic perspective, physically active and aerobically fit children consistently outperform their inactive and unfit peers academically on both a short- and a long-term basis. Time spent engaged in physical activity is related not only to a healthier body but also to enriched cognitive development and lifelong brain health. Collectively, the findings across the body of literature in this area suggest that increases in aerobic fitness, derived from physical activity, are related to improvements in the integrity of brain structure and function that underlie academic performance. The strongest relationships have been found between aerobic fitness and performance in mathematics, reading, and English. For children

in a school setting, regular participation in physical activity is particularly beneficial with respect to tasks that require working memory and problem solving. These findings are corroborated by the results of both authentic correlational studies and experimental randomized controlled trials. Overall, the benefits of additional time dedicated to physical education and other physical activity opportunities before, during, and after school outweigh the benefits of exclusive utilization of school time for academic learning, as physical activity opportunities offered across the curriculum do not inhibit academic performance.

Both habitual and single bouts of physical activity contribute to enhanced academic performance. Findings indicate a robust relationship of acute exercise to increased attention, with evidence emerging for a relationship between participation in physical activity and disciplinary behaviors, time on task, and academic performance. Specifically, higher-fit children allocate greater resources to a given task and demonstrate less reliance on environmental cues or teacher prompting.

Åberg, M. A., N. L. Pedersen, K. Torén, M. Svartengren, B. Bäckstrand, T. Johnsson, C. M. Cooper-Kuhn, N. D. Åberg, M. Nilsson, and H. G. Kuhn. 2009. Cardiovascular fitness is associated with cognition in young adulthood. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106(49):20906-20911.

Aglioti, S. M., P. Cesari, M. Romani, and C. Urgesi. 2008. Action anticipation and motor resonance in elite basketball players. Nature Neuroscience 11(9):1109-1116.

Ahamed, Y., H. Macdonald, K. Reed, P. J. Naylor, T. Liu-Ambrose, and H. McKay. 2007. School-based physical activity does not compromise children’s academic performance. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 39(2):371-376.

Aron, A., R. Poldrack, and S. Wise. 2009. Cognition: Basal ganglia role. Encyclopedia of Neuroscience 2:1069-1077.

Barros, R. M., E. J. Silver, and R. E. K. Stein. 2009. School recess and group classroom behavior. Pediatrics 123(2):431-436.

Bartholomew, J. B., and E. M. Jowers. 2011. Physically active academic lessons in elementary children. Preventive Medicine 52(Suppl 1):S51-S54.

Basch, C. 2010. Healthier children are better learners: A missing link in school reforms to close the achievement gap . http://www.equitycampaign.org/i/a/document/12557_EquityMattersVol6_Web03082010.pdf (accessed October 11, 2011).

Baxter, S. D., J.A. Royer, J. W. Hardin, C. H. Guinn, and C. M. Devlin. 2011. The relationship of school absenteeism with body mass index, academic achievement, and socioeconomic status among fourth grade children. Journal of School Health 81(7):417-423.

Benden, M. E., J. J. Blake, M. L. Wendel, and J. C. Huber, Jr. 2011. The impact of stand-biased desks in classrooms on calorie expenditure in children. American Journal of Public Health 101(8):1433-1436.

Biddle, S. J., and M. Asare. 2011. Physical activity and mental health in children and adolescents: A review of reviews. British Journal of Sports Medicine 45(11):886-895.

Blair, C., P. D. Zelazo, and M. T. Greenberg. 2005. The measurement of executive function in early childhood. Developmental Neuropsychology 28(2):561-571.

Boecker, H. 2011. On the emerging role of neuroimaging in determining functional and structural brain integrity induced by physical exercise: Impact for predictive, preventive, and personalized medicine. EPMA Journal 2(3):277-285.

Botvinick, M. M., T. S. Braver, D. M. Barch, C. S. Carter, and J. D. Cohen. 2001. Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychological Review 108(3):624.

Budde, H., C. Voelcker-Rehage, S. Pietrabyk-Kendziorra, P. Ribeiro, and G. Tidow. 2008. Acute coordinative exercise improves attentional performance in adolescents. Neuroscience Letters 441(2):219-223.

Burkhalter, T. M., and C. H. Hillman. 2011. A narrative review of physical activity, nutrition, and obesity to cognition and scholastic performance across the human lifespan. Advances in Nutrition 2(2):201S-206S.

Carlson, S. A., J. E. Fulton, S. M. Lee, L. M. Maynard, D. R. Brown, H. W. Kohl III, and W. H. Dietz. 2008. Physical education and academic achievement in elementary school: Data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study. American Journal of Public Health 98(4):721-727.

Carnell, S., C. Gibson, L. Benson, C. Ochner, and A. Geliebter. 2011. Neuroimaging and obesity: Current knowledge and future directions. Obesity Reviews 13(1):43-56.

Casey, B., R. M. Jones, and T. A. Hare. 2008. The adolescent brain. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1124(1):111-126.

Castelli, D. M., C. H. Hillman, S. M. Buck, and H. E. Erwin. 2007. Physical fitness and academic achievement in third- and fifth-grade students. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 29(2):239-252.

Chaddock, L., K. I. Erickson, R. S. Prakash, J. S. Kim, M. W. Voss, M. VanPatter, M. B. Pontifex, L. B. Raine, A. Konkel, and C. H. Hillman. 2010a. A neuroimaging investigation of the association between aerobic fitness, hippocampal volume, and memory performance in preadolescent children. Brain Research 1358:172-183.

Chaddock, L., K. I. Erickson, R. S. Prakash, M. VanPatter, M. W. Voss, M. B. Pontifex, L. B. Raine, C. H. Hillman, and A. F. Kramer. 2010b. Basal ganglia volume is associated with aerobic fitness in preadolescent children. Developmental Neuroscience 32(3):249-256.

Chaddock, L., C. H. Hillman, S. M. Buck, and N. J. Cohen. 2011. Aerobic fitness and executive control of relational memory in preadolescent children. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 43(2):344.

Chaddock, L., K. I. Erickson, R. S. Prakash, M. W. Voss, M. VanPatter, M. B. Pontifex, C. H. Hillman, and A. F. Kramer. 2012. A functional MRI investigation of the association between childhood aerobic fitness and neurocognitive control. Biological Psychology 89(1):260-268.

Chan, A. S., Y. C. Ho, and M. C. Cheung. 1998. Music training improves verbal memory. Nature 396(6707):128.

Chang, Y.-K., and J. L. Etnier. 2009. Effects of an acute bout of localized resistance exercise on cognitive performance in middle-aged adults: A randomized controlled trial study. Psychology of Sport and Exercise 10(1):19-24.

Chih, C. H., and J.-F. Chen. 2011. The relationship between physical education performance, fitness tests, and academic achievement in elementary school. International Journal of Sport and Society 2(1):65-73.

Chomitz, V. R., M. M. Slining, R. J. McGowan, S. E. Mitchell, G. F. Dawson, and K. A. Hacker. 2008. Is there a relationship between physical fitness and academic achievement? Positive results from public school children in the northeastern United States. Journal of School Health 79(1):30-37.

Coe, D. P., J. M. Pivarnik, C. J. Womack, M. J. Reeves, and R. M. Malina. 2006. Effect of physical education and activity levels on academic achievement in children. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 38(8):1515-1519.

Cohen, N. J., and H. Eichenbaum. 1993. Memory, amnesia, and the hippocampal system . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Cohen, N. J., J. Ryan, C. Hunt, L. Romine, T. Wszalek, and C. Nash. 1999. Hippocampal system and declarative (relational) memory: Summarizing the data from functional neuroimaging studies. Hippocampus 9(1):83-98.

Colcombe, S. J., and A. F. Kramer. 2003. Fitness effects on the cognitive function of older adults a meta-analytic study. Psychological Science 14(2):125-130.

Colcombe, S. J., K. I. Erickson, N. Raz, A. G. Webb, N. J. Cohen, E. McAuley, and A. F. Kramer. 2003. Aerobic fitness reduces brain tissue loss in aging humans. Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences 58(2):M176-M180.

Colcombe, S. J., A. F. Kramer, K. I. Erickson, P. Scalf, E. McAuley, N. J. Cohen, A. Webb, G. J. Jerome, D. X. Marquez, and S. Elavsky. 2004. Cardiovascular fitness, cortical plasticity, and aging. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 101(9):3316-3321.

Colcombe, S. J., K. I. Erickson, P. E. Scalf, J. S. Kim, R. Prakash, E. McAuley, S. Elavsky, D. X. Marquez, L. Hu, and A. F. Kramer. 2006. Aerobic exercise training increases brain volume in aging humans. Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences 61(11):1166-1170.

Cooper, K., D. Everett, J. Kloster, M. D. Meredith, M. Rathbone, K. Read. 2010. Preface: Texas statewide assessment of youth fitness. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 81(3):ii.

Cotman, C. W., N. C. Berchtold, and L.-A. Christie. 2007. Exercise builds brain health: Key roles of growth factor cascades and inflammation. Trends in Neurosciences 30(9):464-472.

Cottrell, L. A., K. Northrup, and R. Wittberg. 2007. The extended relationship between child cardiovascular risks and academic performance measures. Obesity (Silver Spring) 15(12):3170-3177.

Crosnoe, R. 2002. Academic and health-related trajectories in high school: The intersection of gender and athletics. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 43:317-335.

Daley, A. J., and J. Ryan. 2000. Academic performance and participation in physical activity by secondary school adolescents. Perceptual and Motor Skills 91(2):531-534.

Datar, A., and R. Sturm. 2004. Physical education in elementary school and body mass index: Evidence from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study. Journal Information 94(9):1501-1509.

Datar, A., and R. Sturm. 2006. Childhood overweight and elementary school outcomes. International Journal of Obesity 30(9):1449-1460.

Datar, A., R. Sturm, and J. L. Magnabosco. 2004. Childhood overweight and academic performance: National study of kindergartners and first-graders. Obesity Research 12(1):58-68.

Davidson, M. C., D. Amso, L. C. Anderson, and A. Diamond. 2006. Development of cognitive control and executive functions from 4 to 13 years: Evidence from manipulations of memory, inhibition, and task switching. Neuropsychologia 44(11):2037.

Davis, C. L., P. D. Tomporowski, J. E. McDowell, B. P. Austin, P. H. Miller, N. E. Yanasak, J. D. Allison, and J. A. Naglieri. 2011. Exercise improves executive function and achievement and alters brain activation in overweight children: A randomized, controlled trial. Health Psychology 30(1):91-98.

Dawson, P., and R. Guare. 2004. Executive skills in children and adolescents: A practical guide to assessment and intervention . New York: Guilford Press. Pp. 2-8.

Debette, S., A. Beiser, U. Hoffmann, C. DeCarli, C. J. O’Donnell, J. M. Massaro, R. Au, J. J. Himali, P. A. Wolf, C. S. Fox, and S. Seshadri. 2010. Visceral fat is associated with lower brain volume in healthy middle-aged adults. Annals of Neurology 68:136-144.

Dexter, T. T. (1999). Relationships between sport knowledge, sport performance and academic ability: Empirical evidence from GCSE physical education. Journal of Sports Sciences 17(4):283-295.

Diamond, A. 2006. The early development of executive functions. In Lifespan cognition: Mechanisms of change , edited by E. Bialystok and F. I. M. Craik. New York: Oxford University Press. Pp. 70-95.

Donchin, E. 1981. Surprise! … surprise? Psychophysiology 18(5):493-513.

Donchin, E., and M. G. H. Coles. 1988. Is the P300 component a manifestation of context updating? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 11(03):357-374.

Donnelly, J. E., and K. Lambourne. 2011. Classroom-based physical activity, cognition, and academic achievement. Preventive Medicine 52(Suppl 1):S36-S42.

Donnelly, J. E., J. L. Greene, C. A. Gibson, B. K. Smith, R. A. Washburn, D. K. Sullivan, K. DuBose, M. S. Mayo, K. H. Schmelzle, and J. J. Ryan. 2009. Physical Activity Across the Curriculum (PAAC): A randomized controlled trial to promote physical activity and diminish overweight and obesity in elementary school children. Preventive Medicine 49(4):336-341.

Drollette, E. S., T. Shishido, M. B. Pontifex, and C. H. Hillman. 2012. Maintenance of cognitive control during and after walking in preadolescent children. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 44(10):2017-2024.

Duncan, S. C., T. E. Duncan, L. A. Strycker, and N. R. Chaumeton. 2007. A cohort-sequential latent growth model of physical activity from ages 12 to 17 years. Annals of Behavioral Medicine 33(1):80-89.

Duncan-Johnson, C. C. 1981. P3 latency: A new metric of information processing. Psychophysiology 18:207-215.

Dwyer, T., W. Coonan, A. Worsley, and D. Leitch. 1979. An assessment of the effects of two physical activity programmes on coronary heart disease risk factors in primary school children. Community Health Studies 3(3):196-202.

Dwyer, T., W. E. Coonan, D. R. Leitch, B. S. Hetzel, and R. Baghurst. 1983. An investigation of the effects of daily physical activity on the health of primary school students in south Australia. International Journal of Epidemiology 12(3):308-313.

Edwards, J. U., L. Mauch, and M. R. Winkleman. 2011. Relationship of nutrition and physical activity behaviors and fitness measures to academic performance for sixth graders in a Midwest city school district. Journal of School Health 81:65-73.

Efrat, M. 2011. The relationship between low-income and minority children’s physical activity and academic-related outcomes: A review of the literature. Health Education and Behavior 38(5):441-451.

Eitle, T. M. 2005. Do gender and race matter? Explaining the relationship between sports participation and achievement. Sociological Spectrum 25(2):177-195.

Eitle, T. M., and D. J. Eitle. 2002. Race, cultural capital, and the educational effects of participation in sports. Sociology of Education 123-146.

Elbert, T., C. Pantev, C. Wienbruch, B. Rockstroh, and E. Taub. 1995. Increased cortical representation of the fingers of the left hand in string players. Science 270(5234):305-307.

Elder, C., D. Leaver-Dunn, M. Q. Wang, S. Nagy, and L. Green. 2000. Organized group activity as a protective factor against adolescent substance use. American Journal of Health Behavior 24(2):108-113.

Ellemberg, D., and M. St-Louis-Deschênes. 2010. The effect of acute physical exercise on cognitive function during development. Psychology of Sport and Exercise 11(2):122-126.

Erickson, K. I., R. S. Prakash, M. W. Voss, L. Chaddock, L. Hu, K. S. Morris, S. M. White, T. R. Wójcicki, E. McAuley, and A. F. Kramer. 2009. Aerobic fitness is associated with hippocampal volume in elderly humans. Hippocampus 19(10):1030-1039.

Erickson, K. I., M. W. Voss, R. S. Prakash, C. Basak, A. Szabo, L. Chaddock, J. S. Kim, S. Heo, H. Alves, and S. M. White. 2011. Exercise training increases size of hippo-campus and improves memory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 108(7):3017-3022.

Ericsson, K. A., and N. Charness. 1994. Expert performance: Its structure and acquisition. American Psychologist 49(8):725.

Estabrooks, P. A, R. E. Lee, and N. C. Gyurcsik. 2003. Resources for physical activity participation: Does availability and accessibility differ by neighborhood socioeconomic status? Annals of Behavioral Medicine 25(2):100-104.

Etnier, J. L., W. Salazar, D. M. Landers, S. J. Petruzzello, M. Han, and P. Nowell. 1997. The influence of physical fitness and exercise upon cognitive functioning: A meta-analysis. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 19(3):249-277.

Etnier, J. L., P. M. Nowell, D. M. Landers, and B. A. Sibley. 2006. A meta-regression to examine the relationship between aerobic fitness and cognitive performance. Brain Research Reviews 52(1):119-130.

Eveland-Sayers, B. M., R. S. Farley, D. K. Fuller, D. W. Morgan, and J. L. Caputo. 2009. Physical fitness and academic achievement in elementary school children. Journal of Physical Activity and Health 6(1):99.

Fan, X., and Chen, M. (2001). Parental involvement and students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review 13(1):1-22.

Fedewa, A. L., and S. Ahn. 2011. The effects of physical activity and physical fitness on children’s achievement and cognitive outcomes: A meta-analysis. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 82(3):521-535.

Fisher, M., L. Juszczak, and S. B. Friedman. 1996. Sports participation in an urban high school: Academic and psychologic correlates. Journal of Adolescent Health 18(5):329-334.

Fox, C. K., D. Barr-Anderson, D. Neumark-Sztainer, and M. Wall. 2010. Physical activity and sports team participation: Associations with academic outcomes in middle school and high school students. Journal of School Health 80(1):31-37.

Fredericks, C. R., S. J. Kokot, and S. Krog. 2006. Using a developmental movement programme to enhance academic skills in grade 1 learners. South African Journal for Research in Sport, Physical Education and Recreation 28(1):29-42.

Gabbard, C., and J. Barton. 1979. Effects of physical activity on mathematical computation among young children. Journal of Psychology 103:287-288.

Gable, S., J. L. Krull, and Y. Chang. 2012. Boys’ and girls’ weight status and math performance from kindergarten entry through fifth grade: A mediated analysis. Child Development 83(5):1822-1839.

Gehring, W. J., B. Goss, M. G. Coles, D. E. Meyer, and E. Donchin. 1993. A neural system for error detection and compensation. Psychological Science 4(6):385-390.

Getlinger, M. J., V. Laughlin, E. Bell, C. Akre, and B. H. Arjmandi. 1996. Food waste is reduced when elementary-school children have recess before lunch. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 96(9):906.

Glenmark, B. 1994. Skeletal muscle fiber types, physical performance, physical activity and attitude to physical activity in women and men: A follow-up from age 16-27. Acta Physiologica Scandinavica Supplementum 623:1-47.

Grieco, L. A., E. M. Jowers, and J. B. Bartholomew. 2009. Physically active academic lessons and time on task: The moderating effect of body mass index. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 41(10):1921-1926.

Grissom, J. B. 2005. Physical fitness and academic achievement. Journal of Exercise Physiology Online 8(1):11-25.

Gunstad, J., M. B. Spitznagel, R. H. Paul, R. A. Cohen, M. Kohn, F. S. Luyster, R. Clark, L. M. Williams, and E. Gordon. 2008. Body mass index and neuropsychological function in healthy children and adolescents. Appetite 5(2):246-51.

Hanson, S. L., and R. S. Kraus. 1998. Women, sports, and science: Do female athletes have an advantage? Sociology of Education 71:93-110.

Hatfield, B. D., and C. H. Hillman. 2001. The psychophysiology of sport: A mechanistic understanding of the psychology of superior performance. In The handbook of research on sport psychology (2nd ed.), edited by R. N. Singer, H. A. Hausenblas, and C. Janelle. New York: John Wiley. Pp. 362-386.

Hillman, C. H., E. M. Snook, and G. J. Jerome. 2003. Acute cardiovascular exercise and executive control function. International Journal of Psychophysiology 48(3):307-314.

Hillman, C. H., D. M. Castelli, and S. M. Buck. 2005. Aerobic fitness and neurocognitive function in healthy preadolescent children. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 37(11):1967.

Hillman, C. H., R. W. Motl, M. B. Pontifex, D. Posthuma, J. H. Stubbe, D. I. Boomsma, and E. J. C. De Geus. 2006. Physical activity and cognitive function in a cross-section of younger and older community-dwelling individuals. Health Psychology 25(6):678.

Hillman, C. H., K. I. Erickson, and A. F. Kramer. 2008. Be smart, exercise your heart: Exercise effects on brain and cognition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 9(1):58-65.

Hillman, C. H., M. B. Pontifex, L. B. Raine, D. M. Castelli, E. E. Hall, and A. F. Kramer. 2009. The effect of acute treadmill walking on cognitive control and academic achievement in preadolescent children. Neuroscience 159(3):1044.

Holroyd, C. B., and M. G. Coles. 2002. The neural basis of human error processing: Reinforcement learning, dopamine, and the error-related negativity. Psychological Review 109(4):679.

Huttenlocher, P. R., and A. S. Dabholkar. 1997. Regional differences in synaptogenesis in human cerebral cortex. Journal of Comparative Neurology 387(2):167-178.

Ila, A. B., and J. Polich. 1999. P300 and response time from a manual Stroop task. Clinical Neurophysiology 110(2):367-373.

Jarrett, O. S., D. M. Maxwell, C. Dickerson, P. Hoge, G. Davies, and A. Yetley. 1998. Impact of recess on classroom behavior: Group effects and individual differences. Journal of Educational Research 92(2):121-126.

Jones, J. G., and L. Hardy. 1989. Stress and cognitive functioning in sport. Journal of Sports Sciences 7(1):41-63.

Judge, S., and L. Jahns. 2007. Association of overweight with academic performance and social and behavioral problems: An update from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study. Journal of School Health 77:672-678.

Kamijo, K., M. B. Pontifex, K. C. O’Leary, M. R. Scudder, C. T. Wu, D. M. Castelli, and C. H. Hillman. 2011. The effects of an afterschool physical activity program on working memory in preadolescent children. Developmental Science 14(5):1046-1058.

Kamijo, K., N. A. Khan, M. B. Pontifex, M. R. Scudder, E. S. Drollette, L. B. Raine, E. M. Evans, D. M. Castelli, and C. H. Hillman. 2012a. The relation of adiposity to cognitive control and scholastic achievement in preadolescent children. Obesity 20(12):2406-2411.

Kamijo, K., M. B. Pontifex, N. A. Khan, L. B. Raine, M. R. Scudder, E. S. Drollette, E. M. Evans, D. M. Castelli, and C. H. Hillman. 2012b. The association of childhood obesity to neuroelectric indices of inhibition. Psychophysiology 49(10):1361-1371.

Kamijo, K., M. B. Pontifex, N. A. Khan, L. B. Raine, M. R. Scudder, E. S. Drollette, E. M. Evans, D. M. Castelli, and C. H. Hillman. 2012c. The negative association of childhood obesity to the cognitive control of action monitoring. Cerebral Cortex . Epub ahead of print, November 11. cercor.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2012/11/09/cercor.bhs349.long (accessed October 4, 2013).

Kibbe, D. L., J. Hackett, M. Hurley, A. McFarland, K. G. Schubert, A. Schultz, and S. Harris. 2011. Ten years of TAKE 10! ® : Integrating physical activity with academic concepts in elementary school classrooms. Preventive Medicine 52(Suppl):S43-S50.

Kramer, A. F., and K. I. Erickson. 2007. Capitalizing on cortical plasticity: Influence of physical activity on cognition and brain function. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 11(8):342-348.

Kramer, A. F., S. Hahn, N. J. Cohen, M. T. Banich, E. McAuley, C. R. Harrison, J. Chason, E. Vakil, L. Bardell, and R. A. Boileau. 1999. Ageing, fitness and neurocognitive function. Nature 400(6743):418-419.

Kutas, M., G. McCarthy, and E. Donchin. 1977. Augmenting mental chronometry: The P300 as a measure of stimulus evaluation time. Science 197(4305):792-795.

London, R. A., and S. Castrechini. 2011. A longitudinal examination of the link between youth physical fitness and academic achievement. Journal of School Health 81(7):400-408.

MacDonald, A. W., J. D. Cohen, V. A. Stenger, and C. S. Carter. 2000. Dissociating the role of the dorsolateral prefrontal and anterior cingulate cortex in cognitive control. Science 288(5472):1835-1838.

Magliero, A., T. R. Bashore, M. G. Coles, and E. Donchin. 1984. On the dependence of P300 latency on stimulus evaluation processes. Psychophysiology 21(2):171-186.

Mahar, M. T., S. K. Murphy, D. A. Rowe, J. Golden, A. T. Shields, and T. D. Raedeke. 2006. Effects of a classroom-based program on physical activity and on-task behavior. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 38(12):2086.

Mechanic, D., and S. Hansell. 1987. Adolescent competence, psychological well-being, and self-assessed physical health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 28(4):364-374.

Mezzacappa, E. 2004. Alerting, orienting, and executive attention: Developmental properties and sociodemographic correlates in an epidemiological sample of young, urban children. Child Development 75(5):1373-1386.

Miller, K. E., M. J. Melnick, G. M. Barnes, M. P. Farrell, and D. Sabo. 2005. Untangling the links among the athletic involvement, gender, race, and adolescent academic outcomes. Sociology of Sport 22(2):178-193.

Monti, J. M., C. H. Hillman, and N. J. Cohen. 2012. Aerobic fitness enhances relational memory in preadolescent children: The FITKids randomized control trial. Hippocampus 22(9):1876-1882.

Münte, T. F., C. Kohlmetz, W. Nager, and E. Altenmüller. 2001. Superior auditory spatial tuning in conductors. Nature 409(6820):580.

NASPE (National Association for Sport and Physical Education). 2004. Moving into the future: National Physical Education Content Standards (2nd ed.). Reston, VA: NASPE.

NASPE. 2006. Recess for elementary school students . http://www.aahperd.org/naspe/standards/upload/recess-for-elementary-school-students-2006.pdf (accessed December 1, 2012).

Neeper, S. A., F. Gomez-Pinilla, J. Choi, and C. Cotman. 1995. Exercise and brain neuro-trophins. Nature 373(6510):109.

NRC (National Research Council)/IOM (Institute of Medicine). 2000. From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early childhood development . Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

O’Leary, K. C., M. B. Pontifex, M. R. Scudder, M. L. Brown, and C. H. Hillman. 2011. The effects of single bouts of aerobic exercise, exergaming, and videogame play on cognitive control. Clinical Neurophysiology 122(8):1518-1525.

Page, R. M., J. Hammermeister, A. Scanlan, and L. Gilbert. 1998. Is school sports participation a protective factor against adolescent health risk behaviors? Journal of Health Education 29(3):186-192.

Pellegrini, A. D., and C. M. Bohn. 2005. The role of recess in children’s cognitive performance and school adjustment. Educational Researcher 34(1):13-19.

Pellegrini, A. D., P. D. Huberty, and I. Jones. 1995. The effects of recess timing on children’s playground and classroom behaviors. American Educational Research Journal 32(4):845-864.

Pesce, C., C. Crova, L. Cereatti, R. Casella, and M. Bellucci. 2009. Physical activity and mental performance in preadolescents: Effects of acute exercise on free-recall memory. Mental Health and Physical Activity 2(1):16-22.

Polich, J. 1997. EEG and ERP assessment of normal aging. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology/Evoked Potentials Section 104(3):244-256.

Polich, J., and M. R. Heine. 2007. P300 topography and modality effects from a single-stimulus paradigm. Psychophysiology 33(6):747-752.

Pontifex, M. B., L. B. Raine, C. R. Johnson, L. Chaddock, M. W. Voss, N. J. Cohen, A. F. Kramer, and C. H. Hillman. 2011. Cardiorespiratory fitness and the flexible modulation of cognitive control in preadolescent children. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 23(6):1332-1345.

Pontifex, M. B., M. R. Scudder, E. S. Drollette, and C. H. Hillman. 2012. Fit and vigilant: The relationship between sedentary behavior and failures in sustained attention during preadolescence. Neuropsychology 26(4):407-413.

Pontifex, M. B., B. J. Saliba, L. B. Raine, D. L. Picchietti, and C. H. Hillman. 2013. Exercise improves behavioral, neurophysiologic, and scholastic performance in children with ADHD. Journal of Pediatrics 162:543-551.

Raji, C. A., A. J. Ho, N. N. Parikshak, J. T. Becker, O. L. Lopez, L. H. Kuller, X. Hua, A. D. Leow, A. W. Toga, and P. M. Thompson. 2010. Brain structure and obesity. Human Brain Mapping 31(3):353-364.

Rasberry, C. N., S. M. Lee, L. Robin, B. A. Laris, L. A. Russell, K. K. Coyle, and A. J. Nihiser. 2011. The association between school-based physical activity, including physical education, and academic performance: A systematic review of the literature. Preventive Medicine 52(Suppl 1):S10-S20.

Raz, N. 2000. Aging of the brain and its impact on cognitive performance: Integration of structural and functional findings. In The handbook of aging and cognition . Vol. 2, edited by F. M. Craik and T. A. Salthouse. Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Pp. 1-90.

Reed, J. A., G. Einstein, E. Hahn, S. P. Hooker, V. P. Gross, and J. Kravitz. 2010. Examining the impact of integrating physical activity on fluid intelligence and academic performance in an elementary school setting: A preliminary investigation. Journal of Physical Activity and Health 7(3):343-351.

Ruiz, J. R., F. B. Ortega, R. Castillo, M. Martin-Matillas, L. Kwak, G. Vicente-Rodriguez, J. Noriega, P. Tercedor, M. Sjostrom, and L. A. Moreno. 2010. Journal of Pediatrics 157(6):917-922.

Sallis, J. F., T. L. McKenzie, B. Kolody, M. Lewis, S. Marshall, and P. Rosengard. 1999. Effects of health-related physical education on academic achievement: Project SPARK. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 70(2):127-134.

Sanders, A. 1983. Towards a model of stress and human performance. Acta Psychologica 53(1):61-97.

Shephard, R. J. 1986. Habitual physical activity and academic performance. Nutrition Reviews 54(4):S32-S36.

Shephard, R. J., M. Volle, H. Lavallee, R. LaBarre, J. Jequier, and M. Rajic. 1984. Required physical activity and academic grades: A controlled study. In Children and Sport. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag. Pp. 58-63.

Sibley, B. A., and J. L. Etnier. 2003. The relationship between physical activity and cognition in children: A meta-analysis. Pediatric Exercise Science 15:243-256.

Silliker, S. A., and J. T. Quirk. 1997. The effect of extracurricular activity participation on the academic performance of male and female high school students. School Counselor 44(4):288-293.

Singh, A., L. Uijtdewilligen, J. W. R. Twisk, W. van Mechelen, and M. J. M. Chinapaw. 2012. Physical activity and performance at school: A systematic review of the literature including a methodological quality assessment. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine 166(1):49-55.

Sirin, S. R. 2005. Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of research. Review of Educational Research 75(3):417-453.

Smith, P. J., J. A. Blumenthal, B. M. Hoffman, H. Cooper, T. A. Strauman, K. Welsh-Bohmer, J. N. Browndyke, and A. Sherwood. 2010. Aerobic exercise and neuro-cognitive performance: A meta-analytic review of randomized controlled trials. Psychosomatic Medicine 72(3):239-252.

Stanca, L. 2006. The effects of attendance on academic performance: Panel data evidence for introductory microeconomics. Journal of Economic Education 37(3):251-266.

Stephens, L. J., and L. A. Schaben. 2002. The effect of interscholastic sports participation on academic achievement of middle level school activities. National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin 86:34-42.

Stewart, J. A., D. A. Dennison, H. W. Kohl III, and J. A. Doyle. 2004. Exercise level and energy expenditure in the TAKE 10! ® in-class physical activity program. Journal of School Health 74(10):397-400.

Strong, W. B., R. M. Malina, C. J. Blimkie, S. R. Daniels, R. K. Dishman, B. Gutin, A. C. Hergenroeder, A. Must, P. A. Nixon, J. M. Pivarnik, T. Rowland, S. Trost, and F. Trudeau. 2005. Evidence based physical activity for school-age youth. Journal of Pediatrics 146(6):732-737.

Taliaferro, L. A., B. A. Rienzo, and K. A. Donovan. 2010. Relationships between youth sport participation and selected health risk behaviors from 1999 to 2007. Journal of School Health 80(8):399-410.

Taylor, M. J. 2006. Neural bases of cognitive development. In Lifespan cognition: Mechanisms of change , edited by E. Bialystok and F. I. M. Craik. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Pp. 15-26.

Telama, R., X. Yang, L. Laakso, and J. Viikari. 1997. Physical activity in childhood and adolescence as predictor of physical activity in young adulthood. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 13(4):317-323.

Thomas, A. G., A. Dennis, P. A. Bandettini, and H. Johansen-Berg. 2012. The effects of aerobic activity on brain structure. Frontiers in Psychology 3:1-9.

Tomporowski, P. D. 2003. Effects of acute bouts of exercise on cognition. Acta Psychologica 112(3):297-324.

Tomporowski, P. D., C. L. Davis, P. H. Miller, and J. A. Naglieri. 2008a. Exercise and children’s intelligence, cognition, and academic achievement. Educational Psychology Review 20(2):111-131.

Tomporowski, P. D., C. L. Davis, K. Lambourne, M. Gregoskis, J. Tkacz. 2008b. Task switching in overweight children: Effects of acute exercise and age. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 30(5):497-511.

Trudeau, F., and R. J. Shephard. 2008. Physical education, school physical activity, school sports and academic performance. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 5.

Trudeau, F., and R. J. Shephard. 2010. Relationships of physical activity to brain health and the academic performance of school children. American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine 4:138-150.

Trudeau, F., L. Laurencelle, J. Tremblay, M. Rajic, and R. Shephard. 1999. Daily primary school physical education: Effects on physical activity during adult life. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 31(1):111.

Trudeau, F., R. J. Shephard, F. Arsenault, and L. Laurencelle. 2001. Changes in adiposity and body mass index from late childhood to adult life in the Trois-Rivières study. American Journal of Human Biology 13(3):349-355.

Trudeau, F., L. Laurencelle, and R. J. Shephard. 2004. Tracking of physical activity from childhood to adulthood. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 36(11):1937.

Van Dusen, D. P., S. H. Kelder, H. W. Kohl III, N. Ranjit, and C. L. Perry. 2011. Associations of physical fitness and academic performance among schoolchildren. Journal of School Health 81(12):733-740.

Van Praag, H., G. Kempermann, and F. H. Gage. 1999. Running increases cell proliferation and neurogenesis in the adult mouse dentate gyrus. Nature Neuroscience 2(3):266-270.

Voss, M. W., L. Chaddock, J. S. Kim, M. VanPatter, M. B. Pontifex, L. B. Raine, N. J. Cohen, C. H. Hillman, and A. F. Kramer. 2011. Aerobic fitness is associated with greater efficiency of the network underlying cognitive control in preadolescent children. Neuroscience 199:166-176.

Wechsler, H., N. D. Brener, S. Kuester, and C. Miller. 2001. Food service and food and beverage available at school: Results from the School Health Policies and Programs Study. Journal of School Health 71(7):313-324.

Welk, G. J., A. W. Jackson, J. Morrow, R. James, W. H. Haskell, M. D. Meredith, and K. H. Cooper. 2010. The association of health-related fitness with indicators of academic performance in Texas schools. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 81(Suppl 2):16S-23S.

Welk, G. J., S. B. Going, J. R. Morrow, and M. D. Meredith. 2011. Development of new criterion-referenced fitness standards in the Fitnessgram ® program. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 41(2):6.

Wilkins, J., G. Graham, S. Parker, S. Westfall, R. Fraser, and M. Tembo. 2003. Time in the arts and physical education and school achievement. Journal of Curriculum Studies 35(6):721-734.

Wittberg, R., L. A. Cottrell, C. L. Davis, and K. L. Northrup. 2010. Aerobic fitness thresholds associated with fifth grade academic achievement. American Journal of Health Education 41(5):284-291.

Yeung, N., M. M. Botvinick, and J. D. Cohen. 2004. The neural basis of error detection: Conflict monitoring and the error-related negativity. Psychological Review 111(4):931.

Zhu, W., G. J. Welk, M. D. Meredith, and E. A. Boiarskaia. 2010. A survey of physical education programs and policies in Texas schools. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 81(Suppl 2):42S-52S.

Physical inactivity is a key determinant of health across the lifespan. A lack of activity increases the risk of heart disease, colon and breast cancer, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, osteoporosis, anxiety and depression and others diseases. Emerging literature has suggested that in terms of mortality, the global population health burden of physical inactivity approaches that of cigarette smoking. The prevalence and substantial disease risk associated with physical inactivity has been described as a pandemic.

The prevalence, health impact, and evidence of changeability all have resulted in calls for action to increase physical activity across the lifespan. In response to the need to find ways to make physical activity a health priority for youth, the Institute of Medicine's Committee on Physical Activity and Physical Education in the School Environment was formed. Its purpose was to review the current status of physical activity and physical education in the school environment, including before, during, and after school, and examine the influences of physical activity and physical education on the short and long term physical, cognitive and brain, and psychosocial health and development of children and adolescents.

Educating the Student Body makes recommendations about approaches for strengthening and improving programs and policies for physical activity and physical education in the school environment. This report lays out a set of guiding principles to guide its work on these tasks. These included: recognizing the benefits of instilling life-long physical activity habits in children; the value of using systems thinking in improving physical activity and physical education in the school environment; the recognition of current disparities in opportunities and the need to achieve equity in physical activity and physical education; the importance of considering all types of school environments; the need to take into consideration the diversity of students as recommendations are developed.

This report will be of interest to local and national policymakers, school officials, teachers, and the education community, researchers, professional organizations, and parents interested in physical activity, physical education, and health for school-aged children and adolescents.

READ FREE ONLINE

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

Show this book's table of contents , where you can jump to any chapter by name.

...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

Switch between the Original Pages , where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter .

Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

Get Email Updates

Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free ? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Int J Environ Res Public Health

Status and Influencing Factors of Physical Exercise among College Students in China: A Systematic Review

Mingzhu pan.

1 School of Physical Education, Shangrao Normal University, Shangrao 334001, China

2 Exercise and Sports Science Programme, School of Health Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kubang Kerian 16150, Kelantan, Malaysia

Binbin Ying

3 Health Supervision Institute of Shanghai Huangpu District Health Bureau, Shanghai 200011, China

4 School of Education Science, Shangrao Normal University, Shangrao 334001, China

Associated Data

The data used are available within the manuscript.

The status of the physical exercise of college students has been a popular topic in China. This study systematically reviewed the exercise status of Chinese college students and its influencing factors. A keyword and reference search were conducted in the Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane library, and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure. Additionally, Google Scholar was searched to collect literatures related to physical activity of Chinese university students published in Chinese and English from 1 January 2017 to 30 July 2022. Fifteen studies met the selection criteria and were included in the review. The results show that the main motivation for Chinese college students to exercise is to strengthen their bodies, with running and walking ranking first and ball games ranking second in importance. Most of the college students exercised three times a week, which is the recommended minimum, and most of their workouts were of moderate intensity. Additionally, the workouts lasted for 30 min to 60 min. The main factors affecting college students’ exercise are lack of time due to academic pressure, facilities constraints, and lack of professional exercise guidance. In conclusion, the physical fitness of university students should not be underestimated, and this study provides additional reference to promote healthier lifestyles among Chinese college students.

1. Introduction

With rapid social and economic development, people’s awareness of health is increasing. The ‘Healthy China 2030 plan’, which was proposed in 2016, advocates for increasing young people’s passion in sport, ensuring that schoolchildren engage in more than an hour of physical activity daily and the youth become proficient in more than one motor skill [ 1 ]. The program, which offers a sound theoretical foundation for student health, specifies that school students should engage in moderate-intensity physical activity more than three times per week and that the national criteria for student physical fitness should be at least 25% excellent. Meanwhile, it has been five years since the Healthy China plan was officially proposed and implemented. Therefore, this study takes this context as an entry point to explore the physical activity status of Chinese university students during this five-year period.

University is the last stage of physical education for students, and how they exercise there has a big impact on whether or not they developed a lifelong interest in sports. University students are generally between the ages of 18 and 23 [ 2 ]. Psychologically, they are essentially adults with their own perspectives and thinking. All physical functions have reached their peak in adulthood, and physical abilities like endurance, speed, and explosive power have increased [ 3 ]. Meanwhile, it has been proven that exercise can reduce poor mental health, self-harm, and suicidal attempts [ 4 ]. In addition, risks for depression, type 2 diabetes, ischemic heart disease, and other illness are linked to physical inactivity [ 5 ]. Therefore, the strategies needed to promote physical activity have become an important public health approach for the prevention of chronic diseases. It has been established that adults engaging in regular physical activity will improve their health [ 6 ]. Thus, for college students, maintaining good exercise habits can effectively reduce their risk of chronic diseases. Moreover, the academic years are the optimum time for university students to learn the fundamentals of exercise, form the proper participation habits in sports, and cultivate a lifelong sports consciousness.

However, several recent National Youth Physical Fitness Reports showed that the overall physical fitness of college students in China is on a downward trend [ 7 ]. The main manifestations are that the students’ amount of exercise decreases year by year, the obesity rate occurs and develops rapidly, the height, body weight, and chest circumference of students increase rapidly, but the lungs capacity and strength quality continue to decline [ 8 ]. Meanwhile, college students’ subjectivity is neglected during the process of physical education, and multiple factors cause the lack of awareness of the importance of exercise among university students [ 9 ]. Based on this circumstance, it has become an important part of our education to improve and increase university students’ interest towards participating in sports, improve their enthusiasm to participate in sports, increase their awareness to exercise on their own, and enhance their physical fitness.

To understand the current situation of exercise among Chinese university students and its influencing factors, and to provide a reference for promoting the development of a healthy lifestyle among university students, this study conducted a systematic review from relevant Chinese and English literature on exercise among Chinese university students published in five years from 1 January 2017 to 31 July 2022. We aimed to identify (a) the exercise status of college students in China and (b) influencing factors of exercise among college students in China.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. eligibility criteria.

Inclusion criteria: (1) Research design: cross-sectional studies, interventions or experiments, retrospective or prospective cohort studies; (2) Subjects: College students; (3) Outcomes: the research investigated the statistical relationships with variables and provided a measurement of physical activity as the dependent outcome. (4) Country/area: mainland China; (5) Type of article: peer-reviewed articles; (6) Time range: published from 1 January 2017 to 31 July 2022.

Exclusion criteria: (1) Article types are pure overviews, news, press releases, reviews, and conference bulletins; (2) Unavailable full text; (3) Insufficient data; (4) Published before 2017.

2.2. Search Strategy

A keyword search was performed in the four electronic bibliographic databases: Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, and the CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure). Additionally, we also conducted hand-searching in Google Scholar. The search algorithm included all possible combinations of keywords from the following two groups: (1) “exercise”, “exercises”, “physical activity”, “physical activities”, “ motor activity”, “ motor activities”, “fitness”, “workout”, “physical fitness”, “active lifestyle”, “active lifestyles”, “sports”, “sport”; (2) “Chinese college students”, “Chinese college student”, “Chinese university students”, “Chinese university student”, “Chinese undergraduates”. The search algorithm in Pubmed is provided upon request. After identifying the included articles, a reference search and a citation search were conducted on the included papers, which were then screened and evaluated using the same literature screening criteria to determine if there was any new included literature, and the reference search and citation search were repeatedly screened and evaluated for all newly included articles until no new relevant paper was included.

2.3. Study Quality Assessment

This study used the National Institute of Health’s Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies to assess the quality of each included study. The evaluation tool has 14 criteria. For each criterion, a score of one was assigned if “yes” was the response, whereas a score of zero was assigned otherwise (i.e., an answer of “no”, “not applicable”, “not reported”, or “cannot determine”). The total scores range from 0~14.

Standardized data extraction was used to collect the following methodological and outcome variables from each included study: author(s), year of publication, research area, study design, sample size, exercise motivation, exercise frequency, exercise duration, exercise program, exercise site, exercise form, and the related influencing factors, etc. The data extraction was independently conducted by two reviewers (M.P. and Lai) in this review. When there is disagreement, a third researcher (Ying) decides further and identifies the paper that needs to be read in full, and then the two researchers jointly determine the final literatures to be included in the study through discussion.

3.1. Basic Characteristics of the Included Papers

Figure 1 shows the study selection flowchart. We identified a total of 10,419 articles through keyword and reference searches, including 10,060 papers in English and 359 papers in Chinese. Overall, there were 5913 articles from Web of Science, 4043 articles from PubMed, 101 articles from Cochrane Library, 359 articles from CNKI, and three papers from Google Scholar through hand-searching. Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 15 articles (six papers in English and nine papers in Chinese) were finally included ( Figure 1 ).

Study selection flowchart.

Of these, three articles were studied at Beijing universities [ 10 , 11 , 12 ], two at Shanghai universities [ 12 , 13 ], two at Guangdong universities [ 14 , 15 ], one at Shandong universities [ 16 ], one at Anhui universities [ 17 ], one at Hubei universities [ 18 ], one at Henan universities [ 19 ], one at Guangxi universities [ 20 ], and one at Guizhou universities [ 21 ], while the rest did not clearly show the name of the university or the area in which the university is located [ 22 , 23 , 24 ]. Two eastern universities, two southern universities, four northern universities, and four central universities remained unspecified. All of the selected papers were published after 2017, with two published in 2017, three in 2018, one each in 2019 and 2020, six in 2021, and two in 2022. The research design of all the 15 articles was cross-sectional, with sample sizes ranging from 200 to 1512, nine articles in the 100–999 range, and six articles in the 1000–9999 range, and with an average of 864, a median of 929, and a standard deviation of 447.8. In addition, the majority of studies were based on subjective self-report surveys. The proportion of females in the sample ranged from 26.7% to 50.5%.

The quality of the literature score ranged from a minimum of 7 to a maximum of 12, and the mean score of the included articles’ quality assessment was 9.26. All the 15 papers included research questions and objectives that clearly specified and defined the study population, with a participation rate of more than 50%. The sample size attrition rate for 14 articles was less than 20%, while it was not indicated in one paper. Participants were recruited from the same or similar populations during the same period, with uniform inclusion and exclusion criteria pre-defined for all potential participants (See Table 1 ).

Basic information of included studies.

N/A = no answer.

3.2. Exercise Status of College Students in China

Exercise motivation: We found that the primary factor in university students’ motivation to exercise was to improve their physical fitness, which is in line with the results of the National Sports Administration’s National Fitness Survey [ 25 ]. Among the 15 articles, 14 showed that physical exercise strengthens the body, followed by relieving academic pressure.

Exercise frequency: The General Administration of Sports of China, in its analysis of the “Survey Communique on the Status of National Fitness Activities in 2020”, concluded that the average physical activity population in China is 37.2 %. In this study, physical activity was measured as exercise ≧ three times/week, and the percentage of physical activity among university students was found to be ≧ 37.2% in 10 out of 15 papers, which reached the national average [ 25 ].

Exercise duration: Among the 15 articles, eight papers showed that university students’ physical exercise lasted for ≧30 min per exercise session, which met the standard criteria for physical exercise length [ 25 ].

Exercise program: University students’ most popular exercise activities were mainly running and walking, followed by ball games. There were differences by gender and by grade. Li et al. [ 15 ] found that 74.58% of university students mainly participate in aerobic exercise and endurance sports, with a higher proportion of runners, accounting for 79.16%. This indicates that running is still a popular sport among university students. Ai [ 20 ], Cao and Zhao [ 10 ], and Qin [ 17 ] revealed that running was the most popular sport among university students, followed by basketball.

Exercise site: The most popular exercise areas for university students were the public sports grounds, athletic fields, and basketball courts. Eleven of the fifteen papers indicated that the most popular sites for exercise were athletic fields, basketball courts, and finally gymnasiums. Hence, it can be concluded that the most popular places for exercise are the public sports grounds on campus.

Group or individual: According to the study’s findings, nine out of fifteen papers indicated that college students would choose to exercise alone. Qin [ 17 ] showed that 56.6% of the respondents prefer to walk on their own. Additionally, the findings of Ai [ 20 ] also clearly indicate that 42.6% of university students participate in extracurricular physical activity on their own (See Table 2 ).

Contents of the studied in review.

Y = yes; N/A = no answer.

3.3. Influencing Factors of Exercise among College Students in China

Academic pressure: This study found that some university students reported high academic pressure and lack of time as their reasons for giving up physical exercise, with nine of the papers mentioning this factor. Five articles mentioned the lack of time to exercise due to the pressure of studying, senior examinations, and employment internships. Although university students know that exercise is good for their health, they must give it up because of time constraints. In recent years, due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the economic downturn, university students have been under great pressure to find employment, which has led to a rise in taking examinations for higher studies [ 26 ].

Restrictions on venues and facilities: Exercise venues, surroundings, and facilities were the secondary factors influencing college students’ workouts. The preferred place for college students to exercise is the free playground or sports center on campus, but some studies showed that they are inadequate. Wang et al. [ 27 ] stated that insufficient venues are the main barrier to university students’ physical exercise, followed by a lack of time and organization. Cheng and Zhu [ 18 ] claimed that due to the college expansion plan and the increasing number of students in universities, the supply of sports venues and sports facilities is insufficient, which restricts the students from exercising when they want to.

Lack of professional guidance: This study found that the availability of professional exercise instruction was also an important factor in determining the university students’ exercise participation. Of these, seven articles reported that the lack of professional exercise guidance was one of the factors that led the college students not to participate in physical exercise. For instance, some university students have specific exercise goals to achieve (such as weight loss, muscle building, etc.), but due to the lack of professional exercise guidance, they assume that self-exercise will not help them reach their objectives. As a result, they either stop exercising altogether or wait for a chance to be guided to exercise.

4. Discussion

For this review, we identified nine papers published in English and six papers published in Chinese and summarized the status and factors influencing physical activity among Chinese college students. This paper reviews the research design of the articles in this area and the characteristics of physical activity among university students in terms of exercise motivation, exercise frequency, intensity, exercise programs and gender differences, exercise venues, etc. According to the findings of this systematic review, the main factor among university students’ exercise motivation was to strengthen their physical health. The majority of the college students in China exercised more frequently than 3 times/week, with each workout regularly lasting between 30 and 60 min, which reached the national average [ 25 ]. Given that effective and regular exercise can effectively prevent chronic diseases, it has been suggested that for 20~64 year old, the rate of chronic pain was 10~12% lower for those exercising 1~3 times a week for at least 30 min duration or of moderate intensity, relative to those not exercising [ 28 ]. Besides, university students prefer moderately intense sports as well as aerobic exercises like jogging and ball games and they frequently go to the free sporting facilities on campus, like the basketball court and athletic field [ 29 , 30 ]. The main type of exercise for university students is mainly alone, which is in line with the psychological characteristics of college students to pursue themselves and their individuality [ 31 ].

The main factors affecting university students’ exercise are lack of time due to academic pressure, facility constraints, and lack of professional exercise guidance. Academic pressure was identified as one of the main factors for the lack of time for exercise, which reflects the concern among students that exercise may hamper academic performance. However, a previous study revealed that those who frequently engaged in exercise had a significantly higher GPA [ 32 ]. This suggests that education is needed to enhance the awareness of the benefits of exercise in university life. Meanwhile, Liu et al. [ 33 ] indicated that for college students, they should have positive thoughts and good behavior when engage regularly in physical activity, which inspires them to engage in physical activity with passion. For facilities constraints, a study in Greek indicated that PE teachers who work in schools with very satisfactory sport facilities seem to be more satisfied in comparison to PE teachers who work in poor sport facilities [ 34 ]. In the same way, due to sport facilities and site constraints, students may be less enthusiastic about sports. Therefore, whether the exercise facilities are fully equipped, and the sports centers are sufficient is the embodiment of measuring the physical exercise culture in colleges and universities. Only by adequately providing the necessary sports facilities can more college students be attracted to participate in physical activity, better forming the sports culture. Another key element influencing university students’ exercise or fitness is a lack of professional exercise guidance. In China, the training and accreditation of rehabilitation therapists and exercise prescription practitioners are under development [ 35 ]. Currently, there are no sport instructors on campus [ 36 ]. As a result, college students may give up exercise or working out since they do not know how to perform an efficient and scientific method of exercise.

Finally, there are several new findings in this systematic review, yet it has certain limitations. One limitation in this review is the research design, as all of the included papers were cross-sectional studies and it is not suitable to make causal inferences. Another limitation is the research content, as no more than two papers were found in the included literature for quantitative analysis of their corresponding variables, so we could not conduct a meta-analysis.

This is the first study to examine the physical activity levels of Chinese university students systematically. In addition, five years have passed since the official commencement of the Health China Plan. Therefore, numerous international researchers are interested in the transition preceding and during the implementation of the Health China Plan. However, another limitation of this study is that it was designed specifically for the Chinese population. Due to the vastness of China’s geographical area, the study is quite unique and robust. Due to cultural and political differences, the results should be read with caution, as they may not be applicable to other nations.

5. Conclusions

According to the results of our study, college students’ participation in sports and physical activity seems to be relatively good. Most indicators, such as exercise frequency, exercise intensity, exercise duration, etc., are in compliance with national standards. However, there are still some factors that restrict university students from participating in sports. Based on that, at the government level, we recommend that more funds be invested in establishing university stadiums and improving sports facilities to guarantee the basic conditions for college students’ exercise. On the other side, at the school level, in order to actively encourage students to exercise, schools may adopt measures like relating daily exercise to final grades. In addition, the school may recruit some sports instructors in sports centers or gyms to provide professional guidance to students who have questions about exercise.

Funding Statement

This research was partially supported by the Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia for the Fundamental Research Grant Scheme (FRGS) with Project Code: FRGS/1/2020/SKK06/USM/03/13.

Author Contributions

M.P. and G.K. conceived and designed the study. M.P. and B.Y. developed the search strategy, and M.P. conducted the search. M.P and B.Y. screened the studies for inclusion. M.P. and Y.L. extracted data, and M.P., B.Y. and G.K. assessed the methodological quality of the included studies. M.P. drafted the manuscript. All co-authors contributed to the revision of the manuscript and approved the final version for publication. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

• Skip to Nav
• Skip to Main
• Skip to Footer

Why PE matters for student academics and wellness right now

Please try again

This story about PE teachers was produced by The Hechinger Report , a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Hechinger’s newsletter .

Amanda Amtmanis, an elementary physical education instructor in Middletown, Connecticut, handed out cards with QR codes to a class of third graders, and told them to start running.

The kids sprinted off around the baseball field in a light drizzle, but by the end of the first lap, a fifth of a mile, many were winded and walking. They paused to scan the cards, which track their mileage, on their teacher’s iPad and got some encouragement from an electronic coach — “Way to run your socks off!” or “Leave it all on the track!”

A boy in a red Nike shirt surged ahead, telling Amtmanis his goal was to run 5 miles. “Whoa, look at Dominic!” another boy exclaimed.

“We don’t need to compare ourselves to others,” Amtmanis reminded him.

The third graders finished a third lap, alternating running and walking, and were about to start on a scavenger hunt when the rain picked up, forcing them inside. Amtmanis thanked her students for their willingness to adjust — a skill many of them have practiced far more often than running these past 18 months.

The full impact of the pandemic on kids’ health and fitness won’t be known for some time. But it’s already caused at least a short-term spike in childhood obesity Rates of overweight and obesity in 5- through 11-year-olds rose nearly 10 percentage points in the first few months of 2020.

Amtmanis’ “mileage club,” which tracks students’ running, both in and out of school, and rewards them with Pokémon cards when they hit certain targets, is an example of how PE teachers around the country are trying to get kids back in shape.

But inclement weather isn’t the only thing PE teachers are up against as they confront what might be called “physical learning loss.” Physical education as a discipline has long fought to be taken as seriously as its academic counterparts. Even before the pandemic, fewer than half the states set any minimum amount of time for students to participate in physical education, according to the Society of Health and Physical Educators (SHAPE), which represents PE and health instructors.

Now, as schools scramble to help kids catch up academically, there are signs that PE is taking a back seat to the core subjects yet again. In some California schools, administrators are shifting instructional minutes from PE to academic subjects — or canceling class altogether so PE teachers can sub for classroom teachers; in others, they’re growing class sizes in the gym, so they can shrink them in the classroom.

Meanwhile, innovative instructors like Amtmanis, who has worked in her district for more than 20 years, are struggling to get their ideas off the ground. Over the summer, the principal of Macdonough Elementary, one of two schools where Amtmanis teaches, approved her request to participate in another running program called The Daily Mile, in which kids walk or run 15 minutes a day during school hours.

Daily running breaks “boost attentiveness, which has positive effects on academics,” Amtmanis argued.

But two weeks into the school year, not a single teacher had bought into the idea.

“The issue is their packed schedule,” Amtmanis said.

Last year, many schools conducted gym class remotely, with students joining in from their bedrooms and living rooms.

The online format presented several challenges. Many students lacked the equipment, space, or parental support to participate fully. And many instructors grappled with how to teach and assess motor skills and teamwork online.

Though instructors found creative ways to keep students moving — substituting rolled-up socks for balls, and “disguising fitness” in scavenger hunts and beat-the-teacher challenges — they still fretted that online gym wasn’t giving students the same benefits as in-person classes.

Compounding their concern was the fact that many students were also missing out on recess and extracurricular sports.

In a March 2021 survey conducted by the Cooper Institute, maker of the popular FitnessGram assessments, close to half the PE teachers and school and district administrators responding said their students were “significantly less” physically active during their schools’ closure than before it.

Schools that reopened last year faced their own set of challenges, including bans on shared equipment that made even a simple game of catch impossible. Schools that were open for in-person learning were also much more likely to cut back on PE instructional time, or eliminate it altogether, the survey found.

The consequences of these reductions in physical activity are hard to quantify, especially since many schools suspended fitness testing during the pandemic and have yet to resume it, but some PE teachers say they’re seeing more kids with locomotor delays and weaker stamina than normal.

“The second graders are like first graders, and some are even like kindergarteners,” said Robin Richardson, an elementary PE instructor in Kentucky. They can jump and hop, she said, but they can’t leap. They’re exhausted after 20 seconds of jumping jacks.

An unusually high number of Richardson’s first graders can’t skip or do windmills. Some lack the spatial awareness that’s essential to group games.

“They don’t know how to move without running into each other,” she said.

Other instructors are seeing an increase in cognitive issues, such as difficulty paying attention or following directions, particularly among kids who remained remote for most or all of last year.

Kyle Bragg, an elementary PE instructor in Arizona, has seen kids sitting with their backs to him, staring off into space when he’s talking. “I say ‘Knees, please,’ so they spin around to face me,” he said.

And some PE teachers say their students’ social-emotional skills have suffered more than their gross motor skills. “They forgot how to share; how to be nice to each other; how to relate to each other,” said Donn Tobin, an elementary PE instructor in New York.

PE has a key role to play in boosting those skills, which affect how kids interact in other classes, said Will Potter, an elementary PE teacher in California.

“We’re uniquely situated to handle the social-emotional needs that came out of the pandemic, in a way classroom teachers are not,” Potter said.

Amtmanis, for her part, worries about her students’ mental health. She sees the little signs of strain daily — the kid who got upset because he couldn’t pick his group, for example, and the one who was distressed that his Mileage Club card had gotten mixed up in the front office.

“Their emotional reserves are low,” she said.

Yet not all instructors are reporting drops in their students’ fitness and skill development. Teachers in some middle- and upper-income districts said they haven’t noticed much of a change at all. In some communities, families seemed to spend more time outdoors.

“We saw the skyrocketing sale of bicycles, we saw families going for walks,” said Dianne Wilson-Graham, executive director of the California Physical Education and Health Project.

But in Title I schools like Macdonough, where more than half the students are low-income, some kids didn’t even have access to a safe place to exercise or play during school closures.

“Not only are they not in soccer leagues, but sometimes they don’t even have a park,” Amtmanis said.

Amtmanis came up with the idea of doing the Daily Mile after spring fitness tests revealed drops in her students’ strength, flexibility and endurance.

But many schools still aren’t sure how much physical learning loss their students have experienced as a result of the pandemic. Most schools pressed pause on fitness testing last year, and some elementary-school instructors are reluctant to restart it. They say the tests aren’t valid with young children, even in ordinary times, and argue the time they take could be better spent on Covid catch-up.

Andjelka Pavlovic, director of research and education for the Cooper Institute, said its tests are scientifically proven to be valid for students who are 10 and up, or roughly starting in fourth grade.

Fitness testing requirements vary by state, county or even district. Some states specify how often students must be tested; others leave it largely to the teacher.

Bragg, the Arizona teacher, said he has put testing “on the backburner” because “right now it’s not at the forefront of what’s important.”

Richardson said she is avoiding testing because she doesn’t want to use up precious instructional time or demoralize her students. “I want my kids to enjoy movement,” she said. If they perform poorly on the tests, “they may not feel as strong.”

In Connecticut, where schools are required to test fourth graders’ fitness annually, Amtmanis approached testing cautiously last year. She didn’t want to embarrass her students, so she made it into a series of games.

Instead of Sit-and-Reach, they had a “flexibility contest,” in which kids broke into teams for tag then had to perform stretches if they were tagged. She measured the distances stretched with curling ribbon, tied the ribbons together, and attached a balloon to the end. The team whose balloon soared the highest won fidget putty.

Pushups became a Bingo game, with the center space representing pushups.

“My goal was to get through it without ever using the words ‘fitness” or ‘testing,’” she said.

As the pandemic drags on, some instructors are taking a similar approach to fitness remediation and acceleration.

Bragg likes a warmup called “ Touch Spots ,” in which first graders listen as the instructor reads off the name of a color, then run and touch a corresponding dot on the floor. It works on reaction time, cardiovascular endurance, spatial awareness and sequencing — but the kids don’t know that.

“Students are having so much fun that they don’t realize how much fitness they are doing,” Bragg said.

Differentiation — tailoring instruction to meet individual students’ needs — has become even more essential, with former remote learners often lagging behind their in-person peers, Bragg said.

When playing catch, for example, he offers his students different sized balls — the smaller ones are more challenging.

Potter, the California teacher, spent the first two weeks of school teaching his students how to connect with their partners, stressing the importance of eye contact and body language.

“When you’re on Zoom, you look at the camera to make eye contact,” he said. “It’s a very different environment.”

Bragg reminds his students how to include kids who are standing on the sidelines, modeling excited body language and tone of voice. Lately, he’s noticed that kids who were remote last year are being excluded from groups.

“Social interaction needs to be practiced, just like how to throw a ball,” he said.

Richardson, the Kentucky PE teacher, is trying to build up her students’ stamina gradually, through progressively longer intervals of exercise.

But she works in a school with pods, so she sees each group of kids for five consecutive days, every third week. The two weeks in between, she has to hope that teachers will provide recess and “movement breaks.” She’s trying to get them to give kids breaks “when they get glassy-eyed and frustrated.”

Recently, Richardson was at a staff training session at which depleted teachers were “popping candy in the back.” When she raised her hand and requested a break in the training, her colleagues cheered. She told them to remember how they felt when their students return to the building.

“I always say, ‘If your bum is numb, your brain is the same,’” she said.

Convincing classroom teachers to set aside more time for movement can be challenging, though. As students return from months of online learning, teachers are under enormous pressure to get them caught up academically.

Kate Cox, an elementary and middle-school PE teacher in California, wishes schools would “realize what they’re missing when they cut PE because of learning loss in other areas.” Physical education is “readying their minds and bodies to be more successful in other areas,” Cox said.

Terri Drain, the president of SHAPE, argued that schools fail students when they treat physical learning loss as less serious than its academic counterpart.

“In the primary grades, children develop fundamental motor skills, such as throwing, catching, running, kicking and jumping,” she said. Unless schools commit to helping kids catch up, “the impacts of this ‘missed learning’ will be lifelong.”

In Connecticut, Amtmanis hasn’t given up on convincing teachers to carve out time for the Daily Mile. She recently sent them a list of suggestions on how to fit 15 minutes of running into the day, including by incorporating it as an active transition between academic blocks.

“While it may seem like there aren’t minutes to spare,” she wrote, “the energizing effect of the active transition should result in more on-task behavior and more efficient working.”

In the meantime, Amtmanis plans to keep using the mileage club to motivate her students to run and to monitor their progress.

“I don’t want to call attention to the fact that not everyone is fit,” she said. “This is an unobtrusive way to keep the data.”

• Open access
• Published: 24 February 2024

Physical activity improves stress load, recovery, and academic performance-related parameters among university students: a longitudinal study on daily level

• Monika Teuber 1 ,
• Daniel Leyhr 1 , 2 &
• Gorden Sudeck 1 , 3  

BMC Public Health volume  24 , Article number:  598 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

4039 Accesses

30 Altmetric

Metrics details

Physical activity has been proven to be beneficial for physical and psychological health as well as for academic achievement. However, especially university students are insufficiently physically active because of difficulties in time management regarding study, work, and social demands. As they are at a crucial life stage, it is of interest how physical activity affects university students' stress load and recovery as well as their academic performance.

Student´s behavior during home studying in times of COVID-19 was examined longitudinally on a daily basis during a ten-day study period ( N  = 57, aged M  = 23.5 years, SD  = 2.8, studying between the 1st to 13th semester ( M  = 5.8, SD  = 4.1)). Two-level regression models were conducted to predict daily variations in stress load, recovery and perceived academic performance depending on leisure-time physical activity and short physical activity breaks during studying periods. Parameters of the individual home studying behavior were also taken into account as covariates.

While physical activity breaks only positively affect stress load (functional stress b = 0.032, p  < 0.01) and perceived academic performance (b = 0.121, p  < 0.001), leisure-time physical activity affects parameters of stress load (functional stress: b = 0.003, p  < 0.001, dysfunctional stress: b = -0.002, p  < 0.01), recovery experience (b = -0.003, p  < 0.001) and perceived academic performance (b = 0.012, p  < 0.001). Home study behavior regarding the number of breaks and longest stretch of time also shows associations with recovery experience and perceived academic performance.

Conclusions

Study results confirm the importance of different physical activities for university students` stress load, recovery experience and perceived academic performance in home studying periods. Universities should promote physical activity to keep their students healthy and capable of performing well in academic study: On the one hand, they can offer opportunities to be physically active in leisure time. On the other hand, they can support physical activity breaks during the learning process and in the immediate location of study.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Physical activity (PA) takes a particularly key position in health promotion and prevention. It reduces risks for several diseases, overweight, and all-cause mortality [ 1 ] and is beneficial for physical, psychological and social health [ 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ] as well as for academic achievement [ 6 , 7 ]. However, PA levels decrease from childhood through adolescence and into adulthood [ 8 , 9 , 10 ]. Especially university students are insufficiently physically active according to health-oriented PA guidelines [ 11 ] because of academic workloads as well as difficulties in time management regarding study, work, and social demands [ 12 ]. Due to their independence and increasing self-responsibility, university students are at a crucial life stage. In this essential and still educational stage of the students´ development, it is important to study their PA behavior. Furthermore, PA as health behavior represents one influencing factor which is considered in the analytical framework of the impact of health and health behaviors on educational outcomes which was developed by the authors Suhrcke and de Paz Nieves [ 13 , 14 ]. In light of this, the present study examines how PA affects university students' academic situations.

Along with the promotion of PA, the reduction of sedentary behavior has also become a crucial part of modern health promotion and prevention strategies. Spending too much time sitting increases many health risks, including the risk of obesity [ 15 ], diabetes [ 16 ] and other chronic diseases [ 15 ], damage to muscular balances, bone metabolism and musculoskeletal system [ 17 ] and even early death [ 15 ]. University students are a population that has shown the greatest increase in sedentary behavior over the last two decades [ 18 ]. In Germany, they show the highest percentage of sitting time among all working professional groups [ 19 ]. Long times sitting in classes, self-study learning, and through smartphone use, all of which are connected to the university setting and its associated behaviors, might be the cause of this [ 20 , 21 ]. This goes along with technological advances which allow students to study in the comfort of their own homes without changing locations [ 22 ].

To counter a sedentary lifestyle, PA is crucial. In addition to its physical health advantages, PA is essential for coping with the intellectual and stress-related demands of academic life. PA shows positive associations with stress load and academic performance. It is positively associated with learning and educational success [ 6 ] and even shows stress-regulatory potential [ 23 ]. In contrast, sedentary behavior is associated with lower cognitive performance [ 24 ]. Moreover, theoretical derivations show that too much sitting could have a negative impact on brain health and diminish the positive effects of PA [ 16 ]. Given the theoretical background of the stressor detachment model [ 25 ] and the cybernetic approach to stress management in the workplace [ 26 ], PA can promote recovery experience, it can enhance academic performance, and it is a way to reduce the impact of study-related stressors on strain. Load-related stress response can be bilateral: On the one hand, it can be functional if it is beneficial to help cope with the study demands. On the other hand, it can be dysfunctional if it puts a strain on personal resources and can lead to load-related states of strain [ 27 ]. Thus, both, the promotion of PA and reduction of sedentary behavior are important for stress load, recovery, and performance in student life, which can be of particular importance for students in an academic context.

A simple but (presumably) effective way to integrate PA and reduce sedentary behavior in student life are short PA breaks. Due to the exercises' simplicity and short duration, students can perform them wherever they are — together in a lecture or alone at home. Short PA breaks could prevent an accumulation of negative stressors during the day and can help with prolonged sitting as well as inactivity. Especially in the university setting, evidence of the positive effects of PA breaks exists for self-perceived physical and psychological well-being of the university students [ 28 ]. PA breaks buffer university students’ perceived stress [ 29 ] and show positive impacts on recovery need [ 30 ] and better mood ratings [ 31 , 32 ]. In addition, there is evidence for reduction in tension [ 30 ], overall muscular discomfort [ 33 ], daytime sleepiness or fatigue [ 33 , 34 ] and increase in vigor [ 34 ] and experienced energy [ 30 ]. This is in line with cognitive, affective, behavioral, and biological effects of PA, all categorized as palliative-regenerative coping strategies, which addresses the consequences of stress-generating appraisal processes aiming to alleviate these consequences (palliative) or restore the baseline of the relevant reaction parameter (regenerative) [ 35 , 36 ]. This is achieved by, for example, reducing stress-induced cortisol release or tension through physical activity (reaction reduction) [ 35 ]. Such mechanisms are also in accordance with the previously mentioned stressor detachment model [ 25 ]. Lastly, there is a health-strengthening effect that impacts the entire stress-coping-health process, relying on the compensatory effects of PA which is in accordance to the stress-buffering effect of exercise [ 37 ]. Health, in turn, effects educational outcomes [ 13 , 14 ]. Therefore, stress regulating effects are also accompanied with the before mentioned analytical framework of the impact of health and health behaviors on educational outcomes [ 13 , 14 ].

Focusing on the effects of PA, this study is guided by an inquiry into how PA affects university students' stress load and recovery as well as their perceived academic performance. For that reason, the student´s behavior during home studying in times of COVID-19 is examined, a time in which reinforced prolonged sitting, inactivity, and a negative stress load response was at a high [ 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 ]. Looking separately on the relation of PA with different parameters based on the mentioned evidence, we assume that PA has a positive impact on stress load, recovery, and perceived academic performance-related parameters. Furthermore, a side effect of the home study behavior on the mentioned parameters is assumed regarding the accumulation of negative stressors during home studying. These associations are presented in Fig.  1 and summarized in the following hypotheses:

Overview of the assumed effects and investigated hypotheses of physical activity (PA) behavior on variables of stress load and recovery and perceived academic performance-related parameters

Hypothesis 1 (path 1): Given that stress load always occurs as a duality—beneficial if it is functional for coping, or exhausting if it puts a strain on personal resources [ 27 ] – we consider two variables for stress load: functional stress and dysfunctional stress. In order to reduce the length of the daily surveys, we focused the measure of recovery only on the most obvious and accessible component of recovery experience, namely psychological detachment. PA (whether performed in leisure-time or during PA breaks) encourages functional stress and reduce dysfunctional stress (1.A) and has a positive effect on recovery experience through psychological detachment (1.B).

Hypothesis 2 (path 2): The academic performance-related parameters attention difficulties and study ability are positively influenced by PA (whether done in leisure-time or during PA breaks). We have chosen to assess attention difficulties for a cognitive parameter because poor control over the stream of occurring stimuli have been associated with impairment in executive functions or academic failure [ 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 ]. Furthermore, we have assessed the study ability to refer to the self-perceived feeling of functionality regarding the demands of students. PA reduces self-reported attention difficulties (2.A) and improves perceived study ability, indicating that a student feels capable of performing well in academic study (2.B).

Hypothesis 3: We assume that a longer time spent on studying at home (so called home studying) could result in higher accumulation of stressors throughout the day which could elicit immediate stress responses, while breaks in general could reduce the influence of work-related stressors on strain and well-being [ 47 , 48 ]. Therefore, the following covariates are considered for secondary effects:

the daily longest stretch of time without a break spent on home studying

the daily number of breaks during home studying

Study setting

The study was carried out during the COVID-19 pandemic containment phase. It took place in the middle of the lecture period between 25th of November and 4th of December 2020. Student life was characterized by home studying and digital learning. A so called “digital semester” was in effect at the University of Tübingen when the study took place. Hence, courses were mainly taught online (e.g., live or via a recorded lecture). Other events and actions at the university were not permitted. As such, the university sports department closed in-person sports activities. For leisure time in general, there were contact restrictions (social distancing), the performance of sports activities in groups was not permitted, and sports facilities were closed.

Thus, the university sports department of the University of Tübingen launched various online sports courses and the student health management introduced an opportunity for a new digital form of PA breaks. This opportunity provided PA breaks via videos with guided physical exercises and health-promoting explanations for a PA break for everyday home studying: the so called “Bewegungssnack digital” [in English “exercise snack digital” (ESD)] [ 49 ]. The ESD videos took 5–7 min and were categorized into three thematic foci: activation, relaxation, and coordination. Exercises were demonstrated by one or two student exercise leaders, accompanied by textual descriptions of the relevant execution features of each exercise.

Participants

Participants were recruited within the framework of an intervention study, which was conducted to investigate whether a digital nudging intervention has a beneficial effect on taking PA breaks during home study periods [ 49 ]. Students at the University of Tübingen which counts 27,532 enrolled students were approached for participation through a variety of digital means: via an email sent to those who registered for ESD course on the homepage of the university sports department and to all students via the university email distribution list; via advertisement on social media of the university sports department (Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, homepage). Five tablets, two smart watches, and one iPad were raffled off to participants who engaged actively during the full study period in an effort to motivate them to stick with it to the end. In any case, participants knew that the study was voluntary and that they would not suffer any personal disadvantages should they opt out. There was a written informed consent prompt together with a prompt for the approval of the data protection regulations immediately within the first questionnaire (T0) presented in a mandatory selection field. Positive ethical approval for the study was given by the first author´s institution´s ethics committee of the faculty of the University of Tübingen.

Participants ( N  = 57) who completed the daily surveys on at least half of the days of the study period, were included in the sample (male = 6, female = 47, diverse = 1, not stated = 3). As not all subjects provided data on all ten study days, the total number of observations was between 468 and 540, depending on the variable under study (see Table  1 ). The average number of observations per subject was around eight. Their age was between 18 and 32 years ( M  = 23.52, SD  = 2.81) and they were studying between the 1st to 13th semester ( M  = 5.76, SD  = 4.11) within the following major courses of study: mathematical-scientific majors (34.0%), social science majors (22.6%), philosophical majors (18.9%), medicine (13.2%), theology (5.7%), economics (3.8%), or law (1.9%). 20.4% of the students had on-site classroom teaching on university campus for at least one day a week despite the mandated digital semester, as there were exceptions for special forms of teaching.

Design and procedures

To examine these hypothesized associations, a longitudinal study design with daily surveys was chosen following the suggestion of the day-level study of Feuerhahn et al. (2014) and also of Sonnentag (2001) measuring recovery potential of (exercise) activities during leisure time [ 50 , 51 ]. Considering that there are also differences between people at the beginning of the study period, initial base-line value variables respective to the outcomes measured before the study period were considered as independent covariates. Therefore, the well-being at baseline serves as a control for stress load (2.A), the psychological detachment at baseline serves as a control for daily psychological detachment (2.B), the perception of study demands serves as a control for self-reported attention difficulties (1.A), and the perceived study ability at baseline serves as a control for daily study ability (2.B).

Subjects were asked to continue with their normal home study routine and additionally perform ESD at any time in their daily routine. Data were collected one to two days before (T0) as well as daily during the ten-day study period (Wednesday to Friday). The daily surveys (t 1 -t 10 ) were sent by email at 7 p.m. every evening. Each day, subjects were asked to answer questions about their home studying behavior, study related requirements, recovery experience from study tasks, attention, and PA, including ESD participation. The surveys were conducted online using the UNIPARK software and were recorded and analyzed anonymously.

Measures and covariates

In total, five outcome variables, two independent variables, and seven covariates were included in different analyses: three variables were used for stress load and recovery parameters, two variables for academic performance-related parameters, two variables for PA behavior, two variables for study behavior, four variables for outcome specific baseline values and one variable for age.

Outcome variables

Stress load & recovery parameters (hypothesis 1).

Stress load was included in the analysis with two variables: functional stress and dysfunctional stress. Followingly, a questionnaire containing a word list of adjectives for the recording of emotions and stress during work (called “Erfassung von Emotionen und Beanspruchung “ in German, also known as EEB [ 52 ]) was used. It is an instrument which were developed and validated in the context of occupational health promotion. The items are based on mental-workload research and the assessment of the stress potential of work organization [ 52 ]. Within the questionnaire, four mental and motivational stress items were combined to form a functional stress scale (energetic, willing to perform, attentive, focused) (α = 0.89) and four negative emotional and physical stress items were combined to form dysfunctional stress scale (nervous, physically tensioned, excited, physically unwell) (α = 0.71). Participants rated the items according to how they felt about home studying in general on the following scale (adjustment from “work” to “home studying”): hardly, somewhat, to some extent, fairly, strongly, very strongly, exceptionally.

Recovery experience was measured via psychological detachment. Therefore, the dimension “detachment” of the Recovery Experience Questionnaire (RECQ [ 53 ]) was adjusted to home studying. The introductory question was "How did you experience your free time (including short breaks between learning) during home studying today?". Students responded to four statements based on the extent to which they agreed or disagreed (not at all true, somewhat true, moderately true, mostly true, completely true). The statements covered subjects such as forgetting about studying, not thinking about studying, detachment from studying, and keeping a distance from student tasks. The four items were combined into a score for psychological detachment (α = 0.94).

Academic performance-related parameters (hypothesis 2)

Attention was assessed via the subscale “difficulty maintaining focused attention performance” of the “Attention and Performance Self-Assessment” (ASPA, AP-F2 [ 54 ]). It contains nine items with statements about disturbing situations regarding concentration (e.g. “Even a small noise from the environment could disturb me while reading.”). Participants had to answer how often such situations happened to them on a given day on the following scale: never, rarely, sometimes, often, always. The nine items were combined into the AP-F2 score (α = 0.87).

The perceived study ability was assessed using the study ability index (SAI [ 55 ]). The study ability index captures the current state of perceived functioning in studying. It is based on the Work Ability Index by Hasselhorn and Freude ([ 56 ]) and consists of an adjusted short scale of three adapted items in the context of studying. Firstly, (a) the perceived academic performance was asked after in comparison to the best study-related academic performance ever achieved (from 0 = completely unable to function to 10 = currently best functioning). Secondly, the other two items were aimed at assessing current study-related performance in relation to (b) study tasks that have to be mastered cognitively and (c) the psychological demands of studying. Both items were answered on a five-point Likert scale (1 = very poor, 2 = rather poor, 3 = moderate, 4 = rather good, 5 = very good). A sum index, the SAI, was formed which can indicate values between 2 and 20, with higher values corresponding to higher assessed functioning in studies (α = 0.86). In a previous study it already showed satisfying reliability (α = 0.72) [ 55 ].

Independent variables

Pa behavior.

Two indicators for PA behavior were included via self-reports: the time spent on ESD and the time spent on leisure-time PA (LTPA). Participants were asked the following overarching question daily: “How much time did you spend on physical activity today and in what context”. For the independent variable time spent on PA breaks, participants could answer the option “I participated in the Bewegungssnack digital” with the amount of time they spent on it (in minutes). To assess the time spent on LTPA besides PA breaks, participants could report their time for four different contexts of PA which comprised two forms: Firstly, structured supervised exercise was reported via time spent on (a) university sports courses and (b) other organized sports activities. Secondly, self-organized PA was indicated via (c) independent PA at home, such as a workout or other physically demanding activity such as cleaning or tidying up, as well as via (d) independent PA outside, like walking, cycling, jogging, a workout or something similar. Referring to the different domains of health enhancing PA [ 57 ], the reported minutes of these four types of PA were summed up to a total LTPA value. The total LTPA value was included in the analysis as a metric variable in minutes.

Covariates (hypothesis 3)

Regarding hypothesis 3 and home study behavior, the longest daily stretch of time without a break spent on home studying (in hours) and the daily number of breaks during home studying was assessed. Therein, participants had to answer the overarching question “How much time did you spend on your home studying today?” and give responses to the items: (1) longest stretch of time for home studying (without a break), and (2) number of short and long breaks you took during home studying.

In principle, efforts were made to control for potential confounders at the individual level (level 2) either by including the baseline measure (T0) of the respective variable or by including variables assessing related trait-like characteristics for respective outcomes. The reason why related trait-like characteristics were used for the outcomes was because brief assessments were used for daily surveys that were not concurrently employed in the baseline assessment. To enable the continued use of controlling for person-specific baseline characteristics in the analysis of daily associations, trait-like characteristics available from the baseline assessment were utilized as the best possible approximation.To sum up, four outcome specific baseline value variables were measured before the study period (at T0). The psychological detachment with the RECQ (α = 0.87) [ 53 ] was assessed at the beginning to monitor daily psychological detachment. Further, the SAI [ 55 ] was assessed at the beginning of the study period to monitor daily study ability. To monitor daily stress load, which in part measures mental stress aspects and negative emotional stress aspects, the well-being was assessed at the beginning using the WHO-Five Well-being Index (WHO-5 [ 58 ]). It is a one-dimensional self-report measure with five items. The index value is the sum of all items, with higher values indicating better well-being. As the well-being and stress load tolerance may linked with each other, this variable was assumed to be a good fit with the daily stress load indicating mental and emotional stress aspects. With respect to student life, daily academic performance-related attention was monitored with an instrument for the perception of study demands and resources (termed “Berliner Anforderungen Ressourcen-Inventar – Studierende” in German, the so-called BARI-S [ 59 ]). It contains eight items which capture overwork in studies, time pressure during studies, and the incompatibility of studies and private life. All together they form the BARI-S demand scale (α = 0.85) which was included in the analysis. As overwork and time pressure may result in attention difficulties (e.g. Elfering et al., 2013), this variable was assumed to have a good fit with academic performance-related attention [ 60 ]. Additionally, age in years at T0 was considered as a sociodemographic factor.

Statistical analysis

Since the study design provided ten measurement points for various people, the hierarchical structure of the nested data called for two-level analyses. Pre-analyses of Random-Intercept-Only models for each of the outcome variables (hypothesis 1 to 3) revealed an Intra-Class-Correlation ( ICC ) of at least 0.10 (range 0.26 – 0.64) and confirmed the necessity to perform multilevel analyses [ 61 ]. Specifically, the day-level variables belong to Level 1 (ESD time, LTPA time, longest stretch of time without a break spent on home studying, daily number of breaks during home studying). To analyze day-specific effects within the person, these variables were centered on the person mean (cw = centered within) [ 50 , 62 , 63 , 64 ]. This means that the analyses’ findings are based on a person’s deviations from their average values. The variables assessed at T0 belong to Level 2, which describe the person level (psychological detachment baseline, SAI baseline, well-being, study demands scale, age). These covariates on person level were centered around the grand mean [ 50 ] indicating that the analyses’ findings are based how far an individual deviates from the sample's mean values. As a result, the models’ intercept reflects the outcome value of an average student in the sample at his/her daily average behavior in PA and home study when all parameters are zero. For descriptive statistics SPSS 28.0.1.1 (IBM) and for inferential statistics R (version 4.1.2) were used. The hierarchical models were calculated using the package lme4 with the lmer-function in R in the following steps [ 65 ]. The Null Model was analyzed for all models first, with the corresponding intercept as the only predictor. Afterwards, all variables were entered. The regression coefficient estimates (”b”) were considered for statistical significance for the models and the respective BIC was provided.

In total, five regression models with ‘PA break time’ and ‘LTPA time’ as independent variables were computed due to the five measured outcomes of the present study. Three models belonged to hypothesis 1 and two models to hypothesis 2.

Hypothesis 1: To test hypothesis 1.A two outcome variables were chosen for two separate models: ‘functional stress’ and ‘dysfunctional stress’. Besides the PA behavior variables, the ‘number of breaks’, the ‘longest stretch of time without a break spent on home studying’, ‘age’, and the ‘well-being’ at the beginning of the study as corresponding baseline variable to the output variable were also included as independent variables in both models. The outcome variable ‘psychological detachment’ was utilized in conjunction with the aforementioned independent variables to test hypotheses 1.B, with one exception: psychological detachment at the start of the study was chosen as the corresponding baseline variable.

Hypothesis 2: To investigate hypothesis 2.A the outcome variable ‘attention difficulties’ was selected. Hypothesis 2.B was tested with the outcome variables ‘study ability’. Both models included both PA behavior variables as well as the ‘number of breaks’, the ‘longest stretch of time without a break spent on home studying’, ‘age’ and one corresponding baseline variable each: the ‘study demand scale’ at the start of the study for ‘attention difficulties’ and the ‘SAI’ at the beginning of the study for the daily ‘study ability’.

Hypothesis 3: In addition to both PA behavior variables, age and one baseline variable that matched the outcome variable, the covariates ‘daily longest stretch of time spent on home studying’ and ‘daily number of breaks during home studying’ were included in the models for all five outcome variables.

Handling missing data

The dataset had up to 18% missing values (most exhibit the variables ‘daily longest stretch of time without a break spent on home studying’ with 17.89% followed by ‘daily number of breaks during homes studying’ with 16.67%, and ‘functional / dysfunctional stress’ with 12.45%). Therefore, a sensitivity analysis was performed using the multiple imputation mice-package in the statistical program R [ 66 ], the package howManyImputation based on Von Hippel (2020, [ 67 ]), and the additional broom package [ 68 ]. The results of the models remained the same, with one exception for the Attention Difficulties Model: The daily longest stretch of time without a break spent on home studying showed a significant association (Table  1 in supplement). Due to this almost perfect consistency of results between analyses based on the dataset with missing data and those with imputed data alongside the lack of information provided by the packages for imputed datasets, we decided to stick with the main analysis including the missing data. Thus, in the following the results of the main analysis without imputations are presented.

Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics of the variables used in the analysis. An overview of the analysed models is presented in Table  2 .

Effects on stress load and recovery (hypothesis 1)

Hypothesis 1.A: The Model Functional Stress explained 13% of the variance by fixed factors (marginal R 2  = 0.13), and 52% by both fixed and random factors (conditional R 2  = 0.52). The time spent on ESD as well as the time spent on PA in leisure showed a positive significant influence on functional stress (b = 0.032, p  < 0.01). The same applied to LTPA (b = 0.003, p  < 0.001). The Model Dysfunctional Stress (marginal R 2  = 0.027, conditional R 2  = 0.647) showed only one significant result. The dysfunctional stress was only significantly negatively influenced by the time spent on LTPA (b = 0.002, p  < 0.01).

Hypothesis 1.B: With the Model Detachment, fixed factors contributed 18% of the explained variance and fixed and random factors 46% of the explained variance for psychological detachment. Only the amount of time spent on LTPA revealed a positive impact on psychological detachment (b = 0.003, p  < 0.001).

Effects on academic performance-related parameters (hypothesis 2)

Hypothesis 2.A: The Model Attention Difficulties showed 13% of the variance explained by fixed factors, and 51% explained by both fixed and random factors. It showed a significant negative association only for the time spent on LTPA (b = 0.003, p  < 0.001).

Hypothesis 2.B: The Model SAI showed 18% of the variance explained by fixed factors, and 39% explained by both fixed and random factors. There were significant positive associations for time spent on ESD (b = 0.121, p  < 0.001) and time spent on LTPA (b = 0.012, p  < 0.001). The same applied to LTPA (b = 0.012, p  < 0.001).

Effects of home study behavior (hypothesis 3)

Regarding the independent covariates for the outcome variables functional and dysfunctional stress, there were no significant results for the number of breaks during homes studying or the longest stretch of time without a break spent on home studying. Considering the outcome variable ‘psychological detachment’, there were significant results with negative impact for both study behavior variables: breaks during home studying (b = 0.058, p  < 0.01) and daily longest stretch of time without a break (b = 0.120, p  < 0.01). Evaluating the outcome variables ‘attention difficulties’, there were no significant results for the number of breaks during home studying or the longest stretch of time without a break spent on home studying. Testing the independent study behavior variables for the SAI, it increased with increasing number in daily breaks during homes studying relative to the person´s mean (b = 0.183, p  < 0.05). No significant effect was found for the longest stretch of time without a break spent on home studying ( p  = 0.07).

The baseline covariates of the models showed expected associations and thus confirmed their inclusion. The baseline variables well-being showed a significant impact on functional stress (b = 0.089, p  < 0.001), psychological detachment showed a positive effect on the daily output variables psychological detachment (b = 0.471, p  < 0.001), study demand scale showed a positive association on difficulties in attention (b = 0.240, p  < 0.01), and baseline SAI had a positive effect on the daily SAI (b = 0.335, p  < 0.001).

The present study theorized that PA breaks and LTPA positively influence the academic situation of university students. Therefore, impact on stress load (‘functional stress’ and ‘dysfunctional stress’) and ‘psychological detachment’ as well as academic performance-related parameters ‘self-reported attention difficulties’ and ‘perceived study ability’ was taken into account. The first and second hypotheses assumed that both PA breaks and LTPA are positively associated with the aforementioned parameters and were confirmed for LTPA for all parameters and for PA breaks for functional stress and perceived study ability. The third hypothesis assumed that home study behavior regarding the daily number of breaks during home studying and longest stretch of time without a break spent on home studying has side effects. Detected negative effects for both covariates on psychological detachment and positive effects for the daily number of breaks on perceived study ability were partly unexpected in their direction. These results emphasize the key position of PA in the context of modern health promotion especially for students in an academic context.

Regarding hypothesis 1 and the detected positive associations for stress load and recovery parameters with PA, the results are in accordance with the stress-regulatory potential of PA from the state of research [ 23 ]. For hypothesis 1.A, there is a positive influence of PA breaks and LTPA on functional stress and a negative influence of LTPA on dysfunctional stress. Given the bilateral role of stress load, the results indicate that PA breaks and LTPA are beneficial for coping with study demands, and may help to promote feelings of joy, pride, and learning progress [ 27 ]. This is in line with previous evidence that PA breaks in lectures can buffer university students’ perceived stress [ 29 ], lead to better mood ratings [ 29 , 31 ], and increase in motivation [ 28 , 69 ], vigor [ 34 ], energy [ 30 ], and self-perceived physical and psychological well-being [ 28 ]. Looking at dysfunctional stress, the result point that LTPA counteract load-related states of strain such as inner tension, irritability and nervous restlessness or feelings of boredom [ 27 ]. In contrast, short PA breaks during the day could not have enough impact in countering dysfunctional stress at the end of the day regarding the accumulation of negative stressors during home studying which might have occurred after the participant took PA breaks. Other studies have been able to show a reduction in tension [ 30 ] and general muscular discomfort [ 33 ] after PA breaks. However, this was measured as an immediate effect of PA breaks and not with general evening surveys. Blasche and colleagues [ 34 ] measured effects immediately and 20 min after different kind of breaks and found that PA breaks led to an additional short‐ and medium‐term increase in vigor while the relaxation break lead to an additional medium‐term decrease in fatigue compared to an unstructured open break. This is consistent with the results of the present study that an effect of PA breaks is only observed for functional stress and not for dysfunctional stress. Furthermore, there is evidence that long sitting during lectures leads to increased fatigue and lower concentration [ 31 , 70 ], which could be counteracted by PA breaks. For both types of stress loads, functional and dysfunctional stress, there is an influence of students´ well-being in this study. This shows that the stress load is affected by the way students have mentally felt over the last two weeks. The relevance of monitoring this seems important especially in the time of COVID-19 as, for example, 65.3% of the students of a cross-sectional online survey at an Australian university reported low to very low well-being during that time [ 71 ]. However, since PA and well-being can support functional stress load, they should be of the highest priority—not only as regards the pandemic, but also in general.

Looking at hypothesis 1.B; while there is a positive influence of LTPA on experienced psychological detachment, no significant influence for PA breaks was detected. The fact that only LTPA has a positive effect can be explained by the voluntary character of the activity [ 50 ]. The voluntary character ensures that stressors no longer affect the student and, thus, recovery as detachment can take place. Home studying is not present in leisure times, and thus detachment from study is easier. The PA break videos, on the other hand, were shot in a university setting, which would have made it more difficult to detach from study. In order to further understand how PA breaks affect recovery and whether there is a distinction between PA breaks and LTPA, future research should also consider other types of recovery (e.g. relaxation, mastery, and control). Additionally, different types of PA breaks, such as group PA breaks taken on-site versus video-based PA breaks, should be taken into account.

Considering the confirmed positive associations for academic performance-related parameters of hypothesis 2, the results are in accordance with the evidence of positive associations between PA and learning and educational success [ 6 ], as well as between PA breaks and better cognitive functioning [ 28 ]. Looking at the self-reported attention difficulties of hypothesis 2.A, only LTPA can counteract it. PA breaks showed no effects, contrary to the results of a study of Löffler and collegues (2011, [ 31 ]), in which acute effects of PA breaks could be found for higher attention and cognitive performance. Furthermore, the perception of study demands before the study periods has a positive impact on difficulties in attention. That means that overload in studies, time pressure during studies, and incompatibility of studies and private life leads to higher difficulties with attention in home studying. In these conditions, PA breaks might have been seen as interfering, resulting in the expected beneficial effects of exercise on attention and task-related participation behavior [ 72 , 73 ] therefore remaining undetected. With respect to the COVID-19 pandemic, accompanying education changes, and an increase in student´s worries [ 74 , 75 ], the perception of study demands could be affected. This suggests that especially in times of constraint and changes, it is important to promote PA in order to counteract attention difficulties. This also applies to post-pandemic phase.

Regarding the perceived academic performance of hypothesis 2.B, both PA breaks and LTPA have a positive effect on perceived study ability. This result confirms the positive short-term effects on cognition tasks [ 76 ]. It is also in line with the positive function of PA breaks in interrupting sedentary behavior and therefore counteracting the negative association between sitting behavior and lower cognitive performance [ 24 ]. Additionally, this result also fits with the previously mentioned positive relationship between LTPA and functional stress and between PA breaks and functional stress.

According to hypothesis 3, in relation to the mentioned stress load and recovery parameters, there are negative effects of the daily number of breaks during home studying and the longest stretch of time without a break spent on home studying on psychological detachment. As stressors result in negative activation, which impede psychological detachment from study during non-studying time [ 25 ], it was expected and confirmed that the longest stretch of time without a break spent on home studying has a negative effect on detachment. Initially unexpected, the number of breaks has a negative influence on psychological detachment, as breaks could prevent the accumulation of strain reactions. However, if the breaks had no recovery effect through successful detachment, the number might not have any influence on recovery via detachment. This is indicated by the PA breaks, which had no impact on psychological detachment. Since there are other ways to recover from stress besides psychological detachment, such as relaxation, mastery, and control [ 53 ], PA breaks must have had an additional impact in relation to the positive results for functional stress.

In relation to the mentioned academic performance-related parameters, only the number of breaks has a positive influence on the perceived study ability. This indicates that not only PA breaks but also breaks in general lead to better perceived functionality in studying. Paulus and colleagues (2021) found out that an increase in cognitive skills is not only attributed to PA breaks and standing breaks, but also to open breaks with no special instructions [ 28 ]. Either way, they found better improvement in self-perceived physical and psychological well-being of the university students with PA breaks than with open breaks. This is also reflected in the present study with the aforementioned positive effects of PA breaks on functional stress, which does not apply to the number of breaks.

Overall, it must be considered that the there is a more complex network of associations between the examined parameters. The hypothesized separate relation of PA with different parameters do not consider associations between parameters of stress load / recovery and academic performance although there might be a interdependency. Furthermore, moderation aspects were not examined. For example, PA could be a moderator which buffer negative effects of stress on the study ability [ 55 ]. Moreover, perceived study ability might moderate stress levels and academic performance. Further studies should try to approach and understand the different relationships between the parameters in its complexity.

Limitations

Certain limitations must be taken into account. Regarding the imbalanced design toward more female students in the sample (47 female versus 6 male), possible sampling bias cannot be excluded. Gender research on students' emotional states during COVID-19, when this study took place, or students´ acceptance of PA breaks is diverse and only partially supplied with inconsistent findings. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, some studies reported that female students were associated with lower well-being [ 71 ] or worse mental health trajectories [ 75 , 77 ]. Another study with a large sample of students from 62 countries reported that male students were more strongly affected by the pandemic because they were significantly less satisfied with their academic life [ 74 ]. However, Keating and colleges (2020) discovered that, despite the COVID-19 pandemic, females rated some aspects of PA breaks during lectures more positively than male students did. However, this was also based on a female slanted sample [ 78 ]. Further studies are needed to get more insights into gender bias.

Furthermore, the small sample size combined with up to 16% missing values comprises a significant short-coming. There were a lot of possibilities which could cause such missing data, like refused, forgotten or missed participation, technical problems, or deviation of the personal code for the questionnaire between survey times. Although the effects could be excluded by sensitive analysis due to missing data, the sample is still small. To generalize the findings, future replication studies are needed.

Additionally, PA breaks were only captured through participation in the ESD, the specially instructed PA break via video. Effects of other short PA breaks were not include in the study. However, participants were called to participate in ESD whenever possible, so the likelihood that they did take part in PA breaks in addition to the ESD could be ignored.

With respect to the baseline variables, it must be considered that two variables (stress load, attention difficulties) were adjusted not with their identical variable in T0, but with other conceptually associated variables (well-being index, BARI-S). Indeed, contrary to the assumption the well-being index does only show an association with functional stress, indicating that it does not control dysfunctional stress. Although the other three assumed associations were confirmed there might be a discrepancy between the daily measured variables and the variables measured in T0. Further studies should either proof the association between these used variables or measure the same variables in T0 for control the daily value of these variables.

Moreover, the measuring instruments comprised the self-assessed perception of the students and thus do not provide an objective information. This must be considered, especially for measuring cognitive and academic-performance-related measures. Here, existing objective tests, such as multiple choice exams after a video-taped lecture [ 72 ] might have also been used. Nevertheless, such methods were mostly used in a lab setting and do not reflect reality. Due to economic reasons and the natural learning environment, such procedures were not applied in this study. However, the circumstances of COVID-19 pandemic allowed a kind of lab setting in real life, as there were a lot of restrictions in daily life which limited the influence of other covariates. The study design provides a real natural home studying environment, producing results that are applicable to the healthy way that students learn in the real world. As this study took place under the conditions of COVID-19, new transformations in studying were also taken into account, as home studying and digital learning are increasingly part of everyday study.

However, the restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic could result in a greater extent of leisure time per se. As the available leisure time in general was not measured on daily level, it is not possible to distinguish if the examined effects on the outcomes are purely attributable to PA. It is possible that being more physical active is the result of having a greater extent of leisure time and not that PA but the leisure time itself effected the examined outcomes. To address this issue in future studies, it is necessary to measure the proportion of PA in relation to the leisure time available.

Furthermore, due to the retrospective nature of the daily assessments of the variables, there may be overstated associations which must be taken into account. Anyway, the daily level of the study design provides advantages regarding the ability to observe changes in an individual's characteristics over the period of the study. This design made it possible to find out the necessity to analyze the hierarchical structure of the intraindividual data nested within the interindividual data. The performed multilevel analyses made it possible to reflect the outcome of an average student in the sample at his/her daily average behavior in PA and home study.

Conclusion and practical implications

The current findings confirm the importance of PA for university students` stress load, recovery experience, and academic performance-related parameters in home studying. Briefly summarized, it can be concluded that PA breaks positively affect stress load and perceived study ability. LTPA has a positive impact on stress load, recovery experience, and academic performance-related parameters regarding attention difficulties and perceived study ability. Following these results, universities should promote PA in both fashions in order to keep their students healthy and functioning: On the one hand, they should offer opportunities to be physically active in leisure time. This includes time, environment, and structural aspects. The university sport department, which offers sport courses and provides sport facilities on university campuses for students´ leisure time, is one good example. On the other hand, they should support PA breaks during the learning process and in the immediate location of study. This includes, for example, providing instructor videos for PA breaks to use while home studying, and furthermore having instructors to lead in-person PA breaks in on-site learning settings like universities´ libraries or even lectures and seminars. This not only promotes PA, but also reduces sedentary behavior and thereby reduces many other health risks. Further research should focus not only on the effect of PA behavior but also of sedentary behavior as well as the amount of leisure time per se. They should also try to implement objective measures for example on academic performance parameters and investigate different effect directions and possible moderation effects to get a deeper understanding of the complex network of associations in which PA plays a crucial role.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

Attention and Performance Self-Assessment

"Berliner Anforderungen Ressourcen-Inventar – Studierende" (instrument for the perception of study demands and resources)

Centered within

Grand centered

“Erfassung von Emotionen und Beanspruchung “ (questionnaire containing a word list of adjectives for the recording of emotions and stress during work)

Exercise snack digital (special physical activity break offer)

Intra-Class-Correlation

Leisure time physical activity

• Physical activity

Recovery Experience Questionnaire

Study ability index

World Health Organization-Five Well-being index

Knight JA. Physical inactivity: associated diseases and disorders. Ann Clin Lab Sci. 2012;42(3):320–37.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Kemel PN, Porter JE, Coombs N. Improving youth physical, mental and social health through physical activity: a systematic literature review. Health Promot J Austr. 2002;33(3):590–601.

Article   Google Scholar  

Gothe NP, Ehlers DK, Salerno EA, Fanning J, Kramer AF, McAuley E. Physical activity, sleep and quality of life in older adults: influence of physical, mental and social well-being. Behav Sleep Med. 2020;18(6):797–808.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Eime RM, Young JA, Harvey JT, Charity MJ, Payne WR. A systematic review of the psychological and social benefits of participation in sport for children and adolescents: informing development of a conceptual model of health through sport. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2013;10(1):1–21.

Google Scholar  

Iannotti RJ, Janssen I, Haug E, Kololo H, Annaheim B, Borraccino A. Interrelationships of adolescent physical activity, screen-based sedentary behaviour, and social and psychological health. Int J Public Health. 2009;54:191–8.

Dadaczynski K, Schiemann S. Welchen Einfluss haben körperliche Aktivität und Fitness im Kindes-und Jugendalter auf Bildungsoutcomes? German J Exerc Sport Res. 2015;4(45):190–9.

Kari JT, Pehkonen J, Hutri-Kähönen N, Raitakari OT, Tammelin TH. Longitudinal associations between physical activity and educational outcomes. Med Sci Sports  Exerc. 2017;49(11).

Grim M, Hortz B, Petosa R. Impact evaluation of a pilot web-based intervention to increase physical activity. Am J Health Promot. 2011;25(4):227–30.

Irwin JD. Prevalence of university students’ sufficient physical activity: A systematic review. Percept Mot Skills. 2004;98:927–43.

Kwan MY, Cairney J, Faulkner GE, Pullenayegum EE. Physical activity and other health-risk behaviors during the transition into early adulthood: a longitudinal cohort study. Am J Prev Med. 2012;42(1):14–20.

John JM, Gropper H, Thiel A. The role of critical life events in the talent development pathways of athletes and musicians: A systematic review. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2019;45.

Bopp M, Bopp C, Schuchert M. Active transportation to and on campus is associated with objectively measured fitness outcomes among college students. J Phys Act Health. 2015;12(3):418–23.

Dadaczynski K. Stand der Forschung zum Zusammenhang von Gesundheit und Bildung. Überblick und Implikationen für die schulische Gesundheitsförderung. Zeitschrift für Gesundheitspsychologie. 2012;20(3):141–53

Suhrcke M, de Paz NC. The impact of health and health behaviours on educational outcomes in high-income countries: a review of the evidence. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Offi ce for Europe; 2011.

Lynch BM, Owen N. Too much sitting and chronic disease risk: steps to move the science forward. Ann Intern Med. 2015;16(2):146–7.

Voss MW, Carr LJ, Clark R, Weng T. Revenge of the “sit” II: Does lifestyle impact neuronal and cognitive health through distinct mechanisms associated with sedentary behavior and physical activity? Ment Health Phys Act. 2014;7(1):9–24.

Huber G. Ist Sitzen eine tödliche Aktivität? B&G Bewegungstherapie und Gesundheitssport. 2014;30(01):13–6.

Peterson NE, Sirard JR, Kulbok PA, DeBoer MD, Erickson JM. Sedentary behavior and physical activity of young adult university students. Res Nurs Health. 2018;4(1):30–8.

Rupp R, Dold C, Bucksch J. Sitzzeitreduktion und Bewegungsaktivierung in der Hochschullehre – Entwicklung und Implementierung der Mehrebenen-Intervention Kopf-Stehen. Die Hochschullehre. 2019;5:525–42.

Ickes MJ, McMullen J, Pflug C, Westgate PM. Impact of a University-based Program on Obese College Students’ Physical Activity Behaviors, Attitudes, and Self-efficacy. Am J Health Educ. 2016;47(1):47–55.

Lepp A, Barkley JE, Karpinski AC. The relationship between cell phone use and academic performance in a sample of US college students. Sage Open. 2015;5(1).

Stapp AC, Prior LF. The Impact of Physically Active Brain Breaks on College Students’ Activity Levels and Perceptions. J Physic Activ Res. 2018;3(1):60–7.

Fuchs R, Klaperski S. Sportliche Aktivität und Stressregulation. In: Fuchs R, Schlicht W, editors. Sportaktivität und seelische Gesundheit Göttingen: Hogrefe; 2012. p. 100–21.

Falck RS, Davis JC, Liu-Ambrose T. What is the association between sedentary behaviour and cognitive function? A systematic review. Br J Sports Med. 2017;51(10):800–11.

Sonnentag S, Fritz C. Recovery from job stress: The stressor-detachment model as an integrative framework. J Organ Behav. 2015;36:72–103.

Edwards JR. A cybernetic theory of stress, coping, and well-being in organizations. Acad Manag Rev. 1992;17(2):238–74.

Wieland R. Status-Bericht: Psychische Gesundheit in der betrieblichen Gesundheitsförderung – eine arbeitspsychologische Perspektive. In: Nold H, Wenninger G, editors. Rückengesundheit und psychische Gesundheit. Rückengesundheit und psychische Gesundheit.: Asanger Verlag; 2013.

Paulus M, Kunkel J, Schmidt SCE, Bachert P, Wäsche H, Neumann R, et al. Standing breaks in lectures improve university students’ self-perceived physical, mental, and cognitive condition. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18.

Marschin V, Herbert C. A Short, Multimodal Activity Break Incorporated Into the Learning Context During the Covid-19 Pandemic: Effects of Physical Activity and Positive Expressive Writing on University Students’ Mental Health — Results and Recommendations From a Pilot Study. Front Psychol. 2021;12.

Gollner E, Savil M, Schnabel F, Braun C, Blasche G. Unterschiede in der Wirksamkeit von Kurzpausenaktivitäten im Vergleich von Bewegungspausen zu psychoregulativen Pausen bei kognitiver Belastung. Bewegungstherapie Gesundheitssport. 2019;35:134–43.

Löffler SN, Dominok E, von Haaren B, Schellhorn R, Gidion G. Aktivierung, Konzentration, Entspannung: Interventionsmöglichkeiten zur Förderung fitnessrelevanter Kompetenzen im Studium: KIT Scientific Publishing; 2011.

Marschin V, Herbert C. A short, multimodal activity break incorporated into the learning context during the Covid-19 pandemic: effects of physical activity and positive expressive writing on university students' mental health—results and recommendations from a pilot study. Front Psychol. 2021.

Kowalsky RJ, Farney TM, Hearon CM. Resistance Exercise Breaks Improve Ratings of Discomfort and Sleepiness in College Students. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2022;94(1):210–5.

Blasche G, Szabo B, Wagner-Menghin M, Ekmekcioglu C, Gollner E. Comparison of rest-break interventions during a mentally demanding task. Stress Health. 2018;34(5):629–38.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Fuchs R, Klaperski S. Stressregulation durch Sport und Bewegung. In: Fuchs R, Gerber M, editors. Handbuch Stressregulation und Sport. Berlin: Springer; 2018. p. 205–26.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Kaluza G, Renneberg B. Stressbewältigung. In: Bengel J, Jerusalem M, editors. HandbuchGesundheitspsychologie und medizinische Psychologie. Göttingen: Hogrefe; 2009. p. 265–72.

Klaperski S. Exercise, Stress and Health: The Stress-Buffering Effect of Exercise. In: Fuchs R, Gerber M, editors. Handbuch Stressregulation und Sport. Berlin: Springer; 2018. p. 227–50.

Lesser IA, Nienhuis CP. The impact of COVID-19 on physical activity behavior and well-being of Canadians. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(11):3899.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Moore SA, Faulkner G, Rhodes RE, Brussoni M, Chulak-Bozzer T, Ferguson LJ, et al. Impact of the COVID-19 virus outbreak on movement and play behaviours of Canadian children and youth: a national survey. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2020;17(1):1–11.

Rodríguez-Larrad A, Mañas A, Labayen I, González-Gross M, Espin A, Aznar S, et al. Impact of COVID-19 confinement on physical activity and sedentary behaviour in Spanish university students: Role of gender. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(2):369.

Stanton R, To QG, Khalesi S, Williams SL, Alley SJ, Thwaite TL, et al. Depression, anxiety and stress during COVID-19: associations with changes in physical activity, sleep, tobacco and alcohol use in Australian adults. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(11):4065.

Zheng C, Huang WY, Sheridan S, Sit CHP, Chen XK, Wong SHS. COVID-19 pandemic brings a sedentary lifestyle in young adults: a cross-sectional and longitudinal study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(17):6035.

Commodari E. Attention Skills and Risk of Developing Learning Difficulties. Curr Psychol. 2012;31:17–34.

Commodari E, Guarnera M. Attention and reading skills. Percept Mot Skills. 2005;100:3753–86.

Raaijmakers MAJ, Smidts DP, Sergeant JA, Maassen GH, Posthumus JA, van Engeland H, et al. Executive functions in preschool children with aggressive behavior: impairments in inhibitory control. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2008;36:1097–107.

Vellutino FR, Scanlon DM, Sipay ER, Small SG, Pratt A, Chen RS, et al. Cognitive profiles of difficulty to remediate and readily remediate poor readers: early intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as basic of specific reading disability. J Educ Psychol. 1996;88:601–38.

Ilies R, Dimotakis N, De Pater IE. Psychological and physiological reactions to high workloads: Implications for well-being. Pers Psychol. 2010;63(2):407–36.

Rodell JB, Judge TA. Can “good” stressors spark “bad” behaviors? The mediating role of emotions in links of challenge and hindrance stressors with citizenship and counterproductive behaviors. J Appl Psychol. 2009;94(6).

Teuber M, Leyhr D, Moll J, Sudeck G. Nudging digital physical activity breaks for home studying of university students—A randomized controlled trial during the COVID-19 pandemic with daily activity measures. Front Sports Active Living. 2022;4.

Feuerhahn N, Sonnentag S, Woll A. Exercise after work, psychological mediators, and affect: A day-level study. Eur J Work Organ Psy. 2014;23(1):62–79.

Sonnentag S. Work, Recovery Activities, ans Individual Well-Being: A Diary Study. J Occup Health Psychol. 2001;6(3):196–210.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Wieland R. Gestaltung gesundheitsförderlicher Arbeitsbedingungen. In: Kleinbeck U, Schmidt K-H, editors. Arbeitspsychologie (Enzyklopädie der Psychologie, Serie Wirtschafts-, Organisations- und Arbeitspsychologie). 1. Göttingen: Hogrefe; 2010. p. 869–919.

Sonnentag S, Fritz C. The Recovery Experience Questionnaire: development and validation of a measure for assessing recuperation and unwinding from work. J Occup Health Psychol. 2007;12(3):204–21.

Bankstahl US, Görtelmeyer R. Measuring subjective complaints of attention and performance failures development and psychometric validation in tinnitus of the self-assessment scale APSA. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. 2013;11(86).

Teuber M, Arzberger I, Sudeck G. Körperliche Aktivität, Gesundheit und Funktionsfähigkeit im Studium: Sportliche Freizeitaktivitäten und aktive Fortbewegung als Ressource im Studium? In: Göring A, Mayer J, Jetzke M, editors. Sport und Studienerfolg - Analysen zur Bedeutung sportlicher Aktivität im Setting Hochschule. Hochschulsport: Bildung und Wissenschaft, 4. Göttingen: Universitätsverlag Göttingen; 2020. p. 27–49.

Hasselhorn H-M, Freude G. Der Work-Ability-Index: ein Leitfaden In: Arbeitsmedizin BfAu, editor. Dortmund/Berlin/Dresden: Wirtschaftsverl. NW, Verlag für Neue Wissenschaft GmbH; 2007.

Rütten A, Pfeifer K. Nationale Empfehlungen für Bewegung und Bewegungsförderung. Köln: Bundeszentrale für Gesundheitliche Aufklärung (BZgA); 2017.

Brähler E, Mühlan H, Albani C, Schmidt S. Teststatistische Prüfung und Normierung der deutschen Versionen des EUROHIS-QOL Lebensqualität-Index und des WHO-5 Wohlbefindens-Index. Diagnostica. 2007;53(2):83–96.

Gusy B, Wörfel F, Lohmann K. Erschöpfung und Engagement im Studium. Zeitschrift für Gesundheitspsychologie. 2016;24(1):41–53.

Elfering A, Grebner S, de Tribolet-Hardy F. The long arm of time pressure at work: Cognitive failure and commuting near-accidents. Eur J Work Organ Psy. 2013;22(6):737–49.

Kreft IG, de Leeuw J. Introducing multilevel modeling. London: Sage; 1998.

Book   Google Scholar  

Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker BM, Walker SC. Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. J Stat Softw. 2015;67(1):1–48.

Hofmann DA, Gavin MB. Centering decisions in hierarchical linear models: Implications for research in organizations. J Manag. 1998;24(5):623–41.

Nezlek J. Diary Studies in Social and Personality Psychology: An Introduction With Some Recommendations and Suggestions. Social Psychological Bulletin. 2020;15(2).

Knapp G. Gemischte Modelle in R. Begleitskriptum zur Weiterbildung. In: Dortmund TU, editor. Braunschweig2019.

Van Buuren S, Groothuis-Oudshoorn K. mice: Multivariate imputation by chained equations in R. J Stat Softw. 2011;45:1–67.

von Hippel PT. How Many Imputations Do You Need? A Twostage Calculation Using a Quadratic Rule. Sociological Methods & Research. 2020;49(3):699–718.

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Robinson D. broom: An R package for converting statistical analysis objects into tidy data frames. arXiv preprint arXiv:14123565. 2014.

Young-Jones A, McCain J, Hart B. Let’s Take a Break: The Impact of Physical Activity on Academic Motivation. Int J Teach Learn High Educ. 2022;33(3):110–8.

Barr-Anderson DJ, AuYoung M, Whitt-Glover MC, Glenn BA, Yancey AK. Integration of short bouts of physical activity into organizational routine: A systematic review of the literature. Am J Prev Med. 2011;40(1):76–93.

Dodd RH, Dadaczynski K, Okan O, McCaffery KJ, Pickles K. Psychological Wellbeing and Academic Experience of University Students in Australia during COVID-19. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2021;18.

Fenesi B, Lucibello K, Kim JA, Heisz JJ. Sweat so you don’t forget: exercise breaks during a university lecture increase on-task attention and learning. J Appl Res Mem Cogn. 2018;7(2):261–9.

Ruhland S, Lange KW. Effect of classroom-based physical activity interventions on attention and on-task behavior in schoolchildren: A systematic review. Sports Med Health Sci. 2021;3:125–33.

Aristovnik A, Keržič D, Ravšelj D, Tomaževič N, Umek L. Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Life of Higher Education Students: A Global Perspective. Sustainability. 2020;12(20).

Browning MHEM, Larson LR, Sharaievska I, Rigolon A, McAnirlin O, Mullenbach L, et al. Psychological impacts from COVID-19 among university students: Risk factors across seven states in the United States. PLoS ONE 2021;16(1).

Chang Y-K, Labban JD, Gapin JI, Etnier JL. The effects of acute exercise on cognitive performance: a meta-analysis. Brain Res. 2012;1453:87–101.

Elmer T, Mepham K, Stadtfeld C. Students under lockdown: Comparisons of students’ social networks and mental health before and during the COVID-19 crisis in Switzerland. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(7):e0236337.

Keating R, Ahern S, Bisgood L, Mernagh K, Nicolson GH, Barrett EM. Stand up, stand out. Feasibility of an active break targeting prolonged sitting in university students. J Am Coll Health. 2020;70(7).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Juliane Moll, research associate of the Student Health Management of University of Tübingen, for the support in the coordination and realization study. We would like to express our thanks also to Ingrid Arzberger, Head of University Sports at the University of Tübingen, for providing the resources and co-applying for the funding. We acknowledge support by Open Access Publishing Fund of University of Tübingen.

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. This research regarding the conduction of the study was funded by the Techniker Krankenkasse, health insurance fund.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Institute of Sports Science, Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany

Monika Teuber, Daniel Leyhr & Gorden Sudeck

Methods Center, Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany

Daniel Leyhr

Interfaculty Research Institute for Sports and Physical Activity, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany

Gorden Sudeck

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

M.T. and G.S. designed the study. M.T. coordinated and carried out participant recruitment and data collection. M.T. analyzed the data and M.T. and D.L. interpreted the data. M.T. drafted the initial version of the manuscript and prepared the figure and all tables. All authors contributed to reviewing and editing the manuscript and have read and agreed to the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Monika Teuber .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

The study involves human participants and was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Social Sciences and Economics, University of Tübingen (ref. A2.54-127_kr). The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study. All methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Supplementary file 1., supplementary file 2., rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . 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 in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Teuber, M., Leyhr, D. & Sudeck, G. Physical activity improves stress load, recovery, and academic performance-related parameters among university students: a longitudinal study on daily level. BMC Public Health 24 , 598 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-18082-z

Download citation

Received : 30 June 2023

Accepted : 12 February 2024

Published : 24 February 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-18082-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Physical activity breaks
• Stress load
• Psychological detachment
• Academic performance
• Study ability
• University students

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]

Physical Activity: College-Based Physical Education and Health Education

• What the CPSTF Found
• Supporting Materials

Considerations for Implementation

Summary of cpstf finding, intervention, cpstf finding and rationale statement, about the systematic review, summary of results.

• The studies generally showed consistent increases in physical activity and aerobic capacity in the short term.
• The 2-year follow-up showed declines in activity back to previous levels and did not find the desired effects on the proposed mediators of behavioral change.

Summary of Economic Evidence

Applicability, evidence gaps.

The following outlines evidence gaps for reviews of these interventions to increase physical activity: Individually-Adapted Health Behavior Change Programs; Social Support Interventions in Community Settings; Family-Based Social Support; Enhanced School-Based Physical Education (archived); College-Based Physical Education and Health Education; Classroom-Based Health Education to Reduce TV Viewing and Video Game Playing; Community-Wide Campaigns; Mass Media Campaigns (archived); Classroom-Based Health Education Focused on Providing Information; Creation of or Enhanced Access to Places for Physical Activity Combined with Informational Outreach Activities.

Effectiveness

Several crosscutting research issues about the effectiveness of all of the reviewed interventions remain.

• For example, does a decrease in time spent watching television mean an increase in physical activity or will another sedentary activity be substituted?
• Does an increase in the use of public transportation mean an increase in physical activity or will users drive to the transit stop?
• Reliable and valid measures are needed for the spectrum of physical activity. Rationale: Current measures are better for vigorous activity than for moderate or light activity.
• Sedentary people are more likely to begin activity at a light level; this activity is often not captured by current measurement techniques.
• Increased consensus about “best measures” for physical activity would help to increase comparability between studies and would facilitate assessment of effectiveness.
• Note: This is not intended to preclude researchers’ latitude in choosing what aspects of physical activity to measure and to decide which measures are most appropriate for a particular study population. Perhaps a useful middle ground position would be the establishment of selected core measures that most researchers should use which could then be supplemented by additional measures. The duration of an intervention’s effect was often difficult to determine.

Each recommended and strongly recommended intervention should be applicable in most relevant target populations and settings, assuming that appropriate attention is paid to tailoring. However, possible differences in the effectiveness of each intervention for specific subgroups of the population often could not be determined. Several questions about the applicability of these interventions in settings and populations other than those studied remain.

• Are there significant differences in the effectiveness of these interventions, based on the level or scale of an intervention?
• What are the effects of each intervention in various sociodemographic subgroups, such as age, gender, race, or ethnicity?

Other Positive or Negative Effects

The studies included in this review did not report on other positive and negative effects of these interventions. Research on the following questions would be useful:

• Do informational approaches to increasing physical activity help to increase health knowledge? Is it necessary to increase knowledge or improve attitudes toward physical activity to increase physical activity levels?
• Do these approaches to increasing physical activity increase awareness of opportunities for and benefits of physical activity?
• What are the most effective ways to maintain physical activity levels after the initial behavior change has occurred?
• Are there other benefits from an intervention that might enhance its acceptability? For example, does increasing social support for physical activity carry over into an overall greater sense of community?
• Are there any key harms?
• Is anything known about whether or how approaches to physical activity could reduce potential harms (e.g., injuries or other problems associated with doing too much too fast)?

Economic Evidence

The available economic data were limited. Therefore, considerable research is warranted on the following questions:

• What is the cost-effectiveness of each of these interventions?
• How can effectiveness in terms of health outcomes or quality-adjusted health outcomes be better measured, estimated, or modeled?
• How can the cost benefit of these programs be estimated?
• How do specific characteristics of each of these approaches contribute to economic efficiency?
• What combinations of components in multicomponent interventions are most cost-effective?

Research questions generated in this review include the following:

• What are the physical or structural (environmental) barriers to implementing these interventions?
• What resource (time and money) constraints prevent or hinder the implementation of these interventions?

Study Characteristics

• Lecture classes that addressed the benefits and potential risks of physical activity, the current recommendations about the amount and type of physical activity one should get, and behavioral management techniques.
• An opportunity for students to apply these lessons in “laboratory”-type sessions where they engaged in supervised physical activity, developed goals and activity plans, and wrote term papers based on their experiences.
• Social support and phone calls among students
• Behavioral contracts for an agreed-on amount of physical activity

Publications

Task Force on Community Services. Recommendations to increase physical activity in communities . American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2002;22(4S):67-72.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Increasing physical activity. A report on recommendations of the Task Force on Community Preventive Services . MMWR 2001;50(RR-18):1-16. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5018a1.htm.

Dunn AL, Blair SN. Translating evidence-based physical activity interventions into practice . American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2002;22(4S):8-9.

Task Force on Community Services, Zaza S, Briss PA, Harris KW. Physical activity . In: The Guide to Community Preventive Services: What Works to Promote Health? Atlanta (GA): Oxford University Press; 2005:80-113.

Analytic Framework

Effectiveness review.

Analytic Framework see Figure 1 on page 76

When starting an effectiveness review, the systematic review team develops an analytic framework. The analytic framework illustrates how the intervention approach is thought to affect public health. It guides the search for evidence and may be used to summarize the evidence collected. The analytic framework often includes intermediate outcomes, potential effect modifiers, potential harms, and potential additional benefits.

Summary Evidence Table

Summary Evidence Table — Effectiveness Review

Included Studies

Calfas KJ, Sallis JF, Nichols JF, et al. Project GRAD: two-year outcomes of a randomized controlled physical activity intervention among young adults. Graduate Ready for Activity Daily. Am J Prev Med 2000;18:28 37.

Epstein LH, Wing RR, Thompson JK, Griffin W. Attendance and fitness in aerobics exercise: the effects of contract and lottery procedures. Behav Modif 1980;4:465 79.

Sallis JF, Calfas KJ, Nichols JF, et al. Evaluation of a university course to promote physical activity: project GRAD. Res Q Exerc Sport 1999;70:1 10

Search Strategies

• Were published in English during 1980-2000
• Were conducted in an Established Market Economy*
• Assessed a behavioral intervention primarily focused on physical activity
• Were primary investigations of interventions selected for evaluation rather than, for example, guidelines or reviews
• Evaluated outcomes selected for review; and
• Compared outcomes among groups of persons exposed to the intervention with outcomes among groups of persons not exposed or less exposed to the intervention (whether the study design included a concurrent or before-and-after comparison)

* Established Market Economies as defined by the World Bank are Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bermuda, Canada, Channel Islands, Denmark, Faeroe Islands, Finland, France, Germany, Gibraltar, Greece, Greenland, Holy See, Iceland, Ireland, Isle of Man, Italy, Japan, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, San Marino, Spain, St. Pierre and Miquelon, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Evidence-Based Cancer Control Programs (EBCCP)

Systematic Review

• Physical Activity
• Insufficient Evidence
• February 2001
• Adolescents and Young Adults
• Health Education

This webpage summarizes information available in the CPSTF Findings and Rationale Statement, located under the Snapshot tab.

New Research Examines Physical Education in America

By Morgan Clennin, PhD, MPH, Kaiser Permanente of Colorado, University of South Carolina, and National Physical Activity Plan

School-based physical education (PE) is recommended by the Community Guide as an effective strategy to promote physical activity among youth. Unfortunately, many have speculated that PE exposure has declined precipitously among U.S. students in the past decade. Limited resources and budgets, prioritization of core academic subjects, and several other barriers have been cited as potential drivers of these claims. However, few large-scale studies have explored the merit of these claims – leaving the answers following questions unknown:

Has PE attendance decreased among U.S. students in the past decades?

What policies and practices are in place to support quality PE?

To answer these questions, the President’s Council on Sports, Fitness & Nutrition tasked the National Physical Activity Plan Alliance (NPAPA) to review the available evidence and summarize their findings. The primary objective of this effort was to better understand PE exposure over time to inform national recommendations and strategies for PE.

The NPAPA began by establishing a collaborative partnership with experts in the federal government, industry, and academia. The group analyzed existing national data sources that could be used to examine changes in PE attendance and current implementation of PE policies and practices. These efforts culminated in a final report and two peer-reviewed manuscripts. A summary of the group’s findings are outlined below.

Key Findings:

• 1/2 of U.S. high school students did not attend PE classes—which is consistent over the 24-year period studied (1991-2015).
• The percentage of U.S. high school students reporting PE attendance did not change significantly between 1991 and 2015 for the overall sample or across sex and race/ethnicity subgroup.
• Daily PE attendance did decrease 16% from 1991 to 1995 then attendance rates remained stable through 2015.
• > 65% of schools implemented 2-4 of the 7 essential PE policies
• Implementation of PE policies varied by region, metropolitan status, and school level.
• Data indicates minority students have been disproportionately affected by cuts to school PE programs during the past two decades.

Recommendations Based on Key Findings:

• Prioritize efforts to expand collection of surveillance data examining trends in PE attendance among elementary and middle school students.
• Develop policies to improve PE access for all students in order for PE to contribute to increased physical activity among youth.
• Adopt policies and programs that prioritize PE to maximize the benefits of PE.
• Utilize the findings of these efforts to target professional development and technical assistance for PE practitioners.

The Education sector of the NPAP provides evidence-based strategies and tactics that can guide efforts to support the provision of quality PE to all students. More information, and links to the respective manuscripts, can be found on the NPAPA website: http://physicalactivityplan.org/projects/physicaleducation.html

The Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (ODPHP) cannot attest to the accuracy of a non-federal website.

Linking to a non-federal website does not constitute an endorsement by ODPHP or any of its employees of the sponsors or the information and products presented on the website.

You will be subject to the destination website's privacy policy when you follow the link.

40 Facts About Elektrostal

Written by Lanette Mayes

Modified & Updated: 19 May 2024

Reviewed by Jessica Corbett

Elektrostal is a vibrant city located in the Moscow Oblast region of Russia. With a rich history, stunning architecture, and a thriving community, Elektrostal is a city that has much to offer. Whether you are a history buff, nature enthusiast, or simply curious about different cultures, Elektrostal is sure to captivate you.

This article will provide you with 40 fascinating facts about Elektrostal, giving you a better understanding of why this city is worth exploring. From its origins as an industrial hub to its modern-day charm, we will delve into the various aspects that make Elektrostal a unique and must-visit destination.

So, join us as we uncover the hidden treasures of Elektrostal and discover what makes this city a true gem in the heart of Russia.

Key Takeaways:

• Elektrostal, known as the “Motor City of Russia,” is a vibrant and growing city with a rich industrial history, offering diverse cultural experiences and a strong commitment to environmental sustainability.
• With its convenient location near Moscow, Elektrostal provides a picturesque landscape, vibrant nightlife, and a range of recreational activities, making it an ideal destination for residents and visitors alike.

Known as the “Motor City of Russia.”

Elektrostal, a city located in the Moscow Oblast region of Russia, earned the nickname “Motor City” due to its significant involvement in the automotive industry.

Home to the Elektrostal Metallurgical Plant.

Elektrostal is renowned for its metallurgical plant, which has been producing high-quality steel and alloys since its establishment in 1916.

Boasts a rich industrial heritage.

Elektrostal has a long history of industrial development, contributing to the growth and progress of the region.

Founded in 1916.

The city of Elektrostal was founded in 1916 as a result of the construction of the Elektrostal Metallurgical Plant.

Located approximately 50 kilometers east of Moscow.

Elektrostal is situated in close proximity to the Russian capital, making it easily accessible for both residents and visitors.

Known for its vibrant cultural scene.

Elektrostal is home to several cultural institutions, including museums, theaters, and art galleries that showcase the city’s rich artistic heritage.

A popular destination for nature lovers.

Surrounded by picturesque landscapes and forests, Elektrostal offers ample opportunities for outdoor activities such as hiking, camping, and birdwatching.

Hosts the annual Elektrostal City Day celebrations.

Every year, Elektrostal organizes festive events and activities to celebrate its founding, bringing together residents and visitors in a spirit of unity and joy.

Has a population of approximately 160,000 people.

Elektrostal is home to a diverse and vibrant community of around 160,000 residents, contributing to its dynamic atmosphere.

Boasts excellent education facilities.

The city is known for its well-established educational institutions, providing quality education to students of all ages.

A center for scientific research and innovation.

Elektrostal serves as an important hub for scientific research, particularly in the fields of metallurgy, materials science, and engineering.

Surrounded by picturesque lakes.

The city is blessed with numerous beautiful lakes , offering scenic views and recreational opportunities for locals and visitors alike.

Well-connected transportation system.

Elektrostal benefits from an efficient transportation network, including highways, railways, and public transportation options, ensuring convenient travel within and beyond the city.

Famous for its traditional Russian cuisine.

Food enthusiasts can indulge in authentic Russian dishes at numerous restaurants and cafes scattered throughout Elektrostal.

Home to notable architectural landmarks.

Elektrostal boasts impressive architecture, including the Church of the Transfiguration of the Lord and the Elektrostal Palace of Culture.

Offers a wide range of recreational facilities.

Residents and visitors can enjoy various recreational activities, such as sports complexes, swimming pools, and fitness centers, enhancing the overall quality of life.

Provides a high standard of healthcare.

Elektrostal is equipped with modern medical facilities, ensuring residents have access to quality healthcare services.

Home to the Elektrostal History Museum.

The Elektrostal History Museum showcases the city’s fascinating past through exhibitions and displays.

A hub for sports enthusiasts.

Elektrostal is passionate about sports, with numerous stadiums, arenas, and sports clubs offering opportunities for athletes and spectators.

Celebrates diverse cultural festivals.

Throughout the year, Elektrostal hosts a variety of cultural festivals, celebrating different ethnicities, traditions, and art forms.

Electric power played a significant role in its early development.

Elektrostal owes its name and initial growth to the establishment of electric power stations and the utilization of electricity in the industrial sector.

Boasts a thriving economy.

The city’s strong industrial base, coupled with its strategic location near Moscow, has contributed to Elektrostal’s prosperous economic status.

Houses the Elektrostal Drama Theater.

The Elektrostal Drama Theater is a cultural centerpiece, attracting theater enthusiasts from far and wide.

Popular destination for winter sports.

Elektrostal’s proximity to ski resorts and winter sport facilities makes it a favorite destination for skiing, snowboarding, and other winter activities.

Promotes environmental sustainability.

Elektrostal prioritizes environmental protection and sustainability, implementing initiatives to reduce pollution and preserve natural resources.

Home to renowned educational institutions.

Elektrostal is known for its prestigious schools and universities, offering a wide range of academic programs to students.

Committed to cultural preservation.

The city values its cultural heritage and takes active steps to preserve and promote traditional customs, crafts, and arts.

Hosts an annual International Film Festival.

The Elektrostal International Film Festival attracts filmmakers and cinema enthusiasts from around the world, showcasing a diverse range of films.

Encourages entrepreneurship and innovation.

Elektrostal supports aspiring entrepreneurs and fosters a culture of innovation, providing opportunities for startups and business development.

Offers a range of housing options.

Elektrostal provides diverse housing options, including apartments, houses, and residential complexes, catering to different lifestyles and budgets.

Home to notable sports teams.

Elektrostal is proud of its sports legacy, with several successful sports teams competing at regional and national levels.

Boasts a vibrant nightlife scene.

Residents and visitors can enjoy a lively nightlife in Elektrostal, with numerous bars, clubs, and entertainment venues.

Promotes cultural exchange and international relations.

Elektrostal actively engages in international partnerships, cultural exchanges, and diplomatic collaborations to foster global connections.

Surrounded by beautiful nature reserves.

Nearby nature reserves, such as the Barybino Forest and Luchinskoye Lake, offer opportunities for nature enthusiasts to explore and appreciate the region’s biodiversity.

Commemorates historical events.

The city pays tribute to significant historical events through memorials, monuments, and exhibitions, ensuring the preservation of collective memory.

Promotes sports and youth development.

Elektrostal invests in sports infrastructure and programs to encourage youth participation, health, and physical fitness.

Hosts annual cultural and artistic festivals.

Throughout the year, Elektrostal celebrates its cultural diversity through festivals dedicated to music, dance, art, and theater.

Provides a picturesque landscape for photography enthusiasts.

The city’s scenic beauty, architectural landmarks, and natural surroundings make it a paradise for photographers.

Connects to Moscow via a direct train line.

The convenient train connection between Elektrostal and Moscow makes commuting between the two cities effortless.

A city with a bright future.

Elektrostal continues to grow and develop, aiming to become a model city in terms of infrastructure, sustainability, and quality of life for its residents.

In conclusion, Elektrostal is a fascinating city with a rich history and a vibrant present. From its origins as a center of steel production to its modern-day status as a hub for education and industry, Elektrostal has plenty to offer both residents and visitors. With its beautiful parks, cultural attractions, and proximity to Moscow, there is no shortage of things to see and do in this dynamic city. Whether you’re interested in exploring its historical landmarks, enjoying outdoor activities, or immersing yourself in the local culture, Elektrostal has something for everyone. So, next time you find yourself in the Moscow region, don’t miss the opportunity to discover the hidden gems of Elektrostal.

Q: What is the population of Elektrostal?

A: As of the latest data, the population of Elektrostal is approximately XXXX.

Q: How far is Elektrostal from Moscow?

A: Elektrostal is located approximately XX kilometers away from Moscow.

Q: Are there any famous landmarks in Elektrostal?

A: Yes, Elektrostal is home to several notable landmarks, including XXXX and XXXX.

Q: What industries are prominent in Elektrostal?

A: Elektrostal is known for its steel production industry and is also a center for engineering and manufacturing.

Q: Are there any universities or educational institutions in Elektrostal?

A: Yes, Elektrostal is home to XXXX University and several other educational institutions.

Q: What are some popular outdoor activities in Elektrostal?

A: Elektrostal offers several outdoor activities, such as hiking, cycling, and picnicking in its beautiful parks.

Q: Is Elektrostal well-connected in terms of transportation?

A: Yes, Elektrostal has good transportation links, including trains and buses, making it easily accessible from nearby cities.

Q: Are there any annual events or festivals in Elektrostal?

A: Yes, Elektrostal hosts various events and festivals throughout the year, including XXXX and XXXX.

Elektrostal's fascinating history, vibrant culture, and promising future make it a city worth exploring. For more captivating facts about cities around the world, discover the unique characteristics that define each city . Uncover the hidden gems of Moscow Oblast through our in-depth look at Kolomna. Lastly, dive into the rich industrial heritage of Teesside, a thriving industrial center with its own story to tell.

Was this page helpful?

Our commitment to delivering trustworthy and engaging content is at the heart of what we do. Each fact on our site is contributed by real users like you, bringing a wealth of diverse insights and information. To ensure the highest standards of accuracy and reliability, our dedicated editors meticulously review each submission. This process guarantees that the facts we share are not only fascinating but also credible. Trust in our commitment to quality and authenticity as you explore and learn with us.

Share this Fact:

• Bahasa Indonesia
• Eastern Europe
• Moscow Oblast

Elektrostal

Elektrostal Localisation : Country Russia , Oblast Moscow Oblast . Available Information : Geographical coordinates , Population, Area, Altitude, Weather and Hotel . Nearby cities and villages : Noginsk , Pavlovsky Posad and Staraya Kupavna .

Information

Find all the information of Elektrostal or click on the section of your choice in the left menu.

• Update data

Elektrostal Demography

Information on the people and the population of Elektrostal.

Elektrostal Geography

Geographic Information regarding City of Elektrostal .

Elektrostal Distance

Distance (in kilometers) between Elektrostal and the biggest cities of Russia.

Elektrostal Map

Locate simply the city of Elektrostal through the card, map and satellite image of the city.

Elektrostal Nearby cities and villages

Elektrostal weather.

Weather forecast for the next coming days and current time of Elektrostal.

Elektrostal Sunrise and sunset

Find below the times of sunrise and sunset calculated 7 days to Elektrostal.

Elektrostal Hotel

Our team has selected for you a list of hotel in Elektrostal classified by value for money. Book your hotel room at the best price.

Elektrostal Nearby

Below is a list of activities and point of interest in Elektrostal and its surroundings.

Elektrostal Page

• Information /Russian-Federation--Moscow-Oblast--Elektrostal#info
• Demography /Russian-Federation--Moscow-Oblast--Elektrostal#demo
• Geography /Russian-Federation--Moscow-Oblast--Elektrostal#geo
• Distance /Russian-Federation--Moscow-Oblast--Elektrostal#dist1
• Map /Russian-Federation--Moscow-Oblast--Elektrostal#map
• Nearby cities and villages /Russian-Federation--Moscow-Oblast--Elektrostal#dist2
• Weather /Russian-Federation--Moscow-Oblast--Elektrostal#weather
• Sunrise and sunset /Russian-Federation--Moscow-Oblast--Elektrostal#sun
• Hotel /Russian-Federation--Moscow-Oblast--Elektrostal#hotel
• Nearby /Russian-Federation--Moscow-Oblast--Elektrostal#around
• Page /Russian-Federation--Moscow-Oblast--Elektrostal#page
• Terms of Use
• Copyright © 2024 DB-City - All rights reserved
• Change Ad Consent Do not sell my data

A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

A lock ( ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• Physical Activity in Daily Life
• About Physical Activity
• Increasing Physical Activity
• Built Environment Assessment Tool Manual
• Data & Statistics for Physical Activity
• Reports and Featured Research
• Community Design Examples
• Physical Activity Fact Sheets and Infographics
• Guidelines and Recommended Strategies
• Community Design Resources
• Community Design Definitions
• Military Readiness
• Stairwell Ideas
• Community Design Visual Guide

Strategies for School and Youth Programs

• Comprehensive school physical activity programs use a combination of strategies to increase physical activity before, during, and after school.
• See approaches you can take, examples of what others have done, and resources.

Comprehensive physical activity programs may include physical education, recess, classroom physical activity, staff involvement in employee wellness programs, and family and community engagement. By implementing a comprehensive physical activity program, schools help students get the recommended 60 minutes of daily physical activity.

Comprehensive physical education

Physical education (PE) is a K–12 academic subject. It provides standards-based curricula to develop students' knowledge and behaviors for physical activity, physical fitness, and motor skills. Schools can develop and carry out comprehensive PE policies for daily physical activity . This will prepare students to be physically active at school and beyond.

Opportunities before, during, and after school

In addition to quality physical education, schools can carry out recess and classroom policies to ensure students are physically active during the day. Physical activity before and after school might include:

• Physical activity clubs.
• Intramural programs (recreational sports for fun).
• Interscholastic sports (competitive sports between schools).
• Access to team and individual sports.
• Physical activity in before- and after-school programs.

Working together

• Achieving Impact on Childhood Obesity: Georgia Shape's 'Power Up for 30'
• Schools Work to Make Physical Education Count in Suburban Chicago, Illinois
• Afterschool Programs Expand Opportunities for Obesity Prevention in Boston, Massachusetts

Community Preventive Services Task Force recommendations

Enhanced School-Based Physical Education

Classroom-based Physical Activity Break Interventions

Classroom-based Physical Activity Lesson Interventions

Comprehensive School Physical Activity Programs: A Guide for Schools How to develop, implement, and evaluate comprehensive school physical activity programs.

Increasing Physical Education and Physical Activity: A Framework for Schools Identifies key opportunities and resources for professional development to help schools implement the framework.

Inclusive School Physical Education and Physical Activity * How to create an inclusive culture for physical education and physical activity in schools.

Infographic: Benefits of school-based physical activity How 60 minutes of daily moderate-to-vigorous physical activity can benefit students, teachers, and the community.

Physical Education Curriculum Analysis Tool (PECAT) Self-assessment and planning guide helps school districts and schools conduct clear, complete, and consistent analyses of physical education curricula.

Strengthen Physical Education in Schools data brief Snapshot of current U.S. physical education practices and ways to improve physical education.

Opportunities before, during, or after school

Healthy Out-of-School Time Assessment * Track what schools are already doing and highlight opportunities for improvement.

Strategies for Classroom Physical Activity in Schools Describes 10 evidence-based strategies to promote and plan classroom physical activity. Also see A Guide for Putting Strategies into Practice .

Strategies for Recess in Schools How to plan and provide recess in schools to increase physical activity participation.

Youth Compendium of Physical Activities List of 196 common youth activities and their estimated energy cost. It can be used for research, public health policies, and education.

*Can be used to help address equitable and inclusive access to physical activity.

Want additional tips and resources to be active? Learn about Active People, Healthy Nation SM , CDC’s national initiative to help people be more physically active.

Physical Activity

Physical activity is vital throughout life. See strategies, data, and resources to increase physical activity in states and communities.

For Everyone

Public health.

First Deputy Minister --- RYABEV, Lev Dmitriyevich (Izvestiya, 23 May 02). Deputy Minister (Nuclear Weapons Complex) --- KAMENSKIKH, Ivan (Izvestiya, 19 Mar 03). Deputy Minister --- NIGMATULIN, Bulat, ( Interfax 8 Dec 01). Deputy Minister --- VINOGRADOV, V. (Rossiyskaya Gazeta, 4 Apr 00) Deputy Minister --- ANTIPOV, Sergey Viktorovich, appointed (Nuclear.ru, 15 Nov 02).

• ["Antipov was born in 1948, graduated from the Moscow Physical Engineering Institute (1972), and is a physicist and engineer (experimental and theoretical physics, plasma physics).  In 1996 he graduated from the Moscow State Law Academy as a lawyer specializing in jurisprudence. Prior to being appointed to the post of deputy minister he headed the Center for Organizational and Legal Issues at the Kurchatovskiy Institut Russian Scientific Center.  As director and coordinator of the project on nonproliferation and nuclear weapons control in the sphere of the record keeping and control of nuclear materials, and of systems for the physical protection of nuclear installations, he participated in regular Russian-American working conferences. . . .the main areas of his activity . . . will be the recycling of nuclear submarines, the decommissioning of nuclear reactors, the management of radioactive wastes, and the restoration of land" (Nuclear.ru, 15 Nov 02).]

Deputy Minister (States Secretary) --- LEBEDEV, Valeriy Aleksandrovich.  (Atompressa, No 32 Sep 99; Appointed "States Secretary," Rossiyskaya Gazeta, 12 Sep 01).

• Formerly: General Director of the Mining and Chemical Combine, Zheleznogorsk.  (Atompressa, No 32 Sep 99)

Accounting and Control of Nuclear Materials and the Provision of Guarantees for their Non-proliferation and Physical Protection, Directorate for the Supervision of

Chief --- Volodin, Yuriy Georgiyevich.  Telephone: (095) 9116081.

Central Apparatus

Crisis situation center.

• (Izvestiya 22 May 01).

Department for Liaison with State Power Bodies and Information Policy

• Head -- Nikolay Shingarev (ITAR-TASS, 22 Jan 03).

Environment and Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities, Administration for

• ["The responsibility for the recycling of nuclear submarines was delegated from the Defense Ministry to the Atomic Energy Ministry only in 1998, and the technical bases of the Northern and Pacific Fleets are currently being handed over to the Atomic Energy Ministry's special enterprises SevRao and DalRao.   Notably, the military are quite reluctantly parting with their property because those bases are financed from the state budget.   So, Admiral Popov will now be supposed to settle down relations between his former and present co-workers" (Kommersant 05 Dec 01 P2).]

Chief --- POPOV, Vyacheslav, Adm appointed (Kommersant 05 Dec 01 P2). Popov was CINC NORFLT.  

Experimental Physics, RF Nuclear Center All-Russian Scientific-Research Institute for (RFYaTs VNIIEF) (Sarov)

• Previously known as Arzamas-16, Nizhegorod Oblast

Director --- Ilkayev, Radiy (Finmarket, 21 Apr 01).

Federal Inspectorate for Nuclear and Radiation Security

• Address: 109147 Moscow, Taganskaya Street, 34.

Director --- Vishnevskiy, Yuriy Georgiyevich , (Chief of Directorate). Telephone: (095) 9116005. Fax: (095) 9124041

Fuel Production Cycle, Directorate for the Supervision of Nuclear and Radiation Security of the Enterprises of the

Chief --- Kislov, Andrey Ivanovich  Telephone: (095) 9116061.

Nuclear and Radiation Security for Atomic Stations, Directorate for the Supervision of

Chief --- Adamchik, Sergey Anatolyevich  Telephone: (095) 9116061.

Nuclear and Radiation Security in the Economy, Directorate for the Supervision of

Chief --- Mikhaylov, Mikhail Vladimirovich.  Telephone: (095) 9116071.

Nuclear and Radiation Security of Research Reactors and Nuclear Power Facilities on Ships, Directorate for the Supervision of

Chief of Directorate --- Nikolskiy, Rostislav Viktorovich Telephone: (095) 9116011

Scientific and Technological Council

 Security Section

Chair --- Litvinov, Boris, Academician (ITAR-TASS 1404 GMT 18 Sep 00).

• Litvinov, who chairs the security section under the Atomic Energy Ministry's Scientific and Technological Council, works as deputy head of the Russian Federal Nuclear Centre and was the chief designer of Russian nuclear warheads for many years. (ITAR-TASS 1404 GMT 18 Sep 00).

Structural Directory of Russia's Nuclear Sector

(<Nuclear.ru>, 1 Dec 00, [Source date uncertain. Date given is the date of download from the internet])

[FBIS Translated Text]

 The Ministry of Atomic Energy of the Russian Federation. Structure of the Ministry of Atomic Energy.

1. Nuclear Fuel Cycle, Department of the

2. nuclear munitions, department for the development and testing of, 3. nuclear munitions industry, department of the, 4. atomic power engineering, department for, 5. branch economics and planning, department of,, 6. social policy, production relations, and personnel, department of, 7. security and emergency situations, department for, 8. international economic cooperation, department for, 9. atomic science and technology, department for, 10. finance, analysis, and computation department for, 11. information, nuclear materials, and facilities, department for the protection of, 12. atomic facilities construction, department for, 13. normative-legal security and regulation of forms of property, department for, 14. department for the conversion of atomic industry., 15. directorate of bookkeeping and accounts., 16. social-productive directorate., 17. directorate for business and protocol of the ministry., 18. directorate for the optimization of productive-economic relations., 19. directorate for the security of the activities of the scientific and scientific-technological councils., 20. directorate for ecology and the removal of nuclear facilities from operation., 21. directorate for atomic machine-building and instrument-making., scientific-technical directorate. aleksandr anatolyevich.

Chief --- Matveyev, ??  Telephone: (095) 9116411. Office: Telephone (095) 9123911. Fax: (095) 9124041.

Professional emergency-rescue units of the Ministry of Atomic Energy of Russia:

 "Eprom", the center for emergency-rescue underwater-technical operations.

 Address: 143392 Moscow oblast., Naro-Fominskiy rayon, Selyatino. Director: Mikhail Nikolayevich Gumenok, Chief of Center. Telephone: (812) 2475669. Fax: (812) 2475798. Web: http:

www.atom.nw.ru

 The Emergency-Technical Center (Novovoronezh).

 Address: 396072 Voronenezh oblast., Novovoronezh. Director: Ivan Ivanovich Burdin, Director of Center. Telephone: (07364) 20268. Fax: (07464) 20268.

 Emergency-Technical Center (Sarov).

 Address: 607200 Nizhegorodod oblast, Sarov. Director: Vladislav Viktorovich Kuznetsov, Director of Center. Telephone: (83130) 45708. Fax: (83130) 45979.

 Emergency-Technical Center (Snezhinsk)

 Address: 456770 Chelyabinsk oblast., Snezhinsk. Director: Lev Vladimirovich Borisov, Director of Center. Telephone: (35172) 32424.

 Emergency-Technical Center (Seversk).

 Address: 636070 Tomsk oblast, Seversk Director[Sic. No director listed].

 Telephone: (38242) 62693. Fax: (38242) 21146.

 Gas-Rescue Station of the Joint-Stock Company, "Kirovo-Chepetsk Chemical Combine".

 Address: 631020 Kirov oblast., Kirovo-Chepetsk, Pozharnyy Lane., 7. Director: Nikolay Ivanovich Aprin. Telephone: (83361) 94204. Fax: (30245) 25121.

 Separate Militarized Mine-Rescue Detachment of the Priargunskiy Mining-Chemical Production Association.

 Director: Vladimir Georgiyevich Bondarev, Chief of Detachment. Telephone: (30245) 25781. Fax: (30245) 25121.

 Engineering-Technical and Training Center for Robotics.

 Address: 127410 Moscow, Altufyev Highway, 43. Director: Nikolay Aleksandrovich Sidorkin, Director of Center. Telephone: (095) 4899032. Fax: (095) 4899032. [Sic: Telephone and fax numbers are the same.]

3. Closed Administrative-Territorial Formations.

 Zhelznogorsk (Krasnoyarsk-26).

 Address: 660026 Krasnoyarsk kray. Zhelznogorsk, XXII Partsyezd Street, 21. Director: Andrey Vasilyevich Katargin, Head of Administration. Telephone: (39197) 26048. Web: http:

www.adm26.krasnoyarsk.su Population: About 105,000.

 The Mining-Chemical Combine.

 Address: 660033 Krasnoyarsk kray, Zheleznogorsk, Lenin Street, 53. Director: Vasiliy Vasilyevich Zhitkov, General Director. Telephone: (39197) 32001, 32290. Fax: (39197) 320374

 Science and Production Association of Applied Mechanics.

 Address: 660033 Krasnoyarsk kray, Zheleznogorsk, Lenin Street, 52. Director: Mikhail Fedorovich Reshetnev. Telephone: (39197) 21759, 32032 Fax: (39197) 22635

 Construction-Industrial Joint-Stock Company, "Sibkhimstroy".

 Address: 660033 Krasnoyarsk kray, Zheleznogorsk, Shtefan Street, 1. Director: Vladimir Mikaylovich Kiyayev. Telephone: (39197) 22076. Fax: (39197) 29839.

 "Sibkhimmontazh" Trust.

 Address: 660033 Krasnoyarsk kray, Zheleznogorsk, Severnaya Street, 9. Director: Viktor Chukhno Mikhaylovich. Telephone: (39197) 26802.

 Krasnoyarskiy State Design and Research Institute. Address: 660026 Krasnoyarsk kray. Zheleznogorsk, Lenin Street, 39. Director: Yuriy Nikolayevich Baskakov. Telephone: (39197) 25625. Fax: (39197) 25625.

 Krasnoyarsk Industrial College. Address: 662990 Krasnoyarsk kray, Zheleznogorsk, Sverdlov Street, 5. Director: Yevgeniy Borisovich Vasilyev. Telephone: (39197) 23944.

 Zarechnyy (Penza-16). Address: 440901 Penza oblast, Zarechnyy, 30-th Anniversary of Pobeda [Victory] Street, 27. Director: Vyacheslav Vasilyevich Sergeyev, Head of Administration. Telephone: (8412) 664988. Fax: (8412) 664979. Web: http:

zarechnyy.penza.ru Population: About 65,000.

 Production Association, "Start", a State enterprise. Address: 440901 Penza oblast, Zarechnyy, Mir Avenue, 1. Director: Anatoliy Andreyevich Yesin, General Director. Telephone: (8412) 550907. Fax: (8412) 665 887.

 Open-Type Joint-Stock Company, "Penza Directorate of Construction". Address: 440019 Penza oblast, Zarechnyy, Komsomol Street, 41. Director: Nikolay Semenovich Konolenko. Telephone: (8412) 550907. Fax: (8412) 550973.

 State Unitary Branch SNPO [Special Science and Production Association], "Yeleron". (Scientific- Research and Design Institute of Radio- Electronic Engineering.) Address: 440901 Penza oblast, Zarechnyy, Mir Avenue, 1. Director: Yuriy Aleksandrovich Olenin. Telephone: (8412) 692474. Fax: (8412) 552528.

 Central Scientific Research Laboratory. Address: 440901 Penza oblast, Zarechnyy, Mir Avenue, 1. Director: Vladimir Mikhaylovich Sorokin. Telephone: (8412) 692706.

 Zarechnyy Industrial College (a municipal educational establishment). Address: 440901 Penza oblast, Zarechnyy, Lenin Street, 10. Director: Vasiliy Georgiyevich Zelenskiy. Telephone: (8412) 692182.

 Zelenogorsk (Krasnoyarsk-45). Address: 663690 Krasnoyarsk kray, Zelenogorsk, Mir street, 15. Director: Valentin Grigoryevich Kazachenko, Head of Administration. Telephone: (39169) 35532. Fax: (39169) 35640, 35993. Population: About 65,000.

 Electro-Chemical Plant. Address: 663690 Krasnoyarsk kray, Zelenogorsk. Director: Anatoliy Nikolayevich Shubin, General Director. Telephone: (39169) 33350, 33321. Fax: (39169) 24225, 21262. Teletype: 288 845 "Tayfun".

 Joint-Stock Company, "Sibvolonko". Address: 663960 Krasnoyarsk kray, Zelenogorsk, Joint-Stock Company, "Sibvolonko". Director: Petr Pavlovich Kostyushko. Telephone: (39169) 23020, 24405. Fax: (39169) 28122, 24087. Telex: 288 145 SV SU.

 Contruction-Industrial Joint-Stock Company, "Directorate of Construction No. 604". Address: 663960 Krasnoyarsk kray, Zelenogorsk, Kalinin Street, 25. Director: Anatoliy Yakovlevich Kurdyukov. Telephone: (39169) 35722. Fax: (39169) 24940.

 Krasnoyarsk Electro-Mechanical Engineering College. Address: 663690 Krasnoyarsk kray, Zelenogorsk, Bortnikov Street, 13. Director: Grigoriy Antipyevich Porsyev. Telephone: (39169) 34433.

 Lesnoy (Sverdlovsk-45). Address: 624200 Sverdlovsk oblast, city of Lesnoy, Karl Marks [Marx] Street, 8. Director: Aleksandr Ivanovich Ivannikov, Head of Administration. Telephone: (34342) 57509. Fax: (34342) 24402. Population: 55,000.

 Fiftieth Anniversary of the USSR Combine, "Elektrokhimpribor". Director: Leonid Aleksyevich Polyakov, General Director. Telephone: (34342) 24373. Teletype: 721 549 "Kedr".

 Construction-Industrial Joint-Stock Company, "Severouralskoye Directorate of Construction". Address: 620045 Sverdslovsk oblast, city of Lesnoy, Lenin Street, 76. Director: Vladimir Timofeyevich Nesterenko. Telephone: (34342) 69271. Fax: (34342) 24054, 24681.

 Polytechnic Institute of Moscow State Engineering-Physical Institute. Address: 620045 Sverdlovsk oblast, city of Lesnoy, Kommunist Avenue, 36. Director: Vyacheslav Mikhaylovich Krapal, Rector. Telephone: (34342) 60693. Fax: (34342) 55621.

 Novouralsk (Sverdlovsk-44). Address: 624130 Sverdlovsk oblast, city of Novouralsk, Michurin Street, 33. Director: Valentin Yegorovich Feldman, Head of Administration. Telephone: (34370) 23260. Web: http:

www.novouralsk.ru Population: 95,000.

 Ural Electro-Chemical Combine. Address: 624130 Sverdlovsk oblast, city of Novouralsk, Dzerzhinskiy Street, 2. Director: Anatoliy Petrovich Knutarev, General Director. Telephone: (34370) 92424. Fax: (34370) 94141. Telex: 721 742 RIKON SU. Web: http:

www.ricon.e-burg.ru Teletype: 348823, 348813 "Tiris".

 Construction-Industrial Joint-Stock Company, "Sredneural Directorate of Construction". Address: 620114 Sverdlovsk oblast, city of Novouralsk, Dzerzhinskiy Street, 13. Director: Petr Ivanovich Bokov. Telephone: (34370) 24961. Fax: (34370) 40977.

 Novouralsk Polytechnic Institute of Moscow State Engineering-Physics Institute. Address: 624130 Sverdlovsk oblast, city of Novouralsk-3, Lenin Street, 85. Director: Aleksey Petrovich Dyagilev, Rector. Telephone: (34370) 23580.

 Ural Institute for the Advancement of Qualification, "Progress". Address: 624133 Sverdlovsk oblast, city of Novouralsk, Pervomayskaya Street, 107. Director: Valeriy Ivanovich Makarov. Telephone: (34370) 91601. Fax: (34370) 91354. Web: http:

www.aib.ru/~uipk

/ Ural Polytechnic College. Address: 624130 Severdlovsk oblast, Novouralsk-3, Lenin Street, 85. Director: Leonid Nikolayevich Mochalov. Telephone: (34370) 22497.

 Sarov (Arzamas-16). Address: 607200 Nizhegorod oblast, Sarov. Director: Gennadiy Zakirovich Karatayev. Telephone: (83130) 11303. Fax: (83130) 58789. Population: 85,000.

 The All-Russian Scientific-Research Institute of Experimental Physics of the Russian Federal Nuclear Center. Address: 607190 Nizhegorod oblast, Sarov, Mir Avenue, 37. Director: Radiy Ivanovich Ilkayev. Telephone: (83130) 56951, 11264, 11803. Fax: (83130) 53808, 54565. Telex: 151 109 APCA Web: http:

www.vniief.ru

 Electro-Mechanical Plant, "Avangard". Address: 607200 Nizhegorod oblast, City of Sarov, Yuzhnoye, area 6. Director: Yuriy Kuzmich Zavlishin. Telephone: (83130) 11077.

 Sarov Construction-Industrial Joint-Stock Company. Address: 607200 Nizhegorod oblast, Sarov, Silkin Street, 13. Director: Georgiy Georgiyevich Bulgakov. Telephone: (83130) 45994.

 State Unitary Scientific-Technical Enterprise, "Efkon". Address: 601190 Nizhegorod oblast, Sarov, Yunost Street, 22. Director: Anatoliy Petrovich Inozemtsev. Telephone: (83130) 45705. Fax: (83130) 45994..

 Central Laboratory for the Protection of the Environment. Address: 607190 Nizhegorod oblast, Sarov, P. O. Box [Russian: a/ya--abonenenitnyy yashchik] 423. Director: Vasiliy Dmitriyevich Davidyuk. Telephone: (83130) 45288. Fax: (83130) 45288. [Sic. Fax no. is same as tel. no.].

 Sarov Physics-Technical Institute of Moscow State Engineering Physics Institute. Address: 607200 Nizhegorod oblast, Sarov, Dukhov Street, 6. Director: Yuriy Petrovich Shcherbak, Rector. Telephone: (83130) 59809.

 Seversk (Tomsk-7). Address: 636070 Tomsk oblast, city of Seversk, Kommunist Street, 51. Director: Nikolay Ivanovich Kuzmenko, Head of Administration. Telephone: (3822) 222159, 774760. Fax: (3822) 776728. Web: http:

www.seversk.ru Population: About 110,000.

 Siberian Chemical Combine. Address: 636070 Tomsk oblast, city of Seversk, Kurchatov Street, 1. Director: Valeriy Konstantinovich Larin, General Director. Telephone: (3822) 771798. Fax: (3822) 772528. Web: http:

www.shk.tsk.ru

 Construction-Industrial Joint-Stock Company, "Khimstroy". Address: 636070 Tomsk oblast, city of Seversk, Transport Street, 32. Director: Gennadiy Sergeyevich Molokanov, General Director. Telephone: (3822) 776460. Fax: (3822) 241520.

 Open-Type Joint-Stock Company, "Promekhanomontazh". Address: 636070 Tomsk oblast, city of Seversk, P. O. Box 494. Director: Anatoliy Vladimirovich Maksimenko, General Director. Telephone: (3822) 784900. Fax: (3822) 241520.

 Joint-Stock Company, "Spetskhimmontazh". Address: 636070 Tomsk oblast, city of Seversk, P. O. Box 563. Director: Boris Alekseyevich Kormashov. Telephone: (3822) 777932. Fax: (3822) 776939.

 Tomsk State Design-Research Institute, VNIPIET [All-Russian Design and Scientific-Research Institute of Power Technology] Address: 634039 Tomsk oblast, Seversk, Kurchatov Street, 2. Director: Mishin Vitaliy Alekseyevich. Telephone: (3822) 760913. Fax: (3822) 760913 [Sic. Fax no. is same as tel. no.].

 Siberian Branch of "GNTs RF VNIINM" [State Science Center of the Russian federation, All- Russian Scientific-Research Institute of Inorganic Materials]. Address: 634018 Tomsk oblast, Seversk, Lermontov Street, 13. Director: Aleksandr Yakovlevich Svarovskiy. Telephone: (38242) 61880. Fax: (3822) 776739.

 Seversk Technological Institute of Tomsk Polytechnic University. Address: 634036 Tomsk-36, Kommunist Avenue, 65. Director: Aleksandr Nikolayevich Zhiganov, Rector/ Telephone: (3822) 779529.

 Seversk Industrial College (a municipal educational establishment). Address: 636070 Tomsk oblast, Seversk, Kommunist Avenue, 65. Director: Aleksandr Nikolayevich Zhiganov. Telephone: (3822) 779529.

 Snezhinsk (Chelyabinsk-70). Address: 454070 Chelyabinsk oblast, city of Snezhinsk, Sverdlov Street, 24. Director: Anatoliy Vladimirovich Oplanchuk, Head of Administration. Telephone: (35172) 32573. Fax: (35172) 32385. Population: 50,000.

 The All-Union Scientific Research Institute of Technical Physics--the Russian Federal Nuclear Center. Address: 456770 Chelyabinsk oblast, city of Snezhinsk, P. O. Box 245. Director: Georgiy Nikolayevich Rykovanov. Telephone: (35172) 32028. Fax: (35172) 32351. Telex: 124 846 SNOW SU. Web: http:

www.vniitf.ru

 Snezhinsk Physics-Technical Institute--a branch of Moscow State Engineering-Physics Institute. Address: 456776 Chelyabinsk oblast, city of Snezhinsk, Mir Street, 6/8. Director: Vladimir Makarovich Skovpen, Rector. Telephone: (35172) 32422. Fax: (35172) 32526.

 Trekhgornyy (Zlatoust-36). Address: 456080 Chelyabinsk oblast, city of Trekhgornyy, Mir Street, 6. Director: Nikolay Andreyevich Lubenets. Telephone: (351112) 7001. Fax: (351112) 7042. Population: About 40,000.

 Instrument-Making Plant. Address: 456080 Chelyabinsk oblast, city of Trekhgornyy, Instrument-Making Plant. Director: Aleksandr Vasilyevich Dolinin, General Director. Telephone: (351112) 5121, 5123, 5210. Fax: (351112) 1622.

 Design-Construction-Industrial Joint-Stock Company, "Ural". Address: 456080 Chelyabinsk oblast, city of Trekhgornyy, Street Stroiteley [Street of the Builders], 6. Director: Galina Ivanovna Morozova. Telephone (35111) 67061. Fax: (35111) 651120.

 Trekhgornyy Polytechnic Institute of Moscow State Engineering-Physics Institute. Address: 456080 Chelyabinsk oblast, city of Trekhgornyy, Mir Street, 17. Director: Fedor Ivanovich Dolinin. Telephone: (35111) 67067.

 Ozersk (Chelyabinsk-65). Address: 456784 Chelyabinsk oblast, city of Ozersk, Lenin Avenue, 30a. Director: Sergey Georgiyevich Chernyshev. Head of Administration. Telephone: (35171) 78959. Population: About 100,000.

 Production Association, "Mayak". Address: 456065 Chelyabinsk oblast, city of Ozersk, Lenin Avenue, 31. Director: Vitaliy Ivanovich Sadovnikov, General Director. Telephone: (35151) 31659. Fax: (35171) 73911. Telex: 124 864 ATOM SU.

 Closed-Type Joint-Stock Company, "Yuzhno-Ural Directorate of Construction". Address: 456064 Chelyabinsk oblast, city of Ozersk, Oktyabr Street, 7. Director: Aleksey Georgiyevich Belotnitskiy. Telephone: (35171) 45253. Fax: (35171) 73911.

 Open-Type Joint-Stock Company, "Uralprommontazh", an installation-industrial company. Address: 456065 Chelyabinsk oblast, city of Ozersk, Semenov Street, 22. Director: Sergey Vladimirovich Voloshin. Telephone: (35171) 79250. Fax: (35171) 22214.

 Joint-Stock Company, "Uralgidromontazh" Address: 456065 Chelyabinsk oblast, city of Ozersk, Semenov street, 22. Director: Anatoliy Ivanovich Loboda. Telephone: (35171) 79303. Fax: (35171) 73041.

 Ural State Design-Research Institute, "VNIPIET" [see expansion of acronym above]. Address: 454065 Chelyabinsk oblast, Ozersk, Oktyabr Street, 11. Director: Leonid Vladimirovich Vaganov. Telephone: (35171) 79550. Fax: (35171) 73822.

 Ozersk Technological Institute of Moscow State Engineering-Physics Institute. Address: 456783 Chelyabinsk oblast, city of Ozersk, Pobeda Avenue, 48. Director: Yuriy Nikolayevich Stepanov. Telephone: (35171) 446646

 Yuzhnoural Polytechnic College. Address: 456783 Chelyabinsk oblast, Ozersk, Pobeda Avenue, 48. Director: Angelina Valentinovna Tomanovna. Telephone: (35171) 44623.

4. The "Rosenergoatom" Concern, the atomic electrical power stations and "Rosenergoatom" Concern enterprises.

 State Concern, "Rosenergoatom". Address: 101000 Moscow, P. O. Box 912. Director: Erik Nikolayevich Pozdyshev. Telephone: Chancellery: (095) 239740. Fax: Chancellery: (095) 2392724. Web: http:

www.rosatom.ru

 Structure of "Rosenergoatom" Concern. Department for the Utilization of Atomic Power Stations and Water-Cooled Reactors. Department for the Utilization of Atomic Power Stations with Fuel-Channel-Type and Fast Reactors. Department for Technical Servicing and Repair of Atomic Power Stations. Department for Technical Inspection and Control and Monitoring of Security. Department for the Licensing of the Utilization of Atomic power Stations. Management for Protection of Nuclear Facilities and Materials. Department for Emergency Control and Prevention of Accidents. Department for Scientific-Technical Support. Structural Design Department. Management for Expertise and Prospective Technologies. Management for Major Construction. Management for Provision of Utilization and Repair. Management for Provision of Nuclear Fuel. Management for Investment Resources. Department of Economics. Department of Finances. Management for Property and Capital. Department for Book-Keeping and Accounting. Department for Auditing Activities. Management for Inspection Work. Legal Department. Department for International Activities. Management of Export. Management of FOREM [Federal Wholesale Market for Electricity and Generating Capacity].. Department for Sales. Directorate of Business Affairs.

 Atomic power stations:

 Balakov Atomic Power Station. Beloyarsk Atomic Power Station. Bilibin Atomic Power Station. Kalinin Atomic Power Station. Kolsk Atomic Power Station. Kursk Atomic Power Station. Leningrad Atomic Power Station. Novovoronezh Atomic Power Station. Smolensk Atomic Power Station.

 Enterprises included in the structure of the "Rosenergoatom" Concern. Branch State Unitary Enterprise, "Energoatomfinans". Address: 123298 Moscow, Narodnoye Opolcheniye Street, 40, building 2. Director: Mikhail Vasilyevich Komissarov. Telephone: (095) 1926174. Fax: (095) 1926174. [Sic: Fax no. is same as tel. no.].

 Branch State Unitary Enterprise, "Atomstroyinvest". Address: 123298 Moscow, Narodnoye Opolcheniye Street, 40, building 2. Director: Vitaliy Vladimirovich Veselov. Telephone: (095) 1926029. Fax: (095) 1926029.[Sic: Fax no. is same as tel. no.].

 Branch State Unitary Enterprise "Kontrolno-Priemochnaya Inspektsiya". Address: 101000 Moscow, P. O. Box 912. Director: Vladimir Ilich Nikitenko. Telephone: (095) 2392436. Fax: (095) 2392436. [Sic. Fax no. is same as tel. no.].

 Branch State Unitary Enterprise, "Press-Tsentr Kontserna". Address: 109507 Moscow, Ferganskaya Street, 25. Director: Andrey Grigoryevich Polous. Telephone: (095) 2384894. Fax: (095) 2392016.

 Branch State Unitary Enterprise, "Atom-Servis". Address: 123298 Moscow, Narodnoye Opolcheniye Street, building 2. Director: Grigoriy Alekseyevich Serafimov. Telephone: (095) 1927674.

 Branch State Unitary Enterprise, "Kursk Specialized Installment Directorate".". Address: 307239 Kursk oblast, Kurchatov. Director: Nikolay Maksimovich Kovalev. Telephone: (07131) 46395. Fax: (07131) 46395. [Sic: Fax no. is same as tel. no.].

 (5). "TVEL" [Fuel Element] Concern. Open Joint-Stock Company, "TVEL".. Address: 101000 Moscow, B. Ordynka Street, 24/26. Director: Vitaliy Fedorovich Konovalov, President. Petr Ivanovich Lavrenyuk, Vice President. Leonid Dmitriyevich Proskuryakov, Vice President. Vladimir Alekseyevich Zubakov, Vice President. Vyacheslav Mikhaylovich Kozhin, Vice President. Telephone: (095) 2394440. Fax: (095) 2394404. Web: http:

www.tvel.ru

/ Structure:

 Management for Commerce. Management for Productive-Technical Issues and Security. Management for Scientific-Technical Development. Management for Economics and Corporative Planning. Management for Economic Strategy and Control of Property. Management for International and External Economic Activities. Management for Financial Accounts and Analysis. Management for General Issues and Social Development. Legal Section.

 Open Joint-Stock Company, "TVEL Concern". Address: 101000 Moscow, B. Ordynka Street, 24/26. Director: Vladimir Vladimirovich Karetnikov, General Director. Telephone: (095) 2394788.

 Trans-Baykal Mining-Concentrating Combine (ZabGOK).

 Address: 673382 Chitin oblast, Pervomayskiy Square, Mir Street,18. Director: Gennadiy Mikhaylovich Adosik. Telephone: (302) 42302. Fax: (30262) 41010.

 Krasnoyarsk Chemical-Metallurgical Plant (KKhMZ). Address: 660079 Krasnoyarsk, Matrosov Street, 30. Director: Dmitriy Mikhaylovich Kovyadin. Telephone: (3912) 660185. Fax: (3912) 340939.

 Chepetsk Mechanical plant (ChMZ). Address: 427000 Respublika Udmurtiya, city of Glazov, Belov Street, 7. Telephone: (34141) 72415. Fax: (34141) 72994. Web: http:

www.chmz.udm.net

/ Moscow Plant of Polymetals (MZP).

 Address: 115409 Moscow, Kashirskoye Highway, 49. Director: Valeriy Viktorovich Kryukov, General Director. Telephone: (095) 3247234. Fax: (095) 7428298.

 Novosibirsk Plant of Chemical Concentrates (NZKhK). Address: 638038 Novosibirsk, B. Khmelnitskiy Street, 94. Director: Vladimir Leonidovich Afanasyev. Telephone: (3832) 748454. Fax: (3832) 743071.

 Machine-Building Plant (MSZ). Address: 144001 Moscow oblast, city of Elektrostal, K. Marks [Marx] Street, 12. Director: Valeriy Alekseyevich Mezhuyev, General Director. Telephone: (095) 7029901. Fax: (095) 7029221.

 Production Association, "Ulbinskiy Metallurgical Plant". Address: 492026 Respublika Kazakhstan, city of Ust-Kamenogorsk, Shkolnoye Highway, 102. Director: Vitaliy Grogoryevich Khadeyev, General Director. Telephone: (3232) 475043. Fax: (3232) 640683.

 Joint-Stock Company "Commercial Center, 100". Address: 127253 Moscow, Dmitrovskoye Highway, 116, building 3. Director: Aleksey Vasilyevich Goncharov. Telephone: (095) 4007474. Fax: (095) 4007277.

 (6). Joint-Stock Company "Atomredmetzoloto" (enterprise). Address: 109017 Moscow, B. Ordynka Street, building 24/26. Director: Vyacheslav Vladimirovich Krotkov, General Director. Telephone: 2394668 (reception room). Fax: 2394679. Director Vitaliy Vasilyevich Shatalov--2392174. Director Yuriy Vasilyevich Nesterov--2394775. Director: Boris Fedorovich Shevchenko--2392430.

 Open-Type Joint-Stock Company, "Priargunskoye Proizvodstvennoye Gorno-Khimicheskoye Obyedineniye" [Priargunskiy Mining-Chemical Production association] (AOOT "PPGKhO"). Address: 674665 Chitin oblast, city of Krasnokamensk. Director: Valeriy Konstantinovich Larin, General Director. Telephone: (30245) 46911. Fax: (86535) 50131.

 Lermontov State Enterprise, "Almaz" Address: 357340 Stavropol kray, city of Lermontov, Promyshlennaya Street, building 7. Director: Nikolay Nikolayevich Gridin, General Director. Telephone: (86535) 50131. Fax: (86535) 52313.

 State Unitary Enterprise, "Gidrometallurgical Zavod" [Hydro-Metallurgical Plant] (GUP "GMZ"). Address: 357340 Stavropol kray, city of Lermontov, Promyshlennaya Street, building 7. Director: Sergey Vasilyevich Pashkov, General Director. Telephone: (86535) 52313. Fax: (86535) 52313 [Sic. Fax no. is same as telephone number].

 State Unitary Enterprise, "Electromekhanicheskiy Zavod" [Electro-Mechanical Plant]. Address: 357340 Stavropol kray, city of Lermontov, Promyshlennaya Street, building 7. Director: Valeriy Ivanovich Minenkov. Telephone: (86535) 50350. Fax: (34365) 52077.

 Rodniki Directorate of Enterprises. Address: 155240 Ivanov oblast, city of Rodniki. Director: Nikolay Petrovich Vorobyev. Telephone: (09336) 23464. Fax: (09336) 23464 [Sic. Fax no. is same as telephone no.].

 Yekaterinburg Plant, "Kauchuk". Address: 620023 city of Yekaterinburg, Garshin Street, building 7. Director: Aleksandr Vasilyevich Svytko. Telephone: (3432) 254905. Fax: (3432) 250262.

 Joint-Stock company "Nauchno-Issledovatelskoye Eksperimentalnoye Predpriyatiye" [Scientific- Research Experimental Enterprise] (AO "NIEP"). Address: 143392 Moscow oblast, Narofominskiy rayon, settlement of Selyatino. Director: Vladimir Nikolayevich Kuznetsov. Telephone: (095) 4365697. Fax: (095) 4365697 [Sic. Fax no. and tel. no. are the same].

 Federal State Enterprise, "Ekspeditsiya No. 2" [Expedition No. 2]. Address: 163056 Arkhangelsk-56. Director: Anatoliy Andreyevich Gerasimov.

 Joint-Stock Company, "Severalmaz". Address: 163061 city of Arkhangelsk, Sadovaya Street, building 2 Director: Vitaliy Sergeyevich Fertygin, General Director. Telephone: (8182) 496112. Fax: (8182) 496112. [Sic. Fax no. is same as tel. No.].

 Production Association, "Vostokredmet". Address: 735730 Respublika Tadzhikistan, Leninabad oblast, city of Chkalovsk, Oplanchuk Street, 10. Director: Zafar Abdukkakhorovich Razykov, General Director. Telephone: (37771) 54434. Fax: (37771) 50945.

 Navon Mining-Metallurgical Combine. Address: 706800 Respublika Uzbekistan, city of Navon, Navon street, building 27. Director: Nikolay Ivanovich Kucherskiy, General Director. Telephone: (43622) 32928. Fax: (31745) 91456.

 Holding Company, "Tselinnoye Proizvodstvennoye Gorno-Khimicheskoye Obedineniye" [Virgin Land Mining-Chemical Production Association]. Address: 474456 Respublika Kazakhstan, Akhmalin oblast, city of Stepnogorsk. Director: Yuriy Nikolayevich Filtsev, General Director. Telephone: (31745) 92464. Fax: (31745) 91456.

 Kara-Balta Mining Combine. Address: 720398 Respublika Kirgizstan, city of Kara-Balta, Trud Street, building 1. Director: Zhaman Iymanbekovich Kazakbayev. Telephone: (33133) 23018. Fax: (33133) 23018. [Sic. Fax no. is same as tel. no.].

 Science and Production Association, "Vostochnyy Gorno-Obogatelnyy Kombinat" [Eastern Mining Concentrating Combine]. Address: 322530 Respublika Ukraina, Dnepropetrov oblast, city of Zheltyye Vody, Gorkiy street, building 2. Director: Mikhail Ivanovich Babak, General Director. Telephone: (05652) 55309. Fax: (05652) 33005.

 (7). Machine-Building and Instrument-Making Plants of the Ministry of Atomic Energy of the Russian Federation.

 Angarsk Electrolysis Chemical Combine (AEKhK). Address: 665804 Irkutsk oblast, city of Angarsk. Director: Viktor Panteleymonovich Shopen, General Director. Telephone: (39518) 40710. Fax: (39518) 66715.

 B. P. Konstantinov Kirovo-Chepeteskiy Chemical Combine. Address: 613020 Kirov oblast, city of Kirovo-Chepetsk, Pozharnyy Lane., 7. Director: Boris Ivanovich Drozhdin, General director. Telephone: (8332) 624829, 624205. Fax: (8332) 627921.

 Experimental Chemical-Technological Plant. Address: 125239 Moscow, Likhoborskaya Embankment, 11. Director: Anatoliy Aleksandrovich Matveyev. Telephone: (095) 9132289.

 Scientific Design-Technological Firm of Non-traditional Methods for the Processing of Different Materials ("Netram" firm). Address: 123060 Moscow, P. O. Box 155. Director: Boris Vladimirovich Safronov. Telephone: (095) 1908089. Fax: (095) 1960038.

 Joint-Stock Company, "Mashinostroitelnyy Zavod Invis" (Machine-Building Plant "Invis"]. Address: 427600, Respublika Udmurtiya, city of Glazov Director: Vladimir Anatolyevich Yekhlakov. Telephone: (34141) 73784. Fax: (34141) 36440.

 Production Association, "Mashinostroyitelnyy Zavod, Molniya" [Machine-Building Plant, "Lightning"] (PO MSZ "Molniya"). Address: 109391 Moscow, Ryazanskiy Avenue, 6a. Director: Vladimir Ivanovich Nikolaichev. Telephone: (095) 1713460. Fax: (095) 1716761.

 Electro-Mechanical Plant, "Avangard" (EMZ "Avangard"). Address: Nizhegorod oblast, city of Sarov, Nizhnyeye Highway, 6. Director: Yuriy Kuzmich Zavalishin. Telephone: (83130) 45881. Fax: (83130) 45090.

 Nizhnyaya Tura Machine-Building plant, "Venta". Address: 624350 Sverdlovsk oblast, city of Nizhnyaya Tura, Malyshev Street, 2a. Director: Sergey Vladimirovich Nastin. Telephone: (34342) 23020. Fax: (34342) 20733.

 Ural Electro-Mechanical plant (UMZ). Address: 620151 Yekaterinburg, Studentskaya Street, 9. Director: Leonid Mikhaylovich Kuznetsov. Telephone: (3432) 741281. Fax: (3432) 413370.

 "Elvaks" Plant. Address: 141420 Moscow oblast, Skhodnya, Pervomayskaya Street, 54. Director: Yuriy Georgiyevich Kolmogorov. Telephone: (095) 5742400. Fax: (095) 5740162.

 State Enterprise, "Krasnaya Zvezda" [Red Star]. Address: 115230 Moscow, Electrolytic Avenue, 1a. Director: Vladimir Sergeyevich Vasilkovskiy. Telephone: (095) 1132309. Fax: (095) 1133488.

 Production Association, "Sever" [North]. Address: 630075 Novosibirsk, Obyedineniye Street, 3. Director: Aleksey Nikolayevich Gorb. Telephone (3832) 255573. Fax: (3832) 741465.

 Instrument Plant, "Kristall" [Crystal]. Address: 613020 Kirov oblast, city of Kirovo-Chepetsk, Kirov Avenue, 16. Director: Aleksandr Mikhaylovich Fadeichev. Telephone: (83361) 14913. Fax: (83361) 12150.

 Joint-Stock Company, "Priborstroitelnyy Zavod, Signal" [Instrument-Making Plant, "Signal"]. Address: 249020 Kaluga oblast, city of Obninsk, Lenin Street, 121. Director: Vyacheslav Aleksandrovich Anisimov. Telephone: (08439) 79195. Fax: (08439) 40314.

 Joint-Stock Company, "Pribornyy Zavod, Tenzor" [Instrument Plant, "Tensor"]. Address: 141980 Moscow oblast, city of Dubna, Street Priborstroiltelney [Street of the Instrument- Makers], 2. Director: Igor Borisovich Barsukov. Telephone: (221) 45524. Fax: (221) 46124.

 Joint-Stock Company, "Pyatigorsk Zavod, Impuls" [Pyatigorsk Plant, Impulse]. Address: 357500, Stavropol kray, city of Pyatigorsk, Malgyn street, 5. Director: Sergey Ivanovich Kuzmenko. Telephone: (87933) 54554. Fax: (87933) 78936.

 TOO [Limited Partnership], "Konsit-A". Address: 109180 Moscow, P. O. Box 29. Director: Yuriy Arkadyevich Brodskiy. Telephone: (095) 2360416. Fax: (095) 2394054.

 Joint-Stock Company, "Gorkiy Kimry Fabrika" [Kimry Factory in the name Gorky]. Address: 171510 Tver oblast, Kimry, Pushkin Street, 72a. Director: Lev Nikolayevich Bocharov. Telephone: (08236) 32156. Fax: (08326) 31027.

 Joint-Stock Company, "Energomashinostroitelnaya Korporatsiya, Atommash" [Power-Machine Building Corporation, "Atommash"]. Address: 347340 Rostov-on-the-Don, Volgodonsk-13. Director: Aleksey Ivanovich Golovin, General Director. Telephone: (86392) 20745. Fax: (86392) 21358.

 Joint-Stock Company, "Karimos", affiliated to the Ministry of Atomic Energy of Russia. Address: 101000 Moscow, B. Ordynka Street, 24/26. Director: Aleksandra Nikolayevna Strepikheyevna, Director for Development. Telephone: (095) 2392440. Fax: (095) 2316860.

 Production-Technical Center, "Komito". Address: 107113 Moscow, Verkhne-Krasnoselskaya Street, 16. Director: Vasiliy Matveyevich Monakov. Telephone: (095) 2642995. Fax: (095) 264258.

 Kanash Plant for Technological Equipping. Address: 429300 Respublika Chuvashiya, city of Kanash, Svoboda Street, 36. Director: Vyacheslav Aleksandrovich Kuznetsov. Telephone: (83533) 31994. Fax: (83533) 31994. [Sic. Fax no. is same as tel. no.].

 Joint-Stock Company, "Moskovskiy Tekhnicheskiy Tsentr, TESMO" [Moscow Technical Center, "TESMO"]. Address: 144001 Moscow oblast, city of Elektrostal, avenue 48. Director: Vyacheslav Mikhaylovich Pukhov. Telephone: (257) 59218. Fax: (095) 7029122.

 Joint-Stock Company, "Zavod Start" ["Start" Plant]. Address: 641730 Kurgan oblast, city of Dolmatovo, Rukmanis Street, 31. Director: Aleksandr Ivanovich Kolmogortsev. Telephone: (35252) 92163. Fax: (35252) 92175.

 Astrakhan Experimental Machine-Building Plant, "Sirius". Address: 414000 Astrakhan, Gilyanskaya Street, 94. Director: Aleksandr Vasilyevich Rogov. Telephone: (8512) 220416. Fax: (8512) 254220.

 Joint-Stock Company, "Vologoda Mashinostroitelnyy Zavod" [Vologda Machine-Building Plant]. Address: 160604 Vologda, Klubov Street, 5. Director: Leonid Borisovich Fedonov. Telephone: (8172) 257072. Fax: (8172) 257783.

 Makhachkala Machine-Building Plant of Separators. Address: 367014 Respublika Dagestan, city of Makhachkala, K. Marks [Marx] Avenue, 9. Director: Igor Gafurovich Gafurov. Telephone: (8722) 643193.

 Joint-Stock Company "Plavsk Mashinostroitelnyy Zavod" [Plavsk Machine-Building Plant]. Address: 301050 Tula oblast, city of Plavsk, Kommunarov Street, 25. Director: Viktor Georgiyevich Lifanov. Telephone: (08752) 21065. Fax: (08752) 22132.

 Joint-Stock Company, "Opytnyy Zavod, Luch" [Experimental Plant, "Light"]. Address: 142100 Moscow oblast, Podolsk, Zheleznodorozhnaya Street, 22. Director: Viktor Arsenyevich Petrov. Telephone: (095) 9564867. Fax: (095) 9561057.

 SKTB [Special Design and Technology Bureau] "UPMASH". Address: 144001 Moscow oblast, Elektrostal, P. O. Box 48. Director: Aleksandr Sergeyevich Igolkin. Telephone: (095) 7029150. Fax: (095) 7029150. [Sic. Fax no. is same as tel. no.].

 Production Organizations in the Complement of the Ministry of Atomic Energy of the Russian Federation:

 State Joint-Stock Company, "Oboronpromkompleks". Address: 109180 Moscow, Staromonetnyy Lane, 26. Director: Vladimir Mikhaylovich Bednyakov, General Director. Telephone: (095) 2392102. Fax: (095) 9533051.

 Joint-Stock Company, "Volgo-Vyatka Proizvodstvenno-Komplektovochnoye Predpriyatiye, Oboronpromkompleks" [Volgo-Vyatka Production Enterprise Unit of "Oboronpromkompleks"]. Address: 603124 Nizhniy Novgorod, Ayvazoskiy Street, 10a. Director: Yevgeniy Vasilyevich Selikhov, General Director. Telephone: (8312) 244398. Fax: (8312) 465470.

 Joint-Stock Company, "Yuzhno-Uralskoye Proizvodstvenno-Komplektochnoye Predpriyatiye, Oboronpromkompleks" [South Ural Production Enterprise Unit of "Oboronpromkompleks"]. Address: 454087 Chelyabinsk, 2-nd Potrebitelskaya Street, 2. Director: Viktor Grigoryevich Braslavskiy, General Director. Telephone: (3512) 621198. Fax: (3512) 621196.

 Western Siberia Joint-Stock Company, "Oboronpromkompleks". Address: 630075 Novosibirsk, B. Khmelnitskiy Street, 84a. Director: Mikhail Ivanovich Kulagin, General Director. Telephone: (3832) 763973. Fax: (3832) 763551.

 Joint-Stock Company, "Vostochno-Sibirskoye Proizvodstvennoye-Komplektovochnoye Predpriyatiye Oboronpromkompleks" [Eastern Siberia Production Enterprise Unit of "Oboronpromkompleks"]. Address: 664053 Irkutsk, P. O. Box 2497. Director: Georgiy Ivanovich Tarusin, General Director. Telephone: (3952) 453625. Fax: (3952) 456341.

 Northern Production Enterprise Unit of "Oboronpromkompleks". Address: 150000 Yaroslavl, General Post Office, P. O. Box 76. Director: Oleg Georgiyevich Pozdnyakov, General Director. Telephone: (0852) 231557. Fax: (0852) 558524.

 Joint-Stock Company, North-Western Production Enterprise Unit of "Oboronpromkompleks". Address: 196143 St. Petersburg, Predportovaya Street, 7-th Thoroughfare, 1. Director: Anatoliy Artemovich Kurlyandchik. Telephone: (812) 1223715. Fax: (812) 1226790.

 Joint-Stock Company, Tver Production Enterprise Unit of "Oboronpromkompleks". Address: 117000 Tver, General Post Office, P. O. Box 379. Director: Vladimir Genrikhovich Moryev, General Director. Telephone: (0822) 332697. Fax: (0822) 426388.

 Joint-Stock Company, North Caucasus Production Enterprise Unit of "Oboronpromkompleks". Address: 344104 Rostov-on-the-Don, Dovator Street, 154/1. Director: Anatoliy Ivanovich Pravdyuk, General Director. Telephone: (8632) 240322. Fax: (8632) 220914.

 Joint-Stock Company, Production Firm Unit of "Atompromresursy". Address: 101000 Moscow, B. Ordynka Street, 24/26. Director: Ivan Petrovich Guzhov. Telephone: (095) 2362325. Fax: (095) 9556068.

 Joint-Stock Company, "Atomprom". Address: 101000 Moscow, B. Ordynok Street, 24/26. Director: Roman Konstantinovich Rusalkin, General Director. Telephone: (095) 1119512. Fax: (095) 1119512. [Sic. Fax no. is same as tel. no.].

 Joint-Stock Company, "Kontrakt". Address: 101000 Moscow, Meshchanskaya Street, 7/21. Director: Andrey Grigoryevich Andrukh. Telephone: (095) 2841935. Fax: (095) 9710845.

 Joint-Stock Company, "Atomenergozapchast". Address: 396072 Voronezh oblast, Novovoronezh. Director: Vladimir Grigoryevich Churin. Telephone: (073674) 25567. Fax: (073674) 21898.

 Joint-Stock Company, Kursk Plant, "Atomremmash". Address: 307720 Kursk oblast, Kurchatov rayon, sub-division [Russian: p/o] Lukashovka. Director: Viktor Semenovich Kurilenko. Telephone: (07131) 21433. Fax: (07131) 61261.

 State Enterprise for Repair and Servicing of Atomic Power Stations, Production Association "Atomenergoremont". Address: 141011 Moscow oblast, Mytishci, Kommunist Street, 23. Director: Stanislav Stepanovich Chertov. Telephone: (095) 5821603. Fax: (095) 5819034.

 State Enterprise, "Kurskturboatomenergoremont". Address: 307239 Kursk oblast, Kurchatov. Director: Vladimir Prokopyevich Fedorenko. Telephone: (07131) 46258. Fax: (07131) 46258 [Sic. Fax no. is same as tel .no.].

 Joint-Stock Company, Perlov Plant of Power Equipment. Address: 141011 Moscow oblast, Mytishchi, Kommunist Street, 23. Director: Valeriy Ivanovich Zabrodin. Telephone: (095) 5813144 Fax: (095) 5813144 [Sic. Fax no. is same as tel. no.].

 State Production Enterprise, "Sevatomremont". Address: 184151 Murmanks oblast, Polyarnyye Zori. Director: Inarik Gayazovich Mukhametshin. Telephone: (81532) 65667. Fax: (095) 5813144

 "Atomtekhenergo", a firm for the setting up and improvement of the operation and organization of the management of atomic power stations. Address: 141011 Moscow oblast, Mytishchi, Kommunist Street, 23. Director: Anatoliy Grigoryevich Ivannikov. Telephone: (095) 5820454. Fax: (095) 5818011.

 Joint-Stock Company, Machine-Building Corporation, "SPLAV". Address: 173021 Velikiy Novgorod, Nezhinskaya Street, 61. Director: Yevgeniy Izyaslavovich Shulman, General Director. Telephone: (8162) 113003. Fax: (8162) 113002.

 Construction-Industrial Joint-Stock Companies and Plants for Construction Materials of the Ministry of Atomic Energy of the Russian Federation:

 Holding Company, Joint-Stock company "Progress", affiliated to the Ministry of Atomic Energy of Russia. Address: 101000 Moscow, B. Ordynka street, 24/26. Director: Ivan Yegorovich Deryabin. Telephone: (095) 9534553, 2394308. Fax: (095) 2394800.

 Construction-Industrial Joint-Stock Company, "Kirovo-Chepetsk Directorate of Construction". Address: 613020 Kirov oblast, Kirovo-Chepets, Shkolnaya Street, 2. Director: Aleksandr Romanovich Verba. Telephone: (83361) 10314. Fax: (83361) 19118.

 Construction-Industrial Joint-Stock Company, "Chepetsk Directorate of Construction". Address: 427600 Respublika Udmurtiya, city of Glazov, Belova Street, 7. Director: Vladimir Yuryevich Pereshein. Telephone: (34141) 72206. Fax: (34141) 34304.

 Construction-Industrial Joint-Stock Company, "North Ural Directorate of Construction". Address: 620045 Sverdlovsk oblast, city of Lesnoy, Lenin Street, 76. Director: Vladimir Timofeyevich Nesterenko. Telephone: (34342) 69271. Fax: (34342) 24054, 24681.

 Design-Construction-Industrial Joint-Stock company, "Ural". Address: 456236 Chelyabinsk oblast, Trekhgornyy, Street Stroiteley [Street of the Builders], 6. Director: Galina Ivanovna Morozova. Telephone: (35111) 67061. Fax: (35111) 65120.

 Construction-Industrial Joint-Stock Company, "Sibakademstroy". Address: 630055 Novosibirsk, M. Dzhalil Street, 11. Director: Gennadiy Dmitriyevich Lykov. Telephone: (3832) 322050. Fax: (3832) 322032.

 Construction-Industrial Joint-Stock Company, "Khimstroy". Address: 636070 Tomsk oblast, city of Seversk, Transport Street, 32. Director: Gennadiy Sergeyevich Molokanov. Telephone: (3822) 776460. Fax: (3822) 776463, 764754.

 Construction-Industrial Joint-Stock Company, "Sibkhimstroy". Address: 660033 Krasnoyarsk kray, city of Zheleznogorsk, Shtefan Street, 1. Director: Vladimir Mikaylovich Kiyayev. Telephone: (39197) 22076, 29812. Fax: (39197) 29839.

 Construction-Industrial Joint-Stock Compnay, "Directorate of Construction No. 604". Address: 663960 Krasnoyarsk kray, city of Zelenogorsk, Kalinin Street, 25. Director: Anatoliy Yakovlevich Kurdyukov. Telephone: (39169) 35722. Fax: (39169) 24940, 44094.

 Construction-Industrial Joint-Stock Company, "Vostok" [East]. Address: 665358 Irkutsk oblast, city of Sayansk-3, P. O. Box 238. Director: Aleksandr Petrovich Sigal. Telephone: (39513) 32449. Fax: (39513) 32916.

 Construction-Industrial Joint-Stock Company, Priargunskiy Directorate of Construction". Address: 674665 Chitin oblast, city of Krasnokamensk, Avenue Stroiteley [Avenue of the Builders], 7. Director: Aleksandr Ivanovich Filonich. Telephone: (30245) 25784. Fax: (30245) 46246.

 Construction-Industrial Joint-Stock Company, "Angarsk Directorate of Construction". Address: 665835 Irkutsk oblast, Angarsk, P. O. Box 2060. Director: Viktor Leonidovich Seredkin. Telephone: (39518) 95062. Fax: (39518) 66856.

 AOZT {Closed-Type Joint-Stock Company], "South Ural Directorate of Construction".

 Construction-Industrial Joint-Stock Company, "Mid-Ural Directorate of Construction". Address: 620114 Sverdlovsk oblast, city of Novouralsk, Dzerzhinskiy Street, 13. Director: Petr Ivanovich Bokov. Telephone: (34370) 24961. Fax: (34370) 40977.

 Joint-Stock Construction Firm, "Aviastroy". Address: 432010 city of Ulyanovsk, Engineer Avenue, 24. Director: Yuriy Porfiryevich Grokhotov. Telephone: (8422) 200228. Fax: (8422) 200289.

 SPAO [Special Production Joint-Stock Company], "Elektrostal Directorate of Construction". Address: 144000 Moscow oblast, city of Electrostal, Karl Marks [Marx] Street, 18. Director: Sergey Alekseyevich Novgorodov. Telephone: (095) 7024794. Fax: (095) 7024794.

 Construction-Industrial Joint-Stock Company, "Atomstroy", affiliated to the Ministry of Atomic Energy of Russia. Address: 1011000 Moscow, B. Ordynka street, 24/26. Director: Konstantin Nikolayevich Moskvin. Telephone: (095) 2394369. Fax: (095) 9535361.

 Joint-Stock Company Construction-Industrial Company, "Dimitrovgradstroy". Address: 433510 Ulayanovsk oblast, Dimitrovgrad, Dachnaya Street, 2. Director: Vladimir Sergeyevich Pisarchuk. Telephone: (84235) 32128. Fax: (84235) 54083.

 Open-Type Joint-stock company, "Donatostroy". Address: 396072 Voronezh oblast, city of Novo-Voronezh. Director: Ivan Pavlovich Mikhalev. Telephone: (07364) 29646. Fax: (07364) 21802.

 Open-Type Joint-Stock Company, "Northern Directorate of Construction". Address: 188537 Leningrad oblast, city of Sosnovyy Bor-537, Leningrad Street, 7. Director: Igor Vladislavovich Ustinov. Telephone: (81269) 62774. Fax: (81269) 62415.

 Obninsk Construction-Industrial Joint-Stock Company. Address: 249020 Kaluga oblast, city of Obninsk, Kurchatov Street, 41. Director: Valeriy Ivanovich Chekmazov. Telephone: (08439) 49250. Fax: (08439) 49248.

 Open-Type Joint-Stock Company, "Penza Directorate of Construction". Address: 440019 Penza oblast, city of Zarechnyy, Komsomol Street, 41. Director: Nikolay Semenovich Kononenko. Telephone: (8412) 550907. Fax: (8412) 5500973.

 Sarov Construction-Industrial Joint-Stock Company. Address: 607200 Nizhegorod oblast, city of Sarov, Silkin street, 13. Director: Georgiy Georgiyevich Bulgakov. Telephone: (83130) 11077.

 Directorate of Construction No. 620. Address: 142284 Moscow oblast, Protvino. Director: Aleksandr Ivanovich Syatotskiy. Telephone: (277) 46991.

 First Construction-Installation Trust. Address: 113191 Moscow, First Lyusinovskiy Lane., 36. Director: Yuriy Aleksandrovich Shilobreyev. Telephone: (095) 2376660. Fax: (0950 2374726.

 Kaluga Construction-Installation Trust of Obninsk Directorate of Construction. Address: 248024 Kaluga oblast, city of Obninsk, K. Libknekht Street, 18. Director: Valeriy Fedorovich Desyatnikov. Telephone: (08422) 27162. Fax: (08422) 27878.

 Open-Type Joint-Stock Company, "Directorate of Industrial Enterprises". Address: 188537 Leningrad oblast, city of Sosnovyy Bor, Leningrad Highway, P. O. Box 32. Director: Vladimir Aleksandrovich Shegalo. Telephone: (81269) 62457.

 Open-Type Joint-Stock Company, "SMU-15". Address: 142234 Moscow oblast, city of Protvino, Obolensk Highway, 5. Director: Aley Safrovich Nekhay. Telephone: (277) 42517. Fax: (277) 42886.

 Joint-Stock Company, "Spetsatommontazh", affiliated to the Ministry of Atomic Energy of Russia. Address: 101000 Moscow, B. Ordynka Street, 24/26. Director: Valeriy Nikolayevich Karmachev, President. Telephone: (095) 2394500. Fax: (095) 2394567.

 Joint-Stock Company PMSP "Elektron". Address: 630065 Novosibirsk-65, Tank Street, 72. Director: Valeriy Nikolayevich Karmachev. Telephone: (3832) 761331. Fax: (3832) 760712, 762076.

 Joint-Stock Company, "Gidromontazh". Address: 143392 Moscow oblast, Naro-Fominskiy rayon, settlement of Selyatino. Director: Gennadiy Pavlovich Kryuchkov. Telephone: (095) 4365510. Fax: (095) 7204960.

 Joint-Stock Company, Energospetsmontazh". Address: 107150 Moscow, Boytsovaya Street, 27. Director: Anatoliy Vasilyevich Shevchenko. Telephone: (0950 1608903. Fax: (095) 1694225.

 Joint-Stock Company, "Promelektromontazh". Address: 107150 Moscow, Boytsovaya Street, 27. Director: Vladimir Grigoryevich Dedlovskiy. Telephone: (0950 1602710, 1695275. Fax: (095) 1601313.

 Joint-Stock Company, "Mospromtekhmontazh". Address: 103473 Moscow, Third Samotechnyy Lane, 11. Director: Yuriy Leonyevich Ilin. Telephone: (095) 2889221, 2844200. Fax: (095) 2844348.

 Joint-Stock Company, "Angarskteplokhimmontazh". Address: 665801 Irkutsk oblast, Angarsk. Director: Vladimir Mikhaylovich Varga. Telephone: (39515) 42658. Fax: (39515) 42678. [Sic. Fax no. is same as tel. no.].

 Open-Type Joint-Stock Company "Promekhanomontazh". Address: 636070 Tomsk oblast, city of Seversk, P. O. Box 494. Director: Anatoliy Vladimirovich Maksimenko. Telephone: (3822) 784900. Fax: (3822) 241520.

 Open-Type Joint-Stock Company MPK "Uralpromontazh". Address: 454065 Chelyabinsk oblast, city of Ozersk, Semenov Street, 22. Director: Sergey Vladimirovich Voloshin. Telephone: (35171) 79250. Fax: (35117) 122214.

 OAO "Spetsmontazhmekhanizatsiya". Address: 115230 Moscow, Nagitinskaya Street, 2 building 1. Director: Aleksandr Mikhaylovich Tarasov. Telephone: (095) 1168791. Fax: (095) 1168863.

 OAO "Spetskhimmontazh". Address: 121069 Moscow, Khlebnyy Lane, 2/3. Director: Vladimir Mikhaylovich Tsitlenko. Telephone: (095) 2917136. Fax: (095) 2900830.

 Joint-Stock Company, "Atomspetskonstruktsiya" Experimental Plant. Address: 144001 Moscow oblast, Elektrostal, Stroitelnyy Lane, 10. Director: Vladimir Alekseyevich Gurov. Telephone: (095) 7029784. Fax: (095) 7029738.

 Open-Type Joint-Stock Company, "Installation-Construction Trust No. 3". Address: 396072 Voronezh oblast, city of Novovoronezh. Director: Anatoliy Nikiforovich Myshko. Telephone: (07364) 20631. Fax: (07364) 20082.

 Joint-Stock Company, "Spetsteplokhimmontazh". Address: 636070 Tomsk oblast, city of Seversk, Semenov Street, 22. Director: Boris Alekseyevich Kormashov. Telephone: (3822) 777932. Fax: (3822) 776939.

 Joint-Stock Company, "Uralgidromontazh". Address: 456780 Chelyabinsk oblast, city of Ozersk, Semenov Street, 22. Director: Anatoliy Ivanovich Loboda. Telephone: (35171) 79303. Fax: (35171) 73041.

 Joint-Stock Company, "Spetskhimmontazh". Address: 188537 Leningrad oblast, city of Sosnovyy Bor, P. O. Box 47. Director: Nikolay Nikolayevich Kiselev. Telephone: (81269) 64310. Fax: (81269) 64846.

 Joint-Stock Company, "Orgmontazhproyekt". Address: 119146 Moscow, First Frunze Street, 3a. Director: Igor Sergeyevich Ivashkin. Telephone: (095) 2428692. Fax: (095) 2460191.

 Joint-Stock Company, "KONATEM Concern". Address: 144001 Moscow oblast, city of Electrostal, Stroitelnyy Lane, 8. Director: Aleksandr Nikolayevich. Telephone: (095) 70207725. Fax: (095) 7029070.

 Novosibirsk Plant, "Promstalkonstruktsia". Address: 630075 city of Novosibirsk, Tayginskaya Street, 11. Director: Vladimir Ivanovich Berezikov. Telephone: (3832) 765797. Fax: (3832) 743221.

 Open Joint-Stock Company (Holding), "Spetsstroymaterialy". Address: 113191 Moscow, Kholodilnyy Lane, 3a. Director: Vladimir Aleksandrovich Barkov. Telephone: (095) 2353165. Fax. (095) 2353809.

 Open Joint-Stock Company, "Kamishlov Plant of Building Materials". Address: 623530 Sverdlovsk oblast, City of Kamyshlov, Street Stroiteley [Street of the Bulders], 1. Director: Oleg Timofeyevich Boyarnikov. Telephone: (34375) 93205. Fax: (34375) 24547.

 Open Joint-Stock Company, "Vikhorevka Timber-Cutting Combine". Address: 665737 Irkutsk oblast, city of Vikhorevka. Director: Vladimir Grigoryevich Serov. Telephone: (39531) 53548.

 Open Joint-Stock Company, "Gisopolimer". Address: 614043 Perm, Vasilyev Street, 1. Director: Maksim Veniaminovich Kirichenko, General Director. Telephone: (3422) 257315. Fax: (3422) 250743.

 Open Joint-Stock Company, "NIKBOOR". Address: 144001 Moscow oblast, city of Electrostal, Stroitelnyy Lane, 5. Director: Vasiliy Nikolayevich Gulko. Telephone: (095) 7029713. Fax: (095) 7029713. [Sic. Fax no. is same as tel. no.].

 Open Joint-Stock Company, "Stroyplastpolimer". Address: 620024 Yekaterinburg-24, Bisertskaya Street, 1. Director: Aleksandr Ivanovich Melnik, General Director. Telephone: (3432) 258811. Fax: (3432) 255233.

 Open Joint-Stock Company, "Udmurtiya Plant of Building Materials". Address: 427600 Respublika Udmurtiya, Glazov, Sovetskaya Street, 49. Director: Anatoliy Aleksandrovich Fedorovskiy. Telephone: (34141) 72564. Fax: (34141) 76482.

 Open Joint-Stock Company, "Lesstrom". Address: 618500 Perm oblast, city of Solikamsk, Kommunist Street, 44. Director: Aleksandr Nikolayevich Zinovyev. Telephone: (34253) 30107. Fax: (34253) 30100.

 Open Joint-Stock Company, "Iskitimramorgranit". Address: 633210 Novosibirsk oblast, Iskitim-5, Tsentralnaya Street, 24. Director: Aleksandr Semenovich Chirkov. Telephone: (38343) 42753, 44745.

 Open Joint-Stock Company, "Chuna Timber-Cutting Combine". Address: 665540 Irkutsk oblast, Chuna post office. Director: Vladimir Serafimovich Ilinskiy, General Director. Telephone: (39567) 91930. Fax: (39567) 91162.

 Open Joint-Stock Company, "Polistrom". Address: 456616 Chelyabinsk oblast, city of Kopeyk, Tomsk Street, 2. Director: Vladimir Gustavovich Adayev, General Director. Telephone: (35126) 10373. Fax: (35126) 10373. [Sic. Fax no. is same as tel. no.].

 Open Joint-Stock Company, "Krasnoyarskpolimerkeramika". Address: 663010 Krasnoyarsk kray, Berezovskiy rayon, Zykovo, Lineynaya Street, 31. Director: Aleksandr Vladimirovich Bevza, General Director. Telephone: (39175) 92510. Fax: (39175) 564089.

 Open Joint-Stock Company, "Tomsk Plant of Construction Materials and Products". Address: 634049 Tomsk, Irkutsk Road, 65. Director: Anatoliy Vasilyevich Valov, General Director. Telephone: (3822) 561793. Fax: (3822) 564089.

 Open Joint-Stock Company, Stroypolimerkeramika". Address: 249200 Kaluga oblast, Babinskiy rayon, settlement of Vorotynsk. Director: Said Vaitovich Mambetshayev, General Director. Telephone: (08425) 81401. Fax: (08425) 82271.

 Open Joint-Stock Company, "Stromashpolimer". Address: 249855 Kaluga oblast, Dzerzhinskiy rayon, settlement of Tovarkovo. Director: Sergey Vasilyevich Kondratyev. Telephone: (08434) 23315. Fax: (08434) 26419.

 Open Joint-Stock Company, "Tizol". Address: 624350 Sverdlovsk oblast, city of Nizhnyaya Tura-7. Director: Mikhail Grigoryevich Mansurov, General Director. Telephone: (34342) 23442. Fax: (34342) 211034.

 Open Joint-Stock Company, "Silikatstroymaterialy". Address: 636137 Tomsk oblast, settlement of Kopylovo. Director: Aleksey Alekseyevich Shachnev, General Director. Telephone: (38229) 82440. Fax: (38229) 82440.

 Open Joint-Stock Company, "Sortavala Crushing-Grading Plant". Address: 186750 Respublika Kareliya, city of Sortavala, Lesnaya Street, 2. Director: Yuriy Borisovich Yudin, General Director. Telephone: (81430) 42969.

 Closed Joint-Stock Company, "Filter". Address: 249855 Kaluga oblast, Dzerzhinskiy rayon, settlement of Tovarkovo. Director: Gennadiy Mikhaylovich Kadomtsev, General Director. Telephone: (08434) 23985.

 GUP [State Unitary Enterprise], "Volga Testing and Experimental Combine". Address: 171510 Tver oblast, Kimry rayon, settlement of Savelovo. Director: Yuriy Aleksandrovich Matlakhov. Telephone: (095) 2760272. Fax: (095) 5877770.

 Scientific-Research and Design Institutes; Scientific and Scientific-Technical Centers and Organizations of the Ministry of Atomic Energy of the Russian Federation; Physical Profile on Research and Servicing of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle and the Servicing of the Atomic Power Plants.

 All-Russian Scientific-Research Institute of Experimental Physics of the Russian Federal Nuclear Center (VNIIEF-RFYaTs). Address: 607190 Sarov, Nizhegorodsk oblast, Mir Avenue, 37. Director: Radiy Ivanovich Ilkayev. Telephone: (83130) 56951, 11264, 11803. Fax: (83130) 53808, 54565. Telex: 151 109 APCA. Web: http:

www.vniief.ru.

 All-Russian Scientific-Research Institute of Technical Physics--Russian Federal Nuclear Center (VNIITF-RFYaTs). Address: 456770 Snezhinsk, Chelyabinsk oblast, P. O. Box 245. Director: Georgiy Nikolayevich Rykovanov. Telephone: (35172) 32028. Fax: (35172) 32351. Telex: 124 846 SNOW SU. Web: http:

/ Russian Scientific Center, "Kurchatov Institute". Address: 123182 Moscow, Kurchatov Square, 1. Director: Yevgeniy Pavlovich Velikhov, President. Telephone: (095) 9430074. Web: http:

www.kiae.ru

 State Scientific Center of the Russian Federation, Troitsk Institute of Innovative and Thermo- Nuclear Research (GNTs RF TRINITI). Address: 142092 Moscow oblast, Troitsk. Director: Vyacheslav Dmitriyevich Pismennyy. Telephone: (095) 3345041. Fax: (095) 3345776. Web: http:

www.triniti.troitsk.ru.

 State Scientific Center of the Russian federation, " A. I. Leypunskiy Physics-Energy Institute" (GNTs RF FEI). Address: 249020 Kaluga oblast, city of Obninsk, Bondarenko Square, 1. Director: Anatoliy Vasilyevich Zrodnikov. Telephone: (095) 9530017, extension 8231. Fax: (09439) 48225. Web: http:

www.ippe.obninsk.ru.

 State Unitary Enterprise, "Scientific-Research and Design Institute of Power Engineering" (NIKIET). Address: 101000 Moscow, General Post Office, P. O. Box 788. Director: Boris Arsentyevich Gabarayev. Telephone: (095) 9752017. Fax: (095) 9752019. Web: http:

www.entek.ru

 Sverdlovsk Branch of the Scientific-Research and Design Institute of Power Engineering (NIKIET). Address: 624051 Yekaterinburg oblast, Beloyarsk rayon, Zarechnyy. Director: Viktor Ivanovich Perekhozhev. Telephone: (34377) 35162. Fax: (34377) 33396.

 State Scientific Center, Scientific-Research Institute of Atomic Reactors (GNTs RF NIIAR). Address: 433510 Ulyanovsk oblast, Dimitrovgrad-10. Director: Aleksey Frolovich Grachev. Telephone: (84235) 35648. Web: http:

www.niiar.simbirsk.su

 State Scientific Center of the Russian Federation, "Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Physics" (GNTs RF ITEF). Address: 117259 Moscow, Bolshaya Cheremushkinskaya Street, 25. Director: Mikhail Vladimirovich Danilov. Telephone: (095) 1250292. Fax: (095) 1270833. Web: http:

www.itep.ru

 State Scientific Center of the Russian Federation, "Institute of High Energy Physics" (GNTs RF IFVE). Address: 142284 Moscow oblast, Serpukhov rayon, Protvino, Pobeda street, 1. Director: Anatoliy Alekseyevich Logunov. Telephone: (095) 2175857. Fax: (095) 9246752. Web: http:

www.ihep.su.

 Joint Institute of Nuclear Research (OIYaI). Address: 141980 Moscow oblast, Dubna. Director: Vladimir Georgyevich Kadyshevskiy. Telephone: (095) 2002283. Fax: (095) 9752381. Web: http:

www.jinr.ru

 Scientific-Research Institute of Pulse Engineering (NIIIT). Address: 115304 Moscow, Luganskaya Street, 9. Director: Konstantin Nikolayevich Danilenko. Telephone: (095) 3213501. Fax: (095) 3214855.

 Yu. S. Sedkov Scientific-Research Institute of Measuring Systems (NIIIS). Address: 603600 N. Novgorod, GSP. Director: Valentin Yefimovich Kostyukov. Telephone: (8312) 654990. Fax: (8312) 668752.

 State Unitary Scientific-Technical Enterprise, "EFKON" (GNTP "EFKON"). Address: 601190 Nizhegorod oblast, Sarov, Yunost Street, 22. Director: Anatoliy Petrovich Inozemtsev. Telephone: (83130) 45705. Fax: (83130) 45994.

 Design Bureau of Auto-Transport Equipment (KB ATO). Address: 141007 Moscow oblast, city of Mytishchi, Khlebozavodskaya Street, 2. Director: Ernest Pavlovich Kornilovich. Telephone: (095) 5832303. Fax: (095) 5839334.

 State Unitary Enterprise, "A. P. Aleksandrov Scientific-Research and Technological Institute" (NITI). Address: 188537 Leningrad oblast, Sosnovyy Bor. Director: Vyacheslav Andreyevich Vasilenko. Telephone: (81269) 62667. Fax: (81269) 63672.

 All-Russian Scientific-research Institute of Technical Physics and Automation (VNIITFA). Address: 115230 Moscow, Varshavskoye Highway, 46. Director: Nikolay Revokatovich. Telephone: (095) 1119496. Fax: (095) 1115434. Web: http:

www.vniitfa.ru

/ Saransk Branch of the All-Russian Scientific-Research Institute of Technical Physics And Automation (VNIITFA). Address: 430003 Respublika Mordoviya, city of Saransk, Rabochaya Street, 82. Director: Vladimir Ivanovich Piskunov. Telephone: (8342) 171155. Fax: (8342) 171019.

 State Unitary Enterprise, "Special Science and Production Association 'Eleron' (SNPO "Eleron"). Address: 115563 Moscow, General Belov Street, 14. Director: Yevgeniy Trofimovich Mishin. Telephone: (095) 3939072. Fax: (095) 3939163.

 Branch State Unitary Enterprise, Special Science and Production Association "Eleron" Scientific-Research and Design Institute of Radio-Electronic Engineering (NIKIRET). Address: 440901 Penza oblast, Zarechnyy, Mir Avenue, 1. Director: Yuriy Aleksandrovich Olenin. Telephone: (8412) 629474. Fax: (8412) 552528.

 Branch Enterprise, Special Science and Production Association "Eleron" State Unitary Enterprise "Dedal". Address: 141930 Moscow oblast, Dubna, P.O. Box 89. Director: Sergey Leonidovich Fedyayev. Telephone: (221) 62120. Fax: (221) 40469.

 Branch Special Science and Production Association Eleron" "Lepton". Address: 353340 Stavropol kray, Lermontov, Komsomol Street, 24. Director: Anatoliy Vladimirovich Podshibyakin. Telephone: (86535) 22530.

 N. L. Dukhov All-Russian Scientific Research Institute of Automation (VNIIA). Address: 101000 Moscow, P. O. Box 918. Director: Yuriy Nikolayevich Barmakov. Telephone: (095) 9787803. Fax: (095) 9780903.

 State Unitary Enterprise, "Scientific-Research Institute of Instruments" (NIIP). Address: 140061 Moscow oblast, Lytkarino, settlement of Turayevo. Director: Vladimir Ivanovich Rogov. Telephone: (095) 5523939. Fax: (095) 5523911.

 State Enterprise, "D. V. Yeremov Scientific-Research Institute of Electro-Physics Equipment" (NIIEFA). Address: 189631 St. Petersburg, Metallostroy, Sovetskiy Avenue, 1. Director: Vasiliy Andreyevich. Telephone: (812) 4648963 Fax: (812) 4647979.

 Institute of Physics-Technical Problems (IFTP). Address: 141980 Moscow oblast, Dubna, GUS, P. O. Box 39. Director: Vladimir Pavlovich Plotnikov. Telephone: (095) 9262209. Fax: (221) 65523.

 Research Center of Applied Nuclear Physics (ITsPYaF). Address: 141980 Moscow oblast, Dubna, Zh. Kyuri Street, 6. Director: Vladimir Dmitriyevich Shestakov. Telephone: (221) 40665. Fax: (221) 65523.

 Moscow Radio-Engineering Institute (MRTI). Address: 113519 Moscow, Varshavskoye Highway, 132. Director: Gennadyy Ivanovich Batskikh. Telephone: (095) 3153111. Fax: (095) 3141053.

 State Center, "Physics of Concentrated Media" Address: 123060 Moscow, VNIINM [All-Russian Scientific-Research Institute of Inorganic Materials]. Director: Aleksandr Zinovyevich Solontsov. Telephone: (095) 1966389. Fax: (095) 1966389. [Sic. Fax no. is same as tel. no.]

 Joint-Stock Company, "Scientific-Production Center, "Rosna". Address: 620151 Yekaterinburg, General Post Office, P. O. Box 74. Director: Grigoriy Yemelyanovich Vedernikov. Telephone: (3432) 413228. Fax: (3432) 413370.

 Scientific-Engineering Center, "SNIIP" (NITs "SNIIP"). Address: 123060 Moscow, Raspletin street, 5. Director: Sergey Borisovich Chebyshov. Telephone: (095) 1987947. Fax: (095) 9430063. Web: http:

www.sniip.ntl.ru

 Specialized Design-Structure Bureau, "Automation" (SPKB "Avtomatika"). Address: 153428 Ivanovo, 11-th Sosnevskaya, 72. Director: Yevgeniy Borisovich Butnikov. Telephone: (0932) 304275. Fax: (0932) 350548.

 State Scientific-Research and Design Enterprise, "Vibrotekhnika". (GNIKP "Vibrotekhnika"). Address: 109017 Moscow, B. Ordynka Street, 29. Director: Vladimir Petrovich Savchenko. Telephone: (095) 9516750. Fax: (095) 2394609.

 All-Russian Design-Research and Scientific-Research Institute of Industrial Technology (VNIPI Promtekhnolgii). Address: 115409 Moscow, Kashirskoye Highway, 33. Director: Vladimir Viktorovich Lopatin. Telephone: (095) 3247945. Fax: (095) 3245025.

 Siberian Branch of the All-Russian Design-Research and Scientific-Research Institute of Industrial Technology (SibNIIPromtekhnologii). Address: 674665 Chitin oblast, Krasnokamensk, P. O. Box 3. Director: Nikolay Matveyevich Zemskov. Telephone: (30245) 26147. Fax: (30245) 43670.

 All-Russian Scientific-Research Institute of Chemical Technology (VNIIKhT). Address: 115230 Moscow, Kashirskoye Highway, 3. Director: Viktor Vasilyevich Shatalov. Telephone: (095) 3247584. Fax: (095) 3245441.

 State Scientific Center of the Russian Federation, "A. A. Bochvar All-Russian Scientific-Research Institute of Inorganic Materials" (VNIINM). Address: 123060 Moscow, Rogov Street, 5. Director: Mikhail Ivanovich Solonin. Telephone: (095) 1904993. Fax: (095) 1964168. Web: http:

www.bochvar.ru

 Siberian Branch of State scientific Center of the Russian Federation, "A. A. Bochvar All- Russian Scientific Research Institute of Inorganic Materials". Address: 634018 Tomsk oblast, Seversk, Lermontov Street, 13. Director: Aleksandr Yakovlevich Svarovskiy. Telephone: (38242) 61880. Fax: (3822) 776739.

 State Unitary Enterprise, Scientific-Research Institute, "Luch" (NII "Luch"). Address: 142100 Moscow oblast, city of Podolsk, Zheleznodorozhnaya Street, 24.

 Science and Production Association, "V. G. Khlopin Radium Institute". Address: 194021 St. Petersburg, 2-nd Murinskiy Thoroughfare, 28. Director: Aleksandr Andreyevich Rimskiy-Korsakov. Telephone: (812) 2475641. Fax: (812) 2475781. Web: http:

 Scientific-Research Institutes and Design Institutes, Scientific Centers, and Scientific- Technical Centers of the Ministry of Atomic Energy of the Russian Federation for Research and Servicing of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle:

 Moscow Science and Production Association, "Radon" (NPO "Radon"). Address: 141335 Moscow oblast, Sergiyevo-Posadskiy rayon, sub-division Shemetovo. Director: Igor Andreyevich Sobolev. Telephone: (095) 9289069. Fax: (095) 9289916. Web: http:

www.radon.ru

 Central Laboratory for the Protection of the Environment. Address: 607190 Nizhegorod oblast, Sarov, P. O. Box 423. Director: Vasiliy Dmitriyevich Davydok. Telephone: (83130) 45288. Fax: (86130) 45288.

 Central Scientific-Research Laboratory. Address: 440901 Penza oblast, Zarechnyy, Mir Avenue, 1. Director: Vladimir Mikhaylovich Sorokin. Telephone: (8412) 692706.

 Scientific-Production Center for Conversion. Address: 101000 Moscow, B. Ordynka Street, 24/26. Director: Aleksandr Dmitriyevich Tsisarskiy. Telephone: (095) 2392205. Fax: (095) 2392711.

 All-Russian Scientific-Research Institute for Utilization of Atomic Power Stations (VNII AES). Address: 105507 Moscow, Ferganskaya Street, 25. Director: Armen Artvazdovich Abagyan. Telephone: (095) 3761550. Fax: (095) 3768333. Web: http:

www.vniiaes.ru.

 Scientific-Technical Center for Emergency-Technical Work at Atomic Power Stations (NTTs ATR). Address: 109507 Moscow, Ferganskaya Street, 25. Director: Eduard Saakovich Saakov. Telephone: (095) 5819223. Fax: (095) 5818011.

 Technological Branch of the Scientific-Technical Center for Emergency Work at Atomic Power Stations. Address: 142530 Moscow oblast, Pavlo-Posadskiy rayon, Elektrogorsk, Bezymyannaya Street, 6. Director: Anatoliy Yuryevich Likhachev. Telephone: (095) 3760069. Fax: (095) 3760069 [Sic. Fax no. is same as tel. no.].

 Structural Design Branch of the Scientific-Technical Center for Emergency Work at Atomic Power Stations. Address: 107818 Moscow, Bakunin Street, 7, building 1. Director: Mikhail Falevich Rogov. Telephone: (095) 3891355. Fax: (095) 3891355. [Sic. Fax no. is same as tel. no.].

 Dimitrovgrad Branch of the Scientific-Technical Center for Emergency Work at Atomic Power Stations. Address: 433510 Ulyanovsk oblast, Dimitrovgrad. Director: Vasiliy Ivanovich Shepilov. Telephone: (84235) 34063. Fax: (84235) 35648.

 Elektrogorsk Scientific-Research Center for Security of Atomic Power Stations. Address: 142530 Moscow oblast, Pavlo-Posadskiy rayon, Elektrogorsk, Bezymyannaya Street, 6. Director: Vladimir Nikolayevich Blinkov. Telephone: (243) 33074. Fax: (243) 31235.

 Joint-Stock Company, "Small Power Engineering" [Malaya Energetika]". Address: 105318 Moscow, Tkatskaya Street, Building 1, P. O. Box No. 75. Director: Yevgeniy Alekseyevich Kuzin, General Director. Telephone: (095) 9629269. Fax: (095) 9641900. Web: http:

www.glasnet.ru/~merev Design [Institutes]:

 State Specialized Design Institute (GSPI). Address: 107014 Moscow, Novoryazan Street, building 8a. Director: Vladimir Lvovich Rozhkov. Telephone: (095) 2611259. Fax: (095) 2617264.

 State Unitary Enterprise, Leading Institute "All-Russian Design and Scientific- Research Institute of Integrated Power Engineering technology (GI VNIPIET). Address: 197228 St. Petersburg, Savushkin Street, 82. Director: Valeriy Dmitriyevich Safutin. Telephone: (812) 4301491. Fax: (812) 4300393.

 Krasnoyarsk State Design-Research Institute of VNIPIET [see acronym expansion above]. Address: 660026 Krasnoyarsk kray, Zheleznogorsk, Lenin Street, 39. Director: Yuriy Nikolayevich Baskakov. Telephone: (39197) 22087. Fax: (39197) 25625.

 Tomsk State Design-Research Institute of VNIPIET. Address: 634039 Tomsk oblast, Seversk, Kurchatov Street, 2. Director: Vitaliy Alekseyevich Mishin. Telephone: (35171) 79550. Fax: (35171) 73822.

 Novosibirsk State Design-Research Institute of VNIPIET. Address: 630075 Novosibirsk-75, B. Khmelnitskiy Street, 2. Director: Anatoliy Vladimirovich Volushchuk. Telephone: (3832) 761315. Fax: (3832) 769613.

 Sosnovyy Bor State Design-Research Institute of VNIPIET. Address: 188537 Leningrad oblast, Sosnovyy Bor, 50-th October Anniversary Street, 1, P. O. Box 115.

 Sosnovyy Bor State Scientific-Research Institute of VNIPIET. Address: 188537 Leningrad oblast, Sosnovyy Bor, P. O. Box 49. Telephone: (81269) 79452. Fax: (81269) 63480.

 Sosnovyy Bor State Scientific-Research Institute of VNIPIET. Address: 188537 Leningrad oblast, Sosnovyy Bor, P. O. Box 49. Director: Leonid Vasilyevich Kizhnerov. Telephone: (81269) 64373. Fax: (81269) 61932.

 State Unitary Enterprise, Scientific-Research and Structural Design Institute, "Atomenergoproekt". Address: 107815 Moscow, Bakunin Street, block 7, building. 1. Director: Andrey Borisovich Malyshev. Telephone: (095) 2614187. Fax: (095) 2650974.

 State Unitary Enterprise, St. Petersburg Scientific-Research and Structural Design Institute, "Atomenergoproekt". Address: 19306 St. Petersburg, Suvorov Avenue, 2a. Director: Vladislav Nikolayevich Korkunov. Telephone: (812) 2772196. Fax: (812) 2770703.

 State Unitary Enterprise, Nizhegorod Scientific-Research and Structural Design Institute, "Atomenergoproekt". Address: 603006 N. Novgorod, GSP-54, Svoboda Square, 3. Director: Yevgeniy Mikhaylovich Koroloev. Telephone: (8312) 333424. Fax: (8312) 358490.

 Joint-Stock Company, "Sverdlovsk Scientific-Research Institute of Chemical Machine-Building (SverdNIIkhimmash). Address: 620010 Yekaterinburg, Groboyedov Street, 32. Director: Boris Pimanovich Shevelin. Telephone: (3432) 274310. Fax: (3432) 275505.

 State Unitary Enterprise, Experimental Design Bureau, "Gidropress" (OKB "GIDROPRESS"). Address: 142103 Moscow oblast, city of Podolsk, Ordzhonikidze Street, 21. Director: Yuriy Grigoryevich Dragunov. Telephone: (275) 42576. Fax: (275) 42516.

 State Unitary Enterprise, "I. I. Afrikantov Experimental Design Bureau of Machine- Building". Address: 603074 N. Novgorod, Burnakov Avenue, 15. Director: Aleksandr Ivanovich Kiryushin. Telephone: (8312) 418772. Fax: (8312) 418772. [Sic. Fax no. is same as tel. no.]

 State Unitary Enterprise, Central Design Bureau of Machine-Building" (TsKBM). Address: 195272 St. Petersburg, Krasnoyarsk Square, 3. Director: Yevgeniy Nikolayevich Sokolov. Telephone: (812) 2242075. Fax: (812) 2243257.

 Science and Production Association, "Scientific-Research and Design Institute of Installation Technology" (NPO NIKIMT). Address: 127410 Moscow Altufyevskoye Highway, 43. Director: Leonid Nikolayevich Shchavelev. Telephone: (095) 4899095. Fax: (095) 903100.

 Joint-Stock company, Design-Research and Scientific-Research Institute, "OrgstroyNIIproekt". Address: 113191 Moscow, Kholodilnyy Lane, 3a. Director: Nikolay Nikolayevich Yegorov. Telephone: (095) 2353841. Fax: (095) 2351941.

 Joint-Stock Company, Lermontov Design-Research Institute, "OrgstroyNIIproekt". Address: 357340 Stavropol kray, city of Lermontov, Lermontov Avenue, 1. Director: Vladimir Stepenovich Sorokin. Telephone: (86535) 31604. Fax: (86535) 22191.

 State Unitary Enterprise, Siberian Design Research Institute, "OrgstroyNIIproekt". Address: 665830 Irkutsk oblast, city of Angarsk, Vostochnaya Street, 14. Director: Viktor Ivanovich Shkaptsov. Telephone: (39518) 95945. Fax: (39518) 526745.

 Joint-Stock Company, "Siberian Structural-Design Technological Institute". Address: 630055 Novosibirsk, M. Dzhalil Street, 21. Director: Aleksandr Vladimirovich Glinskiy. Telephone: (3832) 321330. Fax: (3832) 323245.

 State Enterprise, Design-Technological Trust, "Orgstroy-11". Address: 113191 Moscow, Danilov Bank, 10/12. Director: Yuriy Aleksandrovich Pokrovskiy. Telephone: (095) 2376400. Fax: (095) 2376407.

 Informational and analytical [facilities].

 The Situation-Crisis Center. Address: 101100 Moscow, B. Ordynka Street, 24/26. Director: Venedikt Petrovich Berchik. Telephone: (095) 2392875. Fax: (095) 2382890.

 Central Scientific-Research Institute of Control, Economics, and Information of The Ministry of Atomic Energy of Russia (TsNIIatominform). Address: 127434 Moscow, Dmirovskoye Highway, 2. Director: Nikolay Yegorovich Yakovlev. Telephone: (095) 9767272. Fax: (095) 9767203.

 Novosibirsk Branch of TsNIIATOMINFORM (see acronym expansion above)--Branch Scientific-Technical Center of Information Science in Construction (ONTTs "Informstroy"). Address: 630055 Novosibirsk, M. Dzhalil Street, 23. Director: Anatoliy Nikolayevich Tseba. Telephone: (3832) 321747. Fax: (3832) 325853.

 Angarsk Scientific-Research Center of Control, Economics, and Information Science (ATOMINFORM-A). Address: 665816 Irkutsk oblast, Angarsk, P. O. Box 289. Director: Vitaliy Valentinovich Denisenko. Telephone: (39518) 43621. Fax: (39518) 40262.

 State Enterprise, "Chernobyl Archive". Address: 109017 Moscow, B. Ordynka Street, 24/26. Director: Yevgeniy Viktorovich Postnikov. Telephone: (095) 2394687. Fax: (095) 2392237.

 Firm for Commercial Advertisement and Scientific-Technical Propagation. Address: 113105 Moscow, Varshavskoye Highway, 3. Director: Stanislav Mikhaylovich Tsvetayev. Telephone: (095) 9541082. Fax: (095) 9525963.

 Inter-Branch Coordination Center, "Nuklid" Address: 194100 St. Petersburg, Lesnoy Avenue, 64. Director: Nina Simonovna Yanovskaya. Telephone: (812) 5429342. Fax: (812) 5426228.    

 Informational and Analytical Scientific-Research Institutes, Science Centers, and Scientific-Technical Centers of the Ministry of Atomic Energy of the Russian Federation:

 State Unitary Enterprise, "Exhibition and Marketing Center." Address: 109017 Moscow, B. Ordynka Street, 24/26. Director: Galina Viktorovna Gorshteyn. Telephone: (095) 2392853. Fax: (095) 2392690.

 Press-Service of the Ministry of Atomic Energy of the Russian Federation. Address: 109017 Moscow, B. Ordynka Street, 24/26. Director: Yuriy Grigoryevich Bespalko. Telephone: (095) 2394650. Fax: (095) 2392535.

 Others:

 All-Russian Scientific-Research Institute for the Comprehensive Use of Milk Raw Materials (VNIKIM). Address: 355040 Stavropol-40, Dovatortsev Street, 52a. Director: Veterinary Surgeon, Director of Milkmen. Telephone: (8652) 97592. Fax: (8652) 73615.

 State Establishment, Institute for Problems of Secure Development of Atomic Power, Russian Academy of Sciences ( IBRAE RAN). Address: 113191 Moscow, B. Tulskaya Street, 52. Director: Leonid Aleksandrovich Bolshov, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Telephone: (095) 9522421. Fax: (095) 9581151. Web: http:

www.ibrae.ac.ru

 Institute of Nuclear Physics of Budker (IyaF). Address: 630090 Novosibirsk, Lavrentyev Avenue, 11. Director: A. N. Skrynskiy. Telephone: (3832) 356031. Fax: (3832) 352163. Web: http:

www.inp.nsk.su.

 D. V. Skobeltsyn Scientific-Research Institute of Nuclear Physics (NIIYaF MGU). Address: 119899 Moscow, Vorobyevy gory, NIIYaF MGU. Director: Mikhail Igoryevich Panasyuk. Telephone: (095) 9391818. Fax: (095) 9390896. Web: http:

www.npi.msu.su.

 St. Petersburg Institute of Nuclear Physics. Address: 188350 Leningrad oblast, Gatchina. Director: V. A. Nazarenko. Telephone: (812) 7137196. Fax: (812) 7137196.

 11. Educational Establishments.

 Moscow State Engineering-Physics Institute (Technical University) (MIFI). Address: 115409 Moscow, Kashirovskoye Highway, 31. Director: Boris Nikolayevich Onykiy. Telephone: (095) 324 3384. Web: http:

www.mifi.ru

 Ozersk Technological Institute of Moscow State Engineering-Physics Institute. Address: 456783 Chelyabinsk oblast, city of Ozersk, Pobeda Avenue, 48. Director: Yuriy Nikolayevich Stepanov, Rector. Telephone: (35171) 44646.

 Novouralsk Polytechnic Institute of Moscow State Engineering-Physics Institute. Address: 624130 Sverdlovsk oblast, city of Novouralsk-3, Lenin street, 85. Director: Aleksey Petrovich Dyagilev. Telephone: (34370) 23580.

 Polytechnic Institute of Moscow State Engineering-Physics Institute. Address: 620045 Sverdlovsk oblast, city of Lesnoy, Kommunist Avenue, 36. Director: Vyacheslav Mikhaylovich Khrapal. Telephone: (34342) 60963. Fax: (34342) 55621.

 Sarov Physics-Technical Institute of Moscow State Engineering-Physics Institute. Address: 607200 Nizhegorod oblast, Sarov, Dukhov Street, 6. Director: Yuriy Petrovich Shcherbak. Telephone: (83130) 59809.

 Trekhgornyy Polytechnic Institute of Moscow State Engineering-Physics Institute. Address: 456080 Chelyabinsk oblast, city of Trekhgornyy, Mir Street, 17. Director: Fedor Ivanovich Dolinin, Rector. Telephone: (35111) 67067.

 Snezhinsk Physics-Technical Institute--Branch of Moscow State Engineering-Physics Institute. Address: 456776 Chelyabinsk oblast, city of Snezhinsk, Mir Street, 6/8. Director: Vladimir Makarovich Skovpen. Telephone: (35172) 32422. Fax: (35172) 32256.

 Northern Technological Institute of Tomsk Polytechnic University. Address: 634036 Tomsk-36, Kommunist Avenue, 65. Director: Aleksandr Nikolayevich Zhiganov. Telephone: (3822) 779529.

 St. Petersburg State Technical University. Address: 195251 St. Petersburg, Politekhnicheskaya Street, 29. Director: Yuriy Sergeyevich Vasilyev, President. Telephone: (812) 2471616. Fax: (812) 5527882.

 St. Petersburg State Technological Institute (Technical University), Engineering Physics- Chemistry Faculty. Address: 198013 St. Petersburg, Moscow Avenue, 26. Director: Anatoliy Sergeyevich Dudyrev. Telephone: (812) 2596500. Fax: (812) 1127791.

 Moscow Power Institute (MEI). Address: 105835 Moscow, Krasnokazarmennaya Street, 14. Director: Yevgennyy Viktorovich Ametistov, Rector. Telephone: (095) 3627088. Web: http:

www.mpei.ac.ru

 Inter-Branch Special Training Center affiliated to the Ministry of Atomic Energy of Russia. Address: 249020 Kaluga oblast, Obninsk, Kurchatov Street, 21. Director: Vladimir Nikolayevich Serikov. Telephone: (08439) 25344. Fax: (08439) 48510.

 State Central Institute for Qualification Enhancement. Address: 249020 Kaluga oblast, Obninsk, Kurchatov Street, 21. Director: Yuriy Petrovich Rydnev. Telephone: (08439) 48833. Fax: (08439) 48011.

 Moscow Institute for Qualification Enhancement, "Atomenergo". Address: 125413 Moscow, Senezhskaya Street, 1/9. Director: Nikolay Ivanovich Ishchenko, Rector. Telephone: (095) 453 0277. Fax: (095) 453 8559.

 State Regional Educational Center of the Ministry of Atomic Energy of Russia. Address: 197348 St. Petersburg, Aerodromnaya Street, 4. Director: Yuriy Petrovich Lisnenko, Rector. Telephone: (812) 3945005.

 Ural Institute for Qualification Enhancement, "Progress". Address: 624133 Sverdlovsk oblast, city of Novouralsk, Pervomayskaya Street, 107. Director: Valeriy Ivanovich Makarov. Telephone: (34370) 91601. Fax: (34370) 91354. Web: http:

/ Siberian Institute for Qualification Enhancement, "Spetsmontazh". Address: 630075 Novosibirsk-75, Narodnaya Street, 7/1. Director: Oleg Igorevich Sidorov. Telephone: (3832) 760564. Fax: (3832) 760117.

 Central Scientific-Research Institute of Control, Economics, and Information of the Ministry of Atomic energy of Russia (TsNIIatominform). Address: 127434 Moscow, Dmitrovskoye Highway, 2. Director: Nikolay Yegorovich Yakovlev. Telephone: (095) 9767272. Fax: (095) 9767203.

 Novosibirsk Branch of TsNIATOMINFORM [see acronym expansion above]--Branch Scientific-Technical Center of Information Science in Construction (ONTTs "Informstroy). Address: 630055 Novosibirsk, M. Dzhalil Street, 23. Director: Anatoliy Nikolayevich Tseba. Telephone: (3832) 321747. Fax: (3832) 325853.

 Angarsk Scientific-Research Center of Control, Economics, and Information (ATOMINFORM-A). Address: 665816 Irkutsk oblast, Angarsk, P. O. Box 289. Director: Vitaliy Valentinovich Denisenko. Telephone: (39518) 43621. Fax: (39518) 40262.

 State Enterprise, "Chernobyl Archive". Address: 109017 Moscow, B. Ordynka Street, 24/26. Director: Yevgenyy Viktorovich Postnikov. Telephone: (095) 2394687. Fax: (095) 2392237.

 Firm for Commercial Advertisement and Scientific-Technical Propagation. Address: 103105 Moscow, Varshavskoye Highway, 3. Director: Stanislav Mikhaylovich Tsvetayev. Telephone: (095) 9541082. Fax: (095) 9525963.

 Northern Indusrial College (municipal educational establishment). Address: 636070 Tomsk obalst, Seversk, Kommunist Avenue, 65. Director: Aleksandr Nikolayevich Zhiganov. Telephone: (3822) 779529.

 Beloyarsk Polytechnic College Address: 624051 Sverdlovsk oblast, Zarechnyy, Lenin Street, 27. Director: Oleg Nikolayevich Arefyev. Telephone: (34377) 32004.

 Balakhna Polytechnic College. Address: 606400 Nizhegorod oblast, Balakhna, Dzerzhinskiy Street, 21. Director: Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Checherin. Telephone: (83144) 20781.

 Moscow Industrial College. Address: 113191 Moscow, Kholodilnyy Lane, 7. Director: Viktor Sergeyevich Geraskin. Telephone: (095) 9522621.

 Moscow Oblast Polytechnic College. Address: 144000 Mocow oblast, Electrostal, Lenin Street, 41. Director: Nikolay Stepanovich. Telephone: (095) 7029028.

 Siberian Polytechnic College. Address: 630075 Novosibirsk-75, B. Khmelnitskiy Street, 9. Director: Pavel Andreyevich Tereshchenko. Telephone: (3832) 760239.

 Novovoronezh Polytechnic College. Address: 396072 Voronezh oblast, Novovoronezh, Oktyabrskaya Street. Director: Mikhail Alekseyevich Dukhanin. Telephone: (07364) 28096.

 Yuzhnouralsk Polytechnic College. Address: 456783 Chelyabinsk oblast, Ozersk, Pobeda Street, 48. Director: Angelina Valentinovna Romanovna. Telephone: (35171) 44623.

 Uralsk Polytechnic College. Address: 624130 Sverdlovsk oblast, Novouralsk-3, Lenin street, 85. Director: Leonid Nikolayevich Mochalov. Telephone: (34370) 22497.

 Volgodonsk Engineering College of Power-Machine Building. Address: 347340 Rostov oblast, Volgodonsk, Lenin street, 27. Director: Tamara Vailyevna Bazavova. Telephone: (86392) 25673.

 Zarechnyy Industrial College (municipal educational establishment). Address: 249020 Kaluga oblast, Obninsk, Lenin Avenue, 71. Director: Vladimir Petrovich Petrov. Telephone: (08439) 61209.

 Obninsk Poly-Engineering College. Address: 249020 Kaluga oblast, Obninsk, Lenin Avenue, 71. Director: Vladimir Petrovich Petrov. Telephone: (08439) 61209.

 Krasnoyarsk Electro-Mechanical Engineering College. Address: 663690 Krasnoyarsk kray, Zelenogorsk, Bortnikov Street, 13. Director: Grigoriy Antipyevich Porsev. Telephone: (39169) 34433.

 Angarsk Polytechnic College. Address: 665030 Irkutsk oblast, Angarsk, P. O. Box 60. Director: Yuriy Vasilyevich Dragunov. Telephone: (3951) 999362.

 Sosnovyy Bor Branch of Moscow Obalst Polytechnic College. Address: 188537 Leningrad oblast, Sosnovyy Bor, Mir Street, 5. Director: Tatyana Nikolayevna Keller. Telephone: (812) 69662224.

 Protvino Branch of Moscow Oblast Polytechnic College. Address: 142284 Moscow Oblast, Serpukhov rayon, P. O. Box 66. Director: Nadezhna Pavlovna Sholokhova, Branch Head. Telephone: (09677) 41362.

 Kirovo-Chepetsk Branch of Moscow Oblast Polytechnic College. Address: 613020 Kirov oblast, Kirovo-Chepetsk, P. O. Box 32. Director: Lidiya Aleksandrovna Malykh, Branch Head. Telephone: (83361) 31296.

 Dubna Branch of Moscow Oblast Polytechnic College. Address: 141980 Moscow oblast, Dubna, Priborstroitelnaya Street, 2. Director: Galina Nikolayevna Lepunova, Head of Branch. Telephone: (09621) 40523.

 Glazov Branch of Moscow Oblast Polytechnic College. Address: 427600 Udmurt Republic, Glazov, General Post Office, P. O. Box 238. Director: Olga Andreyevna Trushkina, Head of Branch. Telephone: (34141) 30476.

 Professional-Technical School No. 1. Address: 171850 Tver Oblast, Udomlya, Kurchatov Avenue, 8. Director: Viktor Mikhaylovich Bezverkhov. Telephone: (08255) 43075.

 12. Export Services.

 Joint-Stock Company, "Tekhsnabeksport". Address: 109180 Moscow, Staromonetnyy Lane, 26. Director: Revmir Georgiyevich Frayshtut. Telephone: (095) 9533864. Fax: (095) 2302638.

 Firm, "Uranservis"--Director Aleksy Antonovich Grigoryev. Firm, "TVELy"--Director Oleg Valeriyevich Bondarenko. Firm, "Atomimpeks"--Director Viktor Mikhaylovich Rodin. Currency and Finance Section. Section for State of Market and Prices. Section for Foreign Relations and Protocol. Section for Informational Provision. Section for Processing and Protection of Information.

 Separation Plants.

 Ural Electro-Chemical Combine. Separation Plant. Address: 624130 Novouralsk, Sverdlovsk oblast, Dzerzhinskiy Street, 2. Director: Anatoliy Petrovich Knutarev, General Director. Telephone: (34370) 92424. Fax: (34370) 94141. Web: http:

www.ricon.e-burg.ru

 Electro-Chemical Plant (EkhZ). Separation Plant. Address: 663690 Zelenogorsk, Krasnoyarsk kray. Director: Anatoliy Nikolayevich Shubin, General Director. Telephone: (39169) 33350, 33321.

 Siberian Chemical Combine. Separation Plant. Address: 636070 Seversk, Tomsk oblast, Kurchatov oblast, 1. Director: Valeriy Konstantinovich Larin, General Director. Telephone: (3822) 771798. Fax: (3822) 772528. Web: http:

 Angarsk Electrolytic Chemical Combine. Separation Plant. Address: 665804 Irkutsk oblast, city of Angarsk. Director: Viktor Panteleymonovich Shopen. Telephone: (39518) 40710. Fax: 39518) 66715.

 Joint-Stock Company, "Atomstroyeksport". Address: 113184 Moscow, Malaya Ordynka Street, 35, building 3. Director: Viktor Vasilyevich Kozlov. Telephone: (095) 7379037.

 All-Regional Association, "Izotop" [Isotope].

 State Unitary Enterprise, All-Regional Association, "Izotop" (V/O "Izotop"). Address: 119435 Moscow, Pogodinskaya Street, 22. Director: Boris Viktorovich Akakiyev. Telephone: (095) 2450118. Fax: (095) 2452492.

 Yekaterinburg Enterprise, "Izotop". Address: 620142 Yekaterinburg, Belinskiy Street, 143. Director: Lilian Akhramovich Khamitov. Telephone: (3432) 223149. Fax: (3432) 227473.

 Khabarovsk Enterprise, "Izotop". Address: 680020 Khabarovsk, Volchayevskaya Street, 83. Director: Vladimir Vladimirovich Fedorov. Telephone: (4212) 222025. Fax: (4212) 222025.

 13. Business Partners of Enterprises of Ministry of Atomic Energy (none listed).

 14. Banks, Insurance Organizations, and Investment Companies (none listed).

 15. Ecological Organizations.

 Bellona. Web: http:

www.bellona.no.

 Green World. Web: http:

www.spb.org.ru/greenworld

 Social-Ecological Union. Web: http:

www.cci.glasnet.ru/seu

 Contructive-Ecological Movement, "Kedr". (no listing)

 Ecoline. Web: http:

www.cci.glasnet.ru

 World-Wide Informational Service for Problems of Energy. Web: http:

www.antenna.nl

 E-tip. Web: http:

www.ecologia.nier.org

 EcoNet. Web: http:

www.igs.org/igs/econet

 Grinpis [Greenpeace] Russia. Web: http:

www.greenpeace.ru

 Grinpis Interneshnl [Greenpeace International]. Web: http:

www.greenpeace.org

 Prima-M. Web: http:

www.glasnet.ru/aoprima

 Center for Disarmament, Energy, and Ecology MFTI [Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology]. Web: http:

www.armscontrol.ru

 16. Social and Non-Commercial Organizations. (none listed)

 17. Strategic Nuclear Forces of Russia. (none listed)