Impact of COVID-19 Confinement on Physical Activity and Sedentary Behaviour in Spanish University Students: Role of Gender

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health Article Impact of COVID-19 Confinement on Physical Activity and Sedentary Behaviour in Spanish University Students: Role of Gender Ana Rodríguez-Larrad 1, Asier Mañas 2,3 , Idoia Labayen 4, Marcela González-Gross 5, Ander Espin 1, Susana Aznar 6, JoséAntonio Serrano-Sánchez 7,8, Francisco J. Vera-Garcia 9, Domingo González-Lamuño 10, Ignacio Ara 2,3 , Luis Carrasco-Páez 11, JoséCastro-Piñero 12,13 , Mari Carmen Gómez-Cabrera 14,15 , Sara Márquez 16 , Josep A. Tur 17 , Narcis Gusi 18 , Pedro J. Benito 5, Diego Moliner-Urdiales 19 , Jonatan R. Ruiz 20 , Francisco B. Ortega 20 , David Jiménez-Pavón13,21 , JoséAntonio Casajús22 and Jon Irazusta 1,*   Citation: Rodríguez-Larrad, A.; Mañas, A.; Labayen, I.; González-Gross, M.; Espin, A.; Aznar, S.; Serrano-Sánchez, J.A.; Vera-Garcia, F.J.; González-Lamuño, D.; Ara, I.; 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, 369. https://doi.org/10.3390/ ijerph18020369 Received: 1 December 2020 Accepted: 2 January 2021 Published: 6 January 2021 Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). 1AgeingOn Research Group, Department of Physiology, University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), 48940 Leioa, Spain; [email protected] (A.R.-L.); ander[email protected] (A.E.) 2GENUD Toledo Research Group, Department of Physical Activity and Sport Sciences, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, 45071 Toledo, Spain; Asier[email protected] (A.M.); [email protected] (I.A.) 3CIBER of Frailty and Healthy Aging (CIBERFES), 28029 Madrid, Spain 4Department of Health Sciences, Institute for Innovation & Sustainable Development in Food Chain (IS-FOOD), Navarra Institute for Health Research (IdisNA), Public University of Navarra, Campus de Arrosadía, 31006 Pamplona, Spain; [email protected] 5Department of Health and Human Performance, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain; marcela.gonzalez.gr[email protected] (M.G.-G.); [email protected] (P.J.B.) 6PAFS Research Group, Faculty of Sports Sciences, University of Castilla-La Mancha, 45071 Toledo, Spain; [email protected] 7Department of Physical Education, University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, 35017 Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain; [email protected] 8Research Institute of Biomedical and Health Sciences (IUIBS), 35016 Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain 9Sports Research Centre, Department of Sport Sciences, Miguel Hernández University of Elche, 03202 Elche, Spain; [email protected] 10 Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Cantabria, 39011 Santander, Spain; [email protected] 11 Department of Physical Education and Sports, University of Seville, 41013 Sevilla, Spain; [email protected] 12 GALENO Research Group, Department of Physical Education, Faculty of Education Sciences, University of Cadiz, 11519 Puerto Real, Spain; [email protected] 13 Biomedical Research and Innovation Institute of Cadiz (INiBICA) Research Unit, 11009 Cádiz, Spain; [email protected] 14 Freshage Research Group, Department of Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Valencia, 46010 Valencia, Spain; [email protected] 15 CIBERFES, Fundación Investigación Hospital Clínico Universitario/INCLIVA, 46010 Valencia, Spain 16 Institute of Biomedicine (IBIOMED), University of León, 24071 León, Spain; [email protected] 17 Research Group on Community Nutrition and Oxidative Stress, Fundamental Biology and Health Sciences, University of the Balearic Islands, IDISBA & CIBEROBN, 07122 Palma, Spain; [email protected] 18 Department of Didactics of Musical, Plastic and Body Expression, Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Extremadura, 10003 Cáceres, Spain; [email protected] 19 LIFE Research Group, Department of Education and Specific Didactics, University Jaume I, 12071 Castellóde la Plana, Spain; [email protected] 20 PROFITH “PROmoting FITness and Health through Physical Activity” Research Group, Department of Physical Education and Sports, Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Granada, 18071 Granada, Spain; [email protected] (J.R.R.); [email protected] (F.B.O.) 21 MOVE-IT Research Group, Department of Physical Education, Faculty of Education Sciences, University of Cádiz, 11519 Puerto Real, Spain 22 Department of Physiatry and Nursing, University of Zaragoza, 50009 Zaragoza, Spain; [email protected] *Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +34-946-012-837 Abstract: During the COVID-19 pandemic, entire populations were instructed to live in homeconfinement to prevent the expansion of the disease. Spain was one of the countries with the strictest Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021,18, 369. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18020369 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021,18, 369 2 of 14 conditions, as outdoor physical activity was banned for nearly two months. This study aimed to analyse the changes in physical activity and sedentary behaviours in Spanish university students before and during the confinement by COVID-19 with special focus on gender. We also analysed enjoyment, the tools used and motivation and impediments for doing physical activity. An online questionnaire, which included the International Physical Activity Questionnaire Short Form and certain “ad hoc” questions, was designed. Students were recruited by distributing an invitation through the administrative channels of 16 universities and a total of 13,754 valid surveys were collected. Overall, university students reduced moderate ( − 29.5%) and vigorous ( − 18.3%) physical activity during the confinement and increased sedentary time (+52.7%). However, they spent more time on high intensity interval training (HIIT) (+18.2%) and mind-body activities (e.g., yoga) (+80.0%). Adaptation to the confinement, in terms of physical activity, was handled better by women than by men. These results will help design strategies for each gender to promote physical activity and reduce sedentary behaviour during confinement periods. Keywords: pandemic; international physical activity questionnaire; physical exercise; lockdown 1. Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic led almost all countries to take extraordinary measures to avoid spreading the disease [ 1 ]. Entire populations were instructed to live in homeconfinement for a number of weeks to months. Spain was one of the countries with the strictest conditions during the pandemic: leaving home was only allowed for essential needs, such as purchasing food or pharmacological supplies and performing specific professional activities. Any other kind of outdoor activity was banned for nearly 2 months. Even individual outdoor physical activity, which was permitted in many other countries, was prohibited in Spain [ 2 ]. These public health measures imposed to prevent the expansion of the disease posed a significant challenge for staying physically active [ 3 ]. In addition, during the stay at home, leisure interests might have focused on sedentary behaviours around screen activities [ 4 ]. This may represent a concern, as just a few days of inactivity can induce muscle loss, neuromuscular damage, insulin resistance and fat deposition [ 5 ]. Moreover, home-confinement may have a psychological and social impact on individuals [6]. Regular physical activity has well-known benefits in health and has demonstrated to be effective for preventing the most prevalent non-communicable pathologies [ 7 ] and decreasing mortality risk [ 8 , 9 ]. Regarding communicable diseases, physical activity improves the immune response to infections, which could reduce both the risk of infection by SARS-CoV-2 and the severity of COVID-19 symptoms [ 10 ]. In contrast, a sedentary lifestyle has the opposite effect, since this may counteract many of the benefits of physical activity [11,12]. University life usually coincides with the transition between adolescence and adulthood, which is crucial in establishing habits that will be maintained throughout life [ 13 ]. Students who are more physically active and with better physical fitness exhibit better health-related quality of life [ 14 ], health parameters [ 14 , 15 ] and academic performance [ 16 ]. In addition, being physically unfit at a young age could also result in a greater risk of disability thirty years later [ 17 ]. The confinement and the closure of sports facilities might have affected physical activity and sedentary behaviour of university students and this could have been further exacerbated by the implementation of online classes. Patterns of physical activity are not equal by gender. Women, compared to men, spend less time on outdoor activities at different ages. Thus, while assessing children and adolescents, Klinker and colleagues showed that girls performed less outdoor activities and that they also spent less time on moderate to vigorous outdoor physical activity than boys [ 18 ]. The same tendency was found in the general population [ 19 ] and in older adults [ 20 ]. Given these results, it was hypothesized that women would be less affected by Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021,18, 369 3 of 14 the home-confinement and that therefore their levels of physical activity would not change as much as men’s. Most studies performed during the COVID-19 pandemic observed a global reduction in physical activity in children and adolescents [ 21 ] and in the general population [ 22 , 23 ], with the reduction especially pronounced in Spain [ 24 ]. However, in Belgium, where individual outdoor physical activity was promoted, although sedentary time increased, more people exercised during the confinement than before [ 25 ]. Previous studies mainly assessed quantitative aspects of physical activity (i.e., steps taken, time spent on different intensities) and very few considered qualitative aspects, such as type of activity, conditioning factors and tools used to practise it [ 25 ]. Analysing both aspects together will increase the understanding of the impact of the confinement on activity patterns. Moreover, with the exception of data provided by companies that manufacture activity trackers [ 24 ], few studies, which were performed in the general population [ 25 ], evaluated changes in physical activity in large samples, neither did they consider gender to analyse the results. Furthermore, the assessment of physical activity is even more relevant in countries with strict prohibitions to do physical leisure activities outdoors, such as Spain. University students belong to a group of paramount importance in the social and economic development of society because they will be qualified professionals in the near future. In consequence, habits that could affect their health and wellbeing in the shortand the long-term deserve to be studied. However, few studies, that did not take into account either gender or qualitative aspects [ 26 ] have analysed the impact of Covid-19 pandemic on physical activity in this specific population. The aim of this study was to analyse the changes in patterns of physical activity and sedentary behaviours in Spanish university students before and during the confinement with special focus on gender. As a secondary aim, we analysed the enjoyment, the tools used and motivation and impediments to do physical activity. 2. Materials and Methods This manuscript presents data from a comparative study (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04361019), analysing the differences between physical activity-related parameters before and during the confinement due to COVID-19. Data were collected via an online survey [ 27 ] between 16 April and 2 May. In this period, the Spanish population was strictly home-confined and only allowed to leave home for essential needs, such as food shopping or purchasing pharmacological supplies, or to perform specific professional activities [ 2 ]. Police controlled restrictions about leaving home. 2.1. Survey Development and Promotion The survey was based on the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) Short Form. The survey also included questions regarding qualitative aspects of physical activity and sedentary behaviours of participants before and during the confinement. Students registered at Spanish Universities and living in Spain during the confinement were eligible to participate in the study. University students older than 55 years were excluded from the analysis. Participants were recruited by distributing an invitation through administrative channels of 16 universities and snowball sampling through social media (Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and so on). All participants gave their informed consent before they participated in the study. The study was conducted in accordance with the declaration of Helsinki and the protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee for Human Beings of the University of the Basque Country (M10_2020_078). 2.2. Survey Dimension 2.2.1. Sociodemographic, Academic and Anthropometric Data Data concerning gender, age, height, weight, university, academic degree (Bachelor’s, Master’s, PhD) and the branch of knowledge of the studies were collected. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021,18, 369 4 of 14 2.2.2. Physical Activity and Sedentary Behaviour The time spent on moderate and vigorous physical activities, as well as walking and sedentary time, were assessed using the IPAQ Short Form, which has been validated among Spanish university students [ 28 ]. Additionally, time per week in each type of physical activity performed (i.e., aerobic exercises, strength training, high intensity interval training (HIIT, a type of training involving repeated bouts of high intensity effort followed by varied recovery times), sports or mind-body exercises such as Pilates, Tai-Chi and Yoga) and time per day spent on leisureand study-related screen activities were collected. For these variables, each of the questions had to be responded twice: firstly, referring to “during the confinement” and consecutively to “before the confinement” periods. The following qualitative information about physical activity during the confinement was also recorded: (a) perceived intensity and enjoyment of physical activity (close-ended questions with three options: “lower than”, “higher than” or “equal to” before the confinement), (b) tools used for physical activity (close-ended questions with yes/no response options such as “equipment for aerobic exercise”, “equipment for strength exercise”, “active videogames”, “computer applications”, “TV programs” or “social networks” and so on), (c) reasons for doing physical activity (close-ended questions with yes/no response options such as “it is important for my health”, “it is important to my image”, “it helps me against stress and anxiety”, “I spend more time sitting”, “I have more time to exercise” and so on) and (d) reasons for not doing physical activity (close-ended questions with yes/no response options such as “it is not a priority for me, “I cannot go out and do my usual exercise”, “I do not know how to exercise at home”, “I have no material resources”, “I do not have enough space” and so on). These questions were designed ad hoc, considering the specific confinement situation. 2.3. Statistical Analysis Continuous variables are shown using mean (+standard deviation). Normality of the distribution of values was checked by the Kolmogorov–Smirnoff test. For statistical analysis, non-normal data were square root-transformed. A paired t-test was used to compare continuous parameters before and during the confinement in the entire sample. In this test, effect size was calculated by Cohen’s d. Values for Cohen’s d of 0.2, 0.5 and 0.8 were considered small, medium and large, respectively [ 29 ]. The interaction of gender in the changes before and during the confinement were analysed by a mixed design (gender × time) ANCOVA, including the branch of knowledge of the studies as a covariable. As a result, η2 was calculated to analyse the effect size. Values for η2 of 0.01, 0.06, 0.13 were considered small, medium and large, respectively [ 30 ]. Categorical data were expressed by percentages in each category, while values between men and women were compared by the χ2 test and effect size by ϕ or Crammer’s V. In these tests, values of 0.1, 0.3 and 0.5 were considered small, medium and large, respectively [ 31 ]. For all analyses, significance level was set at p< 0.05. Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows version 24.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). 3. Results 3.1. Descriptive Analysis of Participants Table 1shows the descriptive data of the sample. After sending an email to almost 500,000 students of the 16 universities that participated in the study, a total of 13,754 valid surveys were collected. The average age of respondents was 22.6 years for women (range: 18–54) and 23.2 years for men (range: 18–54): 65.2% of participants were women, 34.3% were men and 0.5% did not declare gender. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021,18, 369 5 of 14 Table 1. Descriptive data of study sample. Variable Overall Women Men Age (years), mean (SD) * n= 13,754 n= 8960 n= 4728 22.8 (5.3) 22.6 (4.9) 23.2 (5.8) Body Mass Index (kg/m2), mean (SD) * n= 13,623 n= 8859 n= 4699 22.6 (3.3) 22.0 (3.3) 23.5 (3.1) Academic degree, n(%) * n= 13,753 n= 8959 n= 4728 Bachelor’s degree 11,360 (82.6) 7484 (83.5) 3819 (80.8) Master’s degree 1322 (9.6) 803 (9.0) 513 (10.9) PhD 995 (7.2) 613 (6.8) 379 (8.0) Other 76 (0.6) 59 (0.7) 17 (0.4) Branch of knowledge, n(%) * n= 13,629 n= 8860 n= 4704 Arts and Humanities 1315 (9.6) 1055 (11.9) 243 (5.2) Engineering and Architecture 3238 (23.8) 1334 (15.1) 1890 (40.2) Experimental sciences 1346 (9.9) 851 (9.6) 489 (10.4) Health sciences 3612 (26.5) 2869 (32.4) 730 (15.5) Social and Legal sciences 3303 (24.2) 2441 (27.6) 847 (18.0) Physical Activity and Sports sciences 815 (6.0) 310 (3.5) 505 (10.7) Housing type, n(%) * n= 13,577 n= 8848 n= 4645 Apartment in multi-storey building 8819 (65.1) 5823 (65.8) 2946 (63.4) Semi-detached house 2480 (18.3) 1575 (17.8) 896 (19.3) Isolated family house 2258 (16.7) 1450 (16.4) 803 (17.3) Coexistence at home, n(%) * n= 13,741 n= 8951 n= 4724 Parents 3663 (26.7) 2366 (26.4) 1277 (27.0) Parents and siblings 6348 (46.2) 4141 (46.3) 2180 (46.1) Partner 935 (6.8) 692 (7.7) 235 (5.0) Roommates 1501 (10.9) 957 (10.7) 537 (11.4) Alone 458 (3.3) 261 (2.9) 196 (4.1) Other 836 (6.1) 534 (6.0) 299 (6.3) Coexistence in unit size, n(%) * n= 13,703 n= 8933 n= 4705 1 person 429 (3.1) 229 (2.6) 197 (4.2) 2 people 1904 (13.9) 1331 (14.9) 562 (11.9) 3 people 3878 (28.3) 2513 (28.1) 1346 (28.6) 4 people 5557 (40.6) 3631 (40.6) 1904 (40.5) ≥5 people 1935 (14.1) 1229 (13.8) 696 (14.8) COVID-19 related information, n(%) Self-reported symptoms n= 13,734 n= 8947 n= 4721 846 (6.2) 535 (6.0) 302 (6.4) Diagnosed by health professional n= 13,718 n= 8936 n= 4716 95 (0.7) 61 (0.7) 32 (0.7) Coexistence at home with affected n= 13,741 n= 8953 n= 4722 427 (3.1) 264 (2.9) 161 (3.4) Note: * p< 0.05, statistically significant difference (Student’s T or χ2tests) between women and men. 3.2. Changes in the Whole Sample Table 2shows the changes in the time spent on each intensity and type of activity, before and during the confinement. University students spent less time on moderate ( − 29.5%; Cohen’s d = 0.210) and vigorous ( − 18.3%; Cohen’s d = 0.113) physical activity during the confinement than before it. A more drastic ( − 84.3%; Cohen’s d = 1.340) reduction in walking time was also observed. Regarding type of physical activity, whereas the time spent on aerobic activity ( − 31.3%; Cohen’s d = 0.277) and sports ( − 87.4%; Cohen’s d = 0.582 ) was lower during the confinement, university students performed more HIIT (+18.2%; Cohen’s d = 0.141) and mind-body activities (+80.0%, Cohen’s d = 0.362), while maintaining strength exercises ( − 0.7%) in this period. Sedentary time increased (+52.7% Cohen’s Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021,18, 369 6 of 14 d = 0.998 ) during the confinement, including leisure-time (+71.9%; Cohen’s d = 1.244 ) and study-related (+37.1%; Cohen’s d = 0.587) screen time. Table 2. Participants’ reported Physical Activity, Exercise and Sedentary Time during COVID-19 confinement. Overall sample. Variable Before the Confinement During the Confinement Change Student’s Paired T Test (p)Cohen’s d IPAQ-SF Vigorous PA (min/week) 327 (374) 267 (309) −18.3% <0.001 0.113 Moderate PA (min/week) 376 (563) 265 (408) −29.5% <0.001 0.210 Walking time (min/week) 766 (820) 120 (318) −84.3% <0.001 1.340 Sedentary time (min/day) 357 (178) 545 (200) +52.7% <0.001 0.998 Exercise Aerobic (min/week) 208 (240) 143 (179) −31.3% <0.001 0.277 Strength (min/week) 136 (189) 135 (171) −0.1% <0.001 0.048 HIIT (min/week) 66 (125) 78 (145) +18.2% <0.001 0.142 Mind-body (min/week) 40 (105) 72 (143) +80.0% <0.001 0.361 Sports (min/week) 95 (193) 12 (68) −87.4% <0.001 0.582 Screen time Leisure (min/day) 217 (140) 373 (202) +71.9% <0.001 1.244 Study, work (min/day) 251 (149) 344 (165) +37.1% <0.001 0.587 Notes: Data are presented as mean (SD). Sample size ranges between 12,526 and 13,491 in the different variables. HIIT, High Intensity Interval Training; IPAQ-SF, International Physical Activity Questionnaire Short Form; min, minutes; PA, Physical Activity. Table 3shows the qualitative information about physical activity during the confinement. Participants who reported that the intensity of aerobic (51.3%) and strength (38.8%) exercise was lower during the confinement than before outnumber those who reported the opposite (29.8% and 35.2%, respectively). However, regarding HIIT, the proportion of participants who felt that the intensity was higher (30.5%) or lower (30.2%) during the confinement was similar. In addition, while 45.5% of the participants enjoyed doing physical activity less during the confinement than before it, only 27.1% enjoyed it more. The main reasons for doing physical activity were to promote health (74.4%) and to reduce stress (65.5%), while the main reasons for not engaging in physical activity were legal restrictions on outdoor activities (9.3%) and lack of time (7.6%). Finally, tutorials on social media (63.9%) and equipment used for strength exercises (52.3%) were the most frequently used tools. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021,18, 369 7 of 14 Table 3. Participants’ perceptions and resources regarding the practice of physical exercise during the COVID-19 confinement. Overall sample. Variable n(%) Intensity, aerobic (n= 13,183) Same as before 2493 (18.9) Higher than before 3929 (29.8) Lower than before 6761 (51.3) Intensity, strength (n= 13,412) Same as before 3480 (25.9) Higher than before 4722 (35.2) Lower than before 5210 (38.8) Intensity, HIIT (n= 12,819) Same as before 5046 (39.4) Higher than before 3904 (30.5) Lower than before 3869 (30.2) Enjoyment when exercising (n= 13,367) Same as before 3660 (27.4) Higher than before 3627 (27.1) Lower than before 6080 (45.5) Available spaces for exercising (n= 13,754) Room, hallways 8833 (64.2) Living room 6523 (47.4) Courtyard 1043 (7.6) Garden/Exterior free space 2928 (21.3) Other 1696 (12.3) Tools used for exercising (n= 13,754) Equipment for aerobic exercise 3617 (26.3) Equipment for strength exercises 7198 (52.3) Active videogames 1001 (7.3) Computer applications 2776 (20.2) TV programs 724 (5.3) Social networks 8790 (63.9) Reasons to exercise (n= 13,754) It is important for my health 10,231 (74.4) It is important to my image 5769 (41.9) It helps me against stress and anxiety 8876 (64.5) I spend more time sitting 4305 (31.3) I have more time to exercise 4768 (34.7) I have found different resources 3013 (21.9) My food intake is higher 2447 (17.8) My environment pushes me to it 1252 (9.1) Reasons not to exercise (n= 13,754) It is not a priority for me 639 (4.6) I cannot go out and do my usual exercise 1282 (9.3) I do not know how to exercise at home 368 (2.7) I have no material resources 768 (5.6) I do not have enough space 986 (7.2) I have less time to exercise 1050 (7.6) My health state prevents me 209 (1.5) Note: HIIT, High Intensity Interval Training. 3.3. Gender-Related Differences Table 4shows changes in the time spent on different intensities and types of physical activity and sedentary behaviour before and during the confinement in men and women. The time spent on moderate ( η2 for time × group = 0.009) and vigorous ( η2 for time × group = 0.02) physical activities decreased more in men ( − 39.2% and − 31.8%, respectively) than in women ( − 24.6% and − 9.1%, respectively). However, the reduction in walking time Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021,18, 369 8 of 14 was slightly but significantly larger in women than in men ( − 84.8% vs. − 83.2%; η2 for time × group = 0.003). In addition, while men decreased the time spent on strength exercise ( − 13.3%) and they maintained HIIT activities, women increased the time spent on strength exercise (+10.1%) and HIIT (+32.2%) during the confinement (η2for time ×group = 0.011 for strength and η2 for time × group = 0.007 for HIIT). Similarly, men decreased the time spent on aerobic activities more ( − 48.6%) than women ( − 19.9%; η2 for time × group = 0.03). Men ( − 89.7% vs. − 85.3%) decreased the time doing sports more than women did ( η2 for time × group = 0.057). The time doing mind-body activities increased more in women (+93.3%) than in men (+43.3%) ( η2 for time × group = 0.021). Finally, sedentary time ( η2 for time × group = 0.002) and leisure screen time ( η2 for time × group = 0.003) increased slightly more in men (+54.7% and +76.7%) than in women (+51.5% and +69.4%). Table 4. Participants’ reported physical activity, exercise and sedentary time, during the COVID-19 confinement. Comparison between women and men. Variable Women Men ANCOVA g×t (p)†η2 B.C. D.C. Change B.C. D.C. Change IPAQ-SF Vigorous PA (m/w) ‡ 296 (372) 269 (319) −9.1% 386 (371) 263 (290) ¶ −31.9% <0.001 0.020 Moderate PA (m/w) ‡§ 385 (575) 290 (420) ¶ −24.7% 359 (538) 218 (382) ¶ −39.3% <0.001 0.009 Walking time (m/w) ‡§ 803 (845) 122 (310) ¶ −84.8% 697 (764) 117 (332) ¶ −83.2% <0.001 0.003 Sedentary time (m/d) ‡ § 353 (175) 535 (197) ¶ +51.6% 364 (184) 563 (205) ¶ +54.7% <0.001 0.002 Exercise Aerobic (m/w) ‡§ 196 (229) 157 (179) ¶ −19.9% 230 (256) 119 (177) ¶ −48.3% <0.001 0.032 Strength (m/w) ‡§ 109 (174) 120 (161) ¶ +10.1% 187 (205) 162 (185) ¶ −13.4% <0.001 0.011 HIIT (m/w) ‡§ 62 (122) 82 (151) ¶ +32.3% 72 (131) 72 (132) ±0.0% <0.001 0.007 Mind-body (m/w) ‡§ 45 (114) 87 (155) ¶ +93.3% 30 (84) 43 (111) ¶ +43.3% <0.001 0.021 Sports (m/w) ‡§ 68 (169) 10 (63) ¶ −85.3% 145 (224) 15 (76) ¶ −89.7% <0.001 0.057 Screen time Leisure (m/d) § 216 (141) 366 (200) ¶ +69.4% 219 (138) 387 (204) +76.7% <0.001 0.003 Study, work (m/d) ‡§ 256 (149) 349 (165) ¶ +36.3% 243 (149) 334 (165) ¶ +37.4% 0.369 <0.001 Notes: Data are presented as mean (SD). Sample size ranges between 8148 and 8811 in women and 4356 and 4680 in men in the different variables. B.C., before the confinement; D.C., during the confinement; g x t, Group per Time interaction; HIIT, High Intensity Interval Training; IPAQ-SF, International Physical Activity Questionnaire Short Form; m/d, minutes/day; m/w, minutes/week; PA, Physical Activity. † Adjusted for branch of knowledge. ‡ p<0.05 (Student’s independent T test) between women and men in before the confinement. §p< 0.05 (Student’s independent T test) between women and men in during the confinement. ¶ p< 0.05 (Student’s paired T test) between before and during confinement. Table 5shows the differences between women and men regarding the qualitative information about physical activity during the confinement. More women than men (Krammer’s V = 0.2) reported that they increased the intensity of aerobic (36.4% vs. 17.5%), strength (37.2% vs. 31.5%) and HIIT (33.6% vs. 24.2%) activities during the confinement (Table 5); there were also more women (33.6%) than men (15.0%) who increased their enjoyment of physical activity during this period (Krammer’s V = 0.221). Social media were more widely used for practising physical activity in women (76.6%; ϕ = 0.362), with equipment for strength exercises being more common in men (58.7%; ϕ = 0.092). Health promotion and reduction of stress were the most frequent reasons for doing physical activity in both genders, with the first being more frequent in men (75.9%; ϕ = 0.024) and the second in women (67.5%; ϕ= 0.083). Finally, lack of time for women (7.7%; ϕ= 0.027) and restrictions on going out for men (13.3%; ϕ = 0.030) were the most common problems in terms of not doing physical activity. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021,18, 369 9 of 14 Table 5. Participants’ perceptions and resources regarding the practice of physical exercise during the COVID-19 confinement. Comparison between women and men. Variable Women Men χ2(p)Phi/Cramer’s V Intensity, aerobic n= 8610 n= 4510 Same as before 1561 (18.1) 917 (20.3) <0.001 0.200 Higher than before 3132 (36.4) 787 (17.5) Lower than before 3917 (45.5) 2806 (62.2) Intensity, strength n= 8735 n= 4612 Same as before 2459 (28.2) 1000 (21.7) <0.001 0.120 Higher than before 3251 (37.2) 1455 (31.5) Lower than before 3025 (34.6) 2157 (46.8) Intensity, HIIT n= 8365 n= 4393 Same as before 3288 (39.3) 1730 (39.4) <0.001 0.108 Higher than before 2809 (33.6) 1084 (24.7) Lower than before 2268 (27.1) 1579 (35.9) Enjoyment when exercising n= 8704 n= 4597 Same as before 2422 (27.8) 1219 (26.5) <0.001 0.221 Higher than before 2925 (33.6) 690 (15.0) Lower than before 3357 (38.6) 2688 (58.5) Available spaces for exercising n= 8960 n= 4728 Room, hallways 5778 (64.5) 3009 (63.6) 0.327 0.008 Living room 4684 (52.3) 1812 (38.3) <0.001 0.133 Courtyard 615 (6.9) 425 (9.0) <0.001 0.038 Garden, exterior free space 1955 (21.8) 967 (20.5) 0.064 0.016 Other 980 (10.9) 709 (15.0) <0.001 0.059 Tools used for exercising n= 8960 n= 4728 Equipment for aerobic exercise 2314 (25.8) 1295 (27.4) 0.048 0.017 Equipment for strength exercises 4396 (49.1) 2777 (58.7) <0.001 0.092 Active videogames 691 (7.7) 304 (6.4) 0.006 0.023 Computer applications 1912 (21.3) 853 (18.0) <0.001 0.039 TV programs 584 (6.5) 135 (2.9) <0.001 0.078 Social networks 6860 (76.6) 1893 (40.0) <0.001 0.362 Reasons to exercise n= 8960 n= 4728 It is important for my health 6603 (73.7) 3590 (75.9) 0.004 0.024 It is important to my image 3748 (41.8) 2002 (42.3) 0.563 0.005 It helps me against stress and anxiety 6044 (67.5) 2795 (59.1) <0.001 0.083 I spend more time sitting 3071 (34.3) 1212 (25.6) <0.001 0.089 I have more time to exercise 3466 (38.7) 1284 (27.2) <0.001 0.115 I have found different resources 2438 (27.2) 559 (11.8) <0.001 0.177 My food intake is higher 1787 (19.9) 652 (13.8) <0.001 0.076 My environment pushes me to it 859 (9.6) 390 (8.2) 0.010 0.022 Reasons not to exercise n= 8960 n= 4728 It is not a priority for me 378 (4.2) 256 (5.4) 0.002 0.037 I cannot go out and do my usual exercise 643 (7.2) 627 (13.3) <0.001 0.027 I do not know how to exercise at home 223 (2.5) 143 (3.0) 0.065 0.100 I have no material resources 387 (4.3) 374 (7.9) <0.001 0.016 I do not have enough space 589 (6.6) 387 (8.2) <0.001 0.075 I have less time to exercise 688 (7.7) 349 (7.4) 0.532 0.030 My state of health prevents me 145 (1.6) 61 (1.3) 0.134 0.005 Notes: Data are presented as n(%). HIIT, High Intensity Interval Training. 4. Discussion The present study shows that university students slightly decreased the time spent on moderate and vigorous physical activities, but they considerably decreased the time spent on walking and doing sports during the confinement. Moreover, students substantially increased sedentary time and leisure-time screen activities during this period. In contrast, they increased the time doing HIIT and mind-body activities and they maintained strength exercise. Women adapted their pattern of physical activity to the confinement better; they reduced the time spent on moderate and vigorous physical activity less and they increased the time doing strength exercise, HIIT and mind-body activities more than men did. In addition, more women than men enjoyed doing physical activity more during than before the pandemic. We consider that these results should be taken into account to promote physical activity in putative future scenarios where strict confinements are needed.