Housework-based exercise versus conventional exercise on health-related fitness of adolescent learners

Abstract

Background and Study Aim. There is a void in the literature comparing the fitness effects of housework-based exercise (HBE) and conventional exercise (CE), including studies that adapt housework into an exercise program. This study examines the effectiveness of HBE and CE on adolescent learners' health-related fitness (HRF) and compares the effectiveness of the two exercises.

Material and Methods. This study uses a parallel-group, randomized controlled trial with 120 adolescent learners; 60 are in the HBE group, and 60 are in the CE group. The participants in the HBE group exercised using housework activities, while the participants in the CE group exercised by doing push and pull, squats, lunges, leaps and jumps, planks, etc. The participants in both groups trained for at least an hour every weekday for 12 weeks under the supervision of qualified fitness instructors.

Results. The findings show that HBE improves the fitness levels of adolescent learners, albeit it has no significant improvement in their BMI. Furthermore, HBE significantly improves the cardiorespiratory fitness of females more than males. Finally, CE outperforms the HBE in producing more significant and favorable fitness effects.

Conclusions. When planned, implemented, and monitored carefully as an exercise program, doing housework is just as good as doing traditional exercise for keeping or improving adolescent learners’ fitness. Furthermore, the findings indicate that HBE may be more appropriate for females because it involves household-related tasks that they traditionally perform.However, CE produces more positive and significant fitness effects. Thus, teachers can use HBE in the remote exercise activities of their learners along with CE.

Full text

364
of Physical Culture
and Sports
PEDAGOGY
Housework-based exercise versus conventional exercise on health-
related tness of adolescent learners
Jem Cloyd M. Tanucan1ABCDE, Marino A. Garcia2ABCD, Marlon T. Bojos3ABCD
1, 3College of Teacher Education, Cebu Normal University, Philippines
2College of Arts and Sciences, Cebu Normal University, Philippines
Authors’ Contribution: A – Study design; B – Data collection; C – Statistical analysis; D – Manuscript Preparation;
E – Funds Collection
Abstract
Background
and Study Aim
There is a void in the literature comparing the tness effects of housework-based exercise (HBE)
and conventional exercise (CE), including studies that adapt housework into an exercise program.
This study examines the effectiveness of HBE and CE on adolescent learners’ health-related tness
(HRF) and compares the effectiveness of the two exercises.
Material and
Methods
This study uses a parallel-group, randomized controlled trial with 120 adolescent learners; 60 are
in the HBE group, and 60 are in the CE group. The participants in the HBE group exercised using
housework activities, while the participants in the CE group exercised by doing push and pull,
squats, lunges, leaps and jumps, planks, etc. The participants in both groups trained for at least an
hour every weekday for 12 weeks under the supervision of qualied tness instructors.
Results The ndings show that HBE improves the tness levels of adolescent learners, albeit it has no
signicant improvement in their BMI. Furthermore, HBE signicantly improves the cardiorespiratory
tness of females more than males. Finally, CE outperforms the HBE in producing more signicant
and favorable tness effects.
Conclusions When planned, implemented, and monitored carefully as an exercise program, doing housework
is just as good as doing traditional exercise for keeping or improving adolescent learners’ tness.
Furthermore, the ndings indicate that HBE may be more appropriate for females because it
involves household-related tasks that they traditionally perform.However, CE produces more
positive and signicant tness effects. Thus, teachers can use HBE in the remote exercise activities
of their learners along with CE.
Keywords:adolescent, conventional exercise, tness, housework-based exercise, randomized controlled trial
Introduction1
Since 2012, physical inactivity has been
viewed as a pandemic [1], with 28% of the world’s
population, or around 1.4 billion people, remaining
inactive [2]. Physical inactivity is rising, particularly
among adolescents [3, 4, 5, 6]. Along with the rise
of sedentary behavior [7], this problem has become
a signicant risk factor for noncommunicable
diseases [8, 9, 10], and it is responsible for 9%
of premature deaths, chronic disability, and a
signicant economic burden. Before the COVID-19
pandemic [2, 11, 12] reported that 1 in 3 adults
and 3 in 4 adolescents worldwide did not meet the
guidelines for physical activity. This gure appears
to have gotten worse with the pandemic, following
the closure of several businesses and schools as
well as the strict implementation of social isolation
measures at home [13, 14]. Many studies have shown
that sedentary habits or a reduction in physical
activity can impact a person’s overall tness level,
including the reduction of muscular strength, agility,
and exibility, poor cardiorespiratory endurance,
and body composition [15, 16,17]. Hence, it is crucial
to take action to remain active and continue to
© Jem Cloyd M. Tanucan, Marino A. Garcia, Marlon T. Bojos, 2022
doi:10.15561/26649837.2022.0602
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
enhance personal tness and health despite being
isolated at home.
For people to remain active, engaging in various
movement practices is crucial [18]. It needs a solid
personal decision and deliberate action to be active
and healthy. There are limitless ways to be physically
active. To avoid confusion about what physical
activities to do, a person can choose between active
participation in conventional exercises (CE) and
more participation in daily physical activities like
housework-based exercises (HBE) or household
activities. By “conventional exercises”, it means
the basic exercise movements of push and pull,
squats, lunges, leaps and jumps, planks, etcetera,
done through body weight management or exercise
equipment. CE has many benets, and some of them
improve health-related tness (HRF) factors like
body mass index (BMI), cardiovascular endurance,
exibility, and muscular strength and endurance
[19, 20, 21, 22, 23]. CE also lowers the risk of heart
disease, helps control blood sugar and insulin, helps
people stop smoking, improves mental health and
mood, and sharpens skills like thinking, learning,
and making decisions [24]. Other researchers have
said that it increases walking speed, gait, and
physical activity while reducing pain, improving

365
2022
0606
range of motion and connective tissue exibility,
and reducing functional restrictions [25].
On the other hand, to encourage individuals to
have at least some physical activity, the focus has
changed from structured forms of exercise to lifestyle
activities that may be incorporated into one’s typical
daily routines [26]. Cleaning the oor, cleaning
windows, doors, and walls, moving furniture, getting
water, doing laundry, washing dishes, climbing
stairs, and other household activities all require
physical effort; hence, calorie burn from these
movements adds up. According to [27], non-exercise
activity thermogenesis, or the energy expenditure
from activities other than structured sports and
exercises, can add up to 2000 kcal of extra energy
consumed over the basal metabolic rate. Likewise,
[28] found that lifestyle activities, like taking the
stairs, when done actively, may have a similar
impact on various health outcomes to sustained,
structured exercise. This idea suggests that if
planned, implemented, and monitored carefully
as an exercise program, doing housework is just
as good as doing traditional exercise for keeping
or improving tness. It is interesting to research
the subject of HBE’s tness advantages because
previous studies have found that these activities,
as well as work and transportation activities, have
only marginal health advantages compared to CE
[29, 30]. However, most of these studies did not
conduct an intervention approach that compared
the two exercises, making it difcult to establish
causality and comparability. Additionally, while
there are studies linking housework activities to
certain aspects of tness [29, 31, 32] and a small
number of studies associating housework exercises
with psychological variables [33], there is a void
in the literature that adapts housework into an
exercise program for tness. Furthermore, it is
essential to stay active by engaging in HBE since it
is inexpensive, reasonably safe, and widely accepted
by the general public.
Regular physical activity is essential for
maintaining health during quarantine [34, 35]. The
house served as the hub of activities during this
pandemic [36], and the researchers believe that
people must exercise, whether conventionally or
housework-based. In addition, the pandemic offers
either threats or opportunities to people. Taking
it as a threat would escalate physical inactivity
and psychological distress [37], worsening the
already ill-fated situations of many. Using it as an
opportunity would lead to new ways of doing things
and, more importantly, would get more people
moving, especially adolescents whose physical
activity is affected by excessive Internet gaming
[38] and social media use [39]. When HBE is coupled
with a must-take academic subject like physical
education (PE), there is still an opportunity to remain
physically active. As the remote learning of PE takes
place, learners can take advantage of this, especially
since it has learning tasks and assignments that the
curriculum framers and teachers carefully design
to keep them active while staying at home [40, 41].
These include using CE and HBE as part of learners’
performance tasks. However, one can wonder if HBE
and CE give the same or different tness benets
when both are structured, conducted, and monitored
carefully.
Purpose of the Study. This study examined the
effectiveness of HBE and CE on adolescent learners’
health-related tness (HRF) and compared the
effectiveness of the two exercises. The results of this
undertaking can provide empirical support for PE
learning resource decision-making and put HBE as
one of the deliberate interventions in the teaching-
learning process for PE subjects.
Materials and Methods
Participants.
The selected population sample underwent
several screening procedures to ensure the health
and safety of the study. The rst screening was based
on age (a minimum of 18 years old and a maximum
of 19) to ensure that the exercise training program
would be developmentally appropriate. The second
screening dealt with health and comorbidity status,
as those with health or medical-related concerns
were excluded. The third screening involved
assessing exercise readiness using the Physical
Activity Readiness Questionnaire. 170 participants
were initially screened, with 45 excluded based on
the criteria and ve declining their participation
due to personal concerns. Overall, the screening
procedures resulted in 120 t and healthy
participants in the study, and they were randomly
assigned into two groups; the experimental group
(HBE) (n = 60: male = 30; female = 30) and the
control group (CE) (n = 60: male = 30; female = 30).
The randomization was done at a 1:1 ratio using an
online software research randomizer.
Research Design.
This parallel-group, randomized controlled
trial examined the effectiveness of HBE and CE on
adolescent learners’ health-related tness (HRF)
and compared the effectiveness of the two exercises.
The intervention began in January 2022 and ended
in July 2022. The rst two months were allocated
for the approval of consent forms, the conduct of
orientation, and the start of physical conditioning
of the participants. The subsequent months were
devoted to the conduct and monitoring of the
study’s intervention as well as the analysis of
results. Accordingly, the study’s exercise trainers,
research assistants, and participants were blinded to
the study’s hypothesis. The participants in the HBE
group conducted their exercises using housework
activities. On the other hand, the participants in

366
of Physical Culture
and Sports
PEDAGOGY
the CE group did basic exercises like push-ups,
pull-ups, squats, lunges, leaps and jumps, and
planks. Participants in both groups work out for at
least an hour each weekday for 12 weeks under the
supervision of qualied tness instructors.
Measurement and Implementation Procedures.
The Department of Education’s Revised Fitness
Test Manual [42] was utilized to examine the
participants’ HRF. This document is a national guide
for all Filipino teachers who give physical tness
tests to their students [43]. It instructs teachers
on conducting, monitoring, and understanding the
results of different tness tests. The Department
of Education has constantly been monitoring
and reviewing the manual; hence, the results and
interpretations are consistent with the national
standard for physical tness.
Monitoring Procedures for Exercise Program
Adherence. At least two methods were used to
monitor participants’ adherence to the exercise
programs: (1) requiring the participants to complete
a daily training log detailing the completion and
proper execution of the exercise; at the end of
the log, both the participants and their parents or
guardians were required to afx their signature to
conrm the accuracy of the remarks made therein;
and (2) participants were required to submit unedited
and uncut video recordings of their exercise once a
week for the monitoring of researchers and tness
instructors. All participants faithfully adhered to
the monitoring mechanisms, as indicated by their
regular and 100% submissions of their daily training
log and video recordings. There was no incidence of
injury reported in the study.
Statistical Analysis.
Microsoft Excel was used to encode, analyze, and
store all the data. The signicant difference between
the pre-test and post-test mean scores of each
training program was examined using the t-test for
paired samples. The mean gain scores of the two
training programs were also analyzed using the
t-test for independent samples. Cohen’s d was used
to measure the t-test effect size with the following
interpretation: .2 small, .5 medium, and .8 large [44,
45]. The threshold for statistical signicance was set
at p < 0.01.
Results
The baseline HRF components of the participants
were examined, and no signicant differences were
found between the HBE and CE groups, regardless
of gender (Table 1). Additionally, it can be inferred
from the mean scores of the HBE and CE groups
that the participants in both groups either have a
normal, good, or average level of tness in all HRF
components [42].
On the other hand, the ndings in Table 2 show
the effects of the CE on the HRF of participants.
The male and female groups signicantly improved
all HRF components, as can be gleaned from the
increase in mean scores from pre-test to post-test,
signicant p-value scores, and large effect sizes.
Another notable nding is reported in Table 3,
Table 1. Signicant difference of the Pre-test scores of participants (male vs. male, female vs. female) in the
HBE and CE groups
HRF components Groups HBE CE t P Remarks
Mean SD Mean SD
Body Mass Index (BMI) Male 22.46 0.85 22.39 0.74 0.34 0.74 Not sig
Female 22.46 0.75 22.88 0.72 -2.16 0.03 Not sig
Cardiovascular Endurance Male 85.23 1.70 84.47 2.10 1.56 0.12 Not sig
Female 85.90 1.03 85.97 0.85 -0.27 0.79 Not sig
Flexibility of the Left Arm Male 2.26 0.20 2.18 0.17 1.67 0.10 Not sig
Female 2.23 0.16 2.14 0.18 2.04 0.05 Not sig
Flexibility of the Right Arm Male 2.28 0.24 2.20 0.15 1.41 0.16 Not sig
Female 2.23 0.25 2.25 0.30 -0.23 0.82 Not sig
Flexibility of the Left Leg Male 32.20 1.06 31.57 1.50 1.89 0.06 Not sig
Female 32.40 1.57 32.97 1.40 -1.48 0.15 Not sig
Flexibility of the Right Leg Male 33.37 1.67 32.50 2.08 1.78 0.08 Not sig
Female 32.80 2.09 33.47 1.41 -1.45 0.15 Not sig
Muscle Strength and Endurance of
the Arms
Male 18.30 0.84 18.13 0.63 0.87 0.39 Not sig
Female 17.97 0.72 17.90 0.71 0.36 0.72 Not sig
Muscle Strength and Endurance of
the Core
Male 32.50 1.38 31.83 0.65 2.46 0.02 Not sig
Female 31.70 1.06 32.03 0.93 -1.30 0.20 Not sig
α=0.01

367
2022
0606
Table 2. Signicant difference of the Pre- test and post-test scores of participants (male vs. male, female vs.
female) in the CE group
HRF Components Pre-test Post-test Paired t test
Mean SD Mean SD t P Cohen’s d Remarks
Males (N = 30)
BMI 22.39 0.74 21.51 1.03 4.27 <.01 0.98 Sig
Cardiovascular Endurance 84.47 2.10 81.50 1.11 7.32 <.01 1.77 Sig
Flexibility of the Left Arm 2.18 0.17 2.83 0.26 -11.21 <.01 2.96 Sig
Flexibility of the Right Arm 2.20 0.15 2.87 0.29 -13.34 <.01 2.91 Sig
Flexibility of the Left Leg 31.57 1.50 37.30 2.78 -14.10 <.01 2.53 Sig
Flexibility of the Right Leg 32.50 2.08 37.70 2.78 -10.72 <.01 2.10 Sig
Muscle Strength and
Endurance of the Arms 18.13 0.63 23.43 3.95 -7.00 <.01 1.86 Sig
Muscle Strength and
Endurance of the Core 31.83 0.65 36.80 3.52 -7.28 <.01 1.93 Sig
Females (N = 30)
BMI 22.88 0.72 21.30 0.80 9.72 <.01 2.08 Sig
Cardiovascular Endurance 85.97 0.85 82.10 1.90 10.10 <.01 2.63 Sig
Flexibility of the Left Arm 2.14 0.18 2.79 0.32 -9.09 <.01 2.50 Sig
Flexibility of the Right Arm 2.25 0.30 2.80 0.30 -8.45 <.01 1.83 Sig
Flexibility of the Left Leg 32.97 1.40 37.07 2.53 -6.69 <.01 2.01 Sig
Flexibility of the Right Leg 33.47 1.41 37.67 3.79 -4.88 <.01 1.47 Sig
Muscle Strength and
Endurance of the Arms 17.90 0.71 24.60 2.85 -13.38 <.01 3.23 Sig
Muscle Strength and
Endurance of the Core 32.03 0.93 36.70 3.64 -6.74 <.01 1.76 Sig
α=0.01
which shows the effects of the HBE on the HRF of
participants. The most signicant improvements in
male HRF components are: exibility of the left arm
(from M = 2.26, SD = 0.20 to M = 2.48, SD = 0.17)
with signicant p-value and large effect size (p =
<.01, Cohen’s d =1.19); exibility of the right arm
(from M = 2.28, SD = 0.24 to M = 2.46, SD = 0.21) with
signicant p-value and large effect size (p = <.01,
Cohen’s d =0.80); muscle strength and endurance of
the arms (from M = 18.30, SD = 0.84 to M = 20.77, SD
= 2.94) with signicant p-value and large effect size
(p = <.01, Cohen’s d =1.14); and muscle strength and
endurance of the core (from M = 32.50, SD =1.38 to
M = 33.27, SD = 1.72) with signicant p-value and
medium effect size (p = <.01, Cohen’s d =0.5). The
rest of the components have improved, albeit not
signicantly, as can be gleaned from the increase in
mean scores from pre-test to post-test.
For females, all seven HRF components have
improved (cardiovascular endurance, exibility of
the left arm, exibility of the right arm, exibility
of the left leg, exibility of the right leg, muscle
strength and endurance of the arms, and muscle
strength and endurance of the core) as can be
gleaned from the mean scores from pre-test to post-
test, as well as the p-value and effect size scores.
The BMI score has improved from (M = 22.46, SD =
0.75) to (M = 22.35, SD = 0.80); albeit insignicant (p
= 0.05, Cohen’s d = 0.14).
Finally, Table 4 shows participants’ signicant
mean gain differences (male vs. male, female vs.
female) in the HBE and CE groups.
The CE program outperformed the HBE program,
as observed in its higher mean gain scores in all HRF
components. In particular, the males in CE showed
the following positive improvements: cardiovascular
endurance (M = -2.97, SD = 2.22) than HBE (M=
-0.23, SD=0.73) with signicant p-value and large
effect size (p = <.01, Cohen’s d =1.66); exibility
of the left arm (M = 0.65, SD = 0.32) than HBE (M
=0.22, SD=0.25) with signicant p-value and large
effect size (p = <.01, Cohen’s d =1.50); exibility of
the right arm (M=0.66, SD=0.27) than HBE (M=0.18,
SD=0.26) with signicant p-value and large effect
size (p = <.01, Cohen’s d =1.81); exibility of the left
leg (M=5.73, SD=2.23) than HBE (M=1.10, SD=2.37)
with signicant p-value and large effect size (p =
<.01, Cohen’s d =2.01); exibility of the right leg
(M=5.20, SD=2.66) than HBE (M=1.50, SD=3.08) with
signicant p-value and large effect size (p = <.01,
Cohen’s d =2.01); muscle strength and endurance
of the arms (M=5.30, SD=4.15) than HBE (M=2.47,

368
of Physical Culture
and Sports
PEDAGOGY
SD=3.09) with signicant p-value and medium effect
size (p = <.01, Cohen’s d =0.77); and muscle strength
and endurance of the core (M=4.97, SD=3.74) than
HBE (M=0.77, SD=1.45) with signicant p-value and
large effect size (p = <.01, Cohen’s d =1.48). For the
BMI component, although the ndings indicated no
signicant difference in the two exercise programs
with small effect size (p = 0.12, Cohen’s d = 0.41), the
mean gain scores showed that CE (M =-0.89, HBE =
1.14) has more improvement than HBE (M =-0.42,
SD = 1.15).
On the other hand, the females in CE have
signicantly higher mean gain scores than the
females in HBE in seven HRF components, and only
the exibility of the right leg component has no
signicant difference with the p = value of (0.05)
with a medium effect size of (Cohen’s d = 0.52);
albeit still having a higher mean score than HBE
(CE: M = 4.20, SD = 4.72 > HBE: M = 2.17, SD = 2.94).
Discussion
This study gives an in-depth look at how HBE
and CE affect the HRF components of adolescent
learners and how these effects compare to each
other. Before the implementation of the HBE and CE,
as shown in Table 1, it was made sure that there was
no signicant difference between the participants in
terms of their level of tness in BMI, cardiovascular
endurance, exibility, muscular endurance, and
strength. This is to ensure that biases among the
participants of each training program are eliminated
and to allow better comparison between the two
training programs. This, coupled with thorough
and regular monitoring and validation mechanisms,
enhances the study’s robustness, reliability, and
validity in the context of an exercise program.
Then, after 12 weeks of intervention, one notable
nding of the study conrms that CE offers positive
effects on various HRF components (Table 2),
corroborating prior related studies [19, 20, 21, 22,
23]. It is widely known that closing public parks
and tness facilities has pushed individuals to stay
at home, which has impeded their participation in
physical activity, particularly among adolescents.
Although adolescents have become less active
during the pandemic due to several factors, such as
excessive Internet gaming [38] and social media use
[39], it is still possible to maintain a healthy tness
level with the aid of PE teachers who constantly
provide their learners with opportunities to exercise.
Hence, implementing and adapting CE remains one
of the most important ways to help maintain and
Table 3. Signicant difference of the Pre- test and post-test scores of participants (male vs. male, female
vs. female) in the HBE group
HRF Components Pre-test Post-test Paired t test
Mean SD Mean SD t p Cohen’s d Remarks
Males (N = 30)
BMI 22.46 0.85 22.05 0.80 1.99 0.06 0.50 Not sig
Cardiovascular Endurance 85.23 1.70 85.00 1.53 1.76 0.09 0.14 Not sig
Flexibility of the Left Arm 2.26 0.20 2.48 0.17 -4.86 <.01 1.19 Sig
Flexibility of the Right Arm 2.28 0.24 2.46 0.21 -3.86 <.01 0.80 Sig
Flexibility of the Left Leg 32.20 1.06 33.30 2.37 -2.54 0.02 0.60 Not sig
Flexibility of the Right Leg 33.37 1.67 34.87 2.67 -2.67 >.01 0.67 Not sig
Muscle Strength and Endurance of the
Arms 18.30 0.84 20.77 2.94 -4.37 <.01 1.14 Sig
Muscle Strength and Endurance of the
Core 32.50 1.38 33.27 1.72 -2.89 <.01 0.50 Sig
Females (N = 30)
BMI 22.46 0.75 22.35 0.80 2.06 0.05 0.14 Not sig
Cardiovascular Endurance 85.90 1.03 84.50 1.46 3.63 <.01 1.11 Sig
Flexibility of the Left Arm 2.23 0.16 2.37 0.23 -3.97 <.01 0.71 Sig
Flexibility of the Right Arm 2.23 0.25 2.41 0.19 -3.95 <.01 0.81 Sig
Flexibility of the Left Leg 32.40 1.57 33.27 2.10 -2.98 <.01 0.47 Sig
Flexibility of the Right Leg 32.80 2.09 34.97 2.33 -4.04 <.01 0.98 Sig
Muscle Strength and Endurance of the
Arms 17.97 0.72 21.40 3.20 -5.26 <.01 1.48 Sig
Muscle Strength and Endurance of the
Core 31.70 1.06 33.60 1.79 -4.69 <.01 1.29 Sig
α=0.01

369
2022
0606
enhance students’ tness in school or at home.
Another notable nding of this study shows that
HBE has favorable effects on various HRF components
(Table 3). This nding adds to earlier research that
found a link between physical housework and tness
[29, 31, 32]. Also, it backs up the results of a study
[28] that said active lifestyle activities (like climbing
stairs) might have the same effect on various health
outcomes as aerobic exercise. It also supports the
study’s results [46] that said housework might have
the same effects as aerobic exercise because both
activities raise the body’s core temperature. Further,
performing housework and caregiving activities are
opportunities for increasing overall physical activity
levels, especially for those with low nancial and
time resources [47]. Therefore, adapting housework
into an exercise program is a benecial starting
point to improve one’s tness levels. Likewise,
instilling in people the benets of performing daily
routines in their homes, particularly amid remote
work and learning, is crucial to maintaining and
enhancing tness.
Furthermore, it is essential to remember that
HBE should focus on the person’s situation to get
the best results. Since every person had a different
scenario from the others, careful planning for
each participant’s household activities as a form
of exercise is necessary. If there are no stairs in
the home, comparable housework is offered, such
as scrubbing the oor, with the time and intensity
of exercise adjusted accordingly. Also, setting up
regular monitoring and validation systems is vital
because exercising at home is prone to inconsistent
adherence to guidelines due to several factors
that may come in the way, including the lack of an
outside professional who can physically monitor
and validate the exercise.
Another notable nding in Table 3 shows that
the BMI levels of the male and female groups did not
signicantly improve, demonstrating that HBE does
not affect body composition. This nding further
supports prior studies that reported domestic-
related activities do not have an association or have
a negative association with BMI or leanness [26, 32,
48, 49]. One reason is that housework often requires
isometric contractions and uses fewer muscle groups.
This type of movement uses less energy and may
not change BMI. In addition, the study participants
before the intervention were in a normal range of
BMI for both male and female groups. So, it is safe
to say that CE has kept the participants’ BMI scores
in the normal range.
Table 4. Signicant mean gain difference of participants (male vs. male, female vs female) in the HBE and
CE groups.
HRF Components HBE CE Independent t test
Mean SD Mean SD t p Cohen’s d Remarks
Males
BMI -0.42 1.15 -0.89 1.14 1.58 0.12 0.41 Not sig
Cardiovascular Endurance -0.23 0.73 -2.97 2.22 6.41 <.01 1.66 Sig
Flexibility of the Left Arm 0.22 0.25 0.65 0.32 -5.80 <.01 1.50 Sig
Flexibility of the Right Arm 0.18 0.26 0.66 0.27 -6.98 <.01 1.81 Sig
Flexibility of the Left Leg 1.10 2.37 5.73 2.23 -7.81 <.01 2.01 Sig
Flexibility of the Right Leg 1.50 3.08 5.20 2.66 -4.98 <.01 1.29 Sig
Muscle Strength and Endurance of
the Arms 2.47 3.09 5.30 4.15 -3.05 <.01 0.77 Sig
Muscle Strength and Endurance of
the Core 0.77 1.45 4.97 3.74 -5.74 <.01 1.48 Sig
Females
BMI -0.11 0.30 -1.58 0.89 8.53 <.01 2.21 Sig
Cardiovascular Endurance -1.40 2.11 -3.87 2.10 4.54 <.01 1.17 Sig
Flexibility of the Left Arm 0.14 0.20 0.65 0.39 -6.34 <.01 1.65 Sig
Flexibility of the Right Arm 0.18 0.25 0.55 0.36 -4.68 <.01 1.19 Sig
Flexibility of the Left Leg 0.87 1.59 4.10 3.36 -4.77 <.01 1.23 Sig
Flexibility of the Right Leg 2.17 2.94 4.20 4.72 -2.00 0.05 0.52 Not sig
Muscle Strength and Endurance of
the Arms 3.43 3.58 6.70 2.74 -3.97 <.01 1.03 Sig
Muscle Strength and Endurance of
the Core 1.90 2.22 4.67 3.79 -3.45 <.01 0.89 Sig
α=0.01

370
of Physical Culture
and Sports
PEDAGOGY
Table 3 also shows that the cardiorespiratory
tness scores of men and women are different, with
women more likely to yield improvement than men.
This difference in scores between men and women
probably comes from the notion that women
traditionally do more housework than men. Hence,
they may have engaged the HBE more pedantically
and intensely than men. This assumption has
also been made in previous studies [26, 50].
Furthermore, the ndings indicate that HBE may
be more appropriate for females because it involves
household-related tasks that they traditionally
perform.
Finally, Table 4 shows that CE has higher positive
effects than the HBE for both the male and female
groups, as demonstrated by its higher mean gain
scores in every HRF component. Such ndings are
consistent with previous research indicating that
housework, career, and transportation activities
have only marginal health benets compared to CE
[29, 30]. One explanation might be the structure
of training activities in CE, which has a reputation
for giving careful attention to each training
component—frequency, intensity, duration, and type.
Contrary to the HBE, which places generic emphasis
on enhancing HRF components during tasks like
mopping the oor, cleaning the windows, and
washing the laundry, CE training exercises address
specic HRF components. For instance, Pilates
aims to increase exibility, whereas plank exercises
and crunches primarily work on the strength and
endurance of the core muscles. Additionally, CE
often has high-intensity movements of large muscle
groups performed for brief intervals with at least
60% of maximal oxygen uptake. This movement
improves heart rate, blood pressure, breathing, and
energy expenditure. This, coupled with planned rest
intervals and enough recovery, will improve long-
term peripheral and metabolic activities, resulting
in better health advantages and an improved tness
level [19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 51].
On the other hand, there were no signicant
differences in the post-test scores between HBE
and CE for components like the BMI for males
and the exibility of the right leg for females. This
nding shows that even though neither of the
exercise programs led to signicant changes, they
successfully kept the participants’ normal tness
levels in BMI and exibility. Overall, this study adds
to the evidence of previous studies, explaining that
exercise, whether it is traditional or not, is a crucial
way to stay t and healthy while in quarantine [34,
35]. This concept is critical for adolescents who,
due to various factors, including excessive Internet
gaming and social media use, become less active
during the pandemic [38, 39].
Conclusions
When planned, implemented, and monitored
carefully as an exercise program, doing housework is
just as good as doing traditional exercise for keeping
or improving adolescent learners’ tness. However,
CE produces more positive and signicant tness
effects. Thus, teachers can use HBE in the remote
exercise activities of their learners along with CE.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to extend their sincerest
gratitude to Cebu Normal University through the
Center for Research Development Ofce for funding
this research.
Conict of interest
There is no conict of interest in the conduct of
the research.
References
1. Kohl HW, Craig CL, Lambert EV, Inoue S,
Alkandari JR, Leetongin G, et al. The pandemic
of physical inactivity: global action for public
health. The Lancet, 2021; 380(9838):294–305.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60898-8
2. Guthold R, Stevens GA, Riley LM, Bull FC. Worldwide
trends in insufcient physical activity from 2001
to 2016: a pooled analysis of 358 population-
based surveys with 1· 9 million participants. The
Lancet Global Health, 2018; 6(10): e1077–e1086.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(18)30357-7
3. Chaput JP, Willumsen J, Bull F, Chou R, Ekelund
U, Firth J, et al. 2020 WHO guidelines on physical
activity and sedentary behaviour for children
and adolescents aged 5–17 years: summary of
the evidence. International Journal of Behavioral
Nutrition and Physical Activity, 2020; 17(1): 1–9.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-020-01037-z
4. Conger S, Toth LP, Cretsinger C, Raustorp A, Mitás J,
Inoue S, Bassett DR. Time trends in physical activity
using wearable devices: A systematic review and
meta-analysis of studies from 1995 to 2017. Medicine
& Science in Sports & Exercise, 2022; 54(2): 288–298.
https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS0000000000002794
5. Katzmarzyk PT, Denstel KD, Beals K, Carlson
J, Crouter SE, McKenzi, TL, et al. Results from
the United States 2018 report card on physical
activity for children and youth. Journal of Physical
Activity and Health, 2018; 15(s2): S422–S424.
https://doi.org/10.1123/JPAH.2018-0476
6. World Health Organization. Physical activity
[Internet]; 2022 Oct 5 [cited 2022 Oct 5 ]. Available
from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/
detail/physical-activity
7. Fennell C, Barkley JE, Lepp A. The relationship
between cell phone use, physical activity,
and sedentary behavior in adults aged 18–80.
Computers in Human Behavior, 2019; 90: 53–59.

371
2022
0606
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.08.044
8. Booth FW, Roberts CK, Thyfault JP,
Ruegsegger GN, Toedebusch RG. Role of
inactivity in chronic diseases: evolutionary
insight and pathophysiological mechanisms.
Physiological Reviews, 2017; 97(4):1351–1402.
https://doi.org/10.1152/physrev.00019.2016
9. Ding D, Lawson KD, Kolbe-Alexander TL,
Finkelstein EA, Katzmarzyk PT, Van Mechelen W,
et al. The economic burden of physical inactivity:
a global analysis of major non-communicable
diseases. The Lancet, 2016; 388(10051): 1311–1324.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30383-X
10. Lee IM, Shiroma EJ, Lobelo F, Puska P, Blair SN,
Katzmarzyk PT. Lancet Physical Activity Series
Working Group. Effect of physical inactivity on
major non-communicable diseases worldwide:
an analysis of burden of disease and life
expectancy. The Lancet, 2012; 380(9838): 219–229.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61031-9
11. Tanaka C, Abe T, Tanaka S, Hatamoto Y, Miyachi M,
Inoue S, Reilly JJ. Results from the Japan 2022 report
card on physical activity for children and youth. Journal
of Exercise Science and Fitness, 2022; 20(4): 349–354.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesf.2022.08.001
12. Guthold R, Stevens GA, Riley LM, Bull FC. Global
trends in insufcient physical activity among
adolescents: a pooled analysis of 298 population-
based surveys with 1· 6 million participants. The
Lancet Child & Adolescent Health, 2020; 4(1): 23–35.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S2352464219303232
13. Peçanha T, Goessler KF, Roschel H, Gualano
B. Social isolation during the COVID-19
pandemic can increase physical inactivity and
the global burden of cardiovascular disease.
American Journal of Physiology-Heart and
Circulatory Physiology, 2020; 318: 1441–1446.
https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpheart.00268.2020
14. Woods JA, Hutchinson NT, Powers SK, Roberts
WO, Gomez-Cabrera MC, Radak Z, et al. The
COVID-19 pandemic and physical activity. Sports
Medicine and Health Science, 2020; 2(2): 55–64.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smhs.2020.05.006
15. Armstrong N, Tomkinson G, Ekelund U. Aerobic
tness and its relationship to sport, exercise training
and habitual physical activity during youth. British
Journal of Sports Medicine, 2011; 45(11): 849-858.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2011-090200
16. Bermejo-Cantarero A, Alvarez-Bueno C,
Martinez-Vizcaino V, Garcia-Hermoso A, Torres-
Costoso AI, Sanchez-Lopez M. Association between
physical activity, sedentary behavior, and tness
with health related quality of life in healthy children
and adolescents: A protocol for a systematic
review and meta-analysis. Medicine, 2017; 96(12).
https://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000006407
17. Pinho CS, Caria ACI, Aras Júnior R, Pitanga
FJG. The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on
levels of physical tness. Revista da Associação
Médica Brasileira, 2020; 66(Suppl2): 34–37.
https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9282.66.S2.34
18. Park JH, Moon JH, Kim HJ, Kong MH, Oh
YH. Sedentary Lifestyle: Overview of Updated
Evidence of Potential Health Risks. Korean
Journal of Family Medicine, 2020; 41(6): 365–373.
https://doi.org/10.4082/kjfm.20.0165
19. Grasdalsmoen M, Eriksen HR, Lønning KJ, Sivertsen
B. Physical exercise and body-mass index in young
adults: a national survey of Norwegian university
students. BMC Public Health, 2019; 19: 1354.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-7650-z
20. de Oliveira PA, Blasczyk JC, Lagoa KF,
Soares M, et al. Effects of Elastic Resistance
Training on Muscle Strength and Functional
Performance in Healthy Adults: A Systematic
Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of Physical
Activity& Health 2016; 14(4): 317–327.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/jpah.2016-0415
21. Plachy JK, Kovách MV, Bognar J. Improving
exibility and endurance of elderly women
through a six-month training programme.
Human Movement, 2012; 131(1): 22–27.
https://doi.org/10.2478/v10038-011-0050-6
22. Arazi H, Faraji H, Moghadam MG, Samadi A.
Effects of concurrent exercise protocols on Strength,
Aerobic power, Flexibility and Body Composition.
Kinesiology, 2011; 43(2): 155–162.
23. Nayak M, Das SK, Giri PK. Comparative effect
of yogic practices and conventional conditioning
exercises on motor tness of high school boys.
PARIPEX - Indian Journal of Research 2018; 7(9):
36–39.
24. Motl R, Pilutti L. The benets of exercise
training in multiple sclerosis. Nature
Reviews Neurology, 2012; 8: 487–497.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nrneurol.2012.136
25. Vaghela N, Mishra D, Patel J, Dani V. Promoting health
and quality of life of patients with osteoarthritis of
knee joint through non-pharmacological treatment
strategies: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of
Education and Health Promotion, 2020; 9(156): 1–7.
https://doi.org/10.4103/jehp.jehp_39_20
26. Murphy MH, Donnelly P, Breslin G, Shibli S,
Nevill AM. Does doing housework keep you
healthy? The contribution of domestic physical
activity to meeting current recommendations
for health. BMC Public Health, 2013; 13: 966.
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-966
27. von Loeffelholz C, Birkenfeld A. The Role of Non-
exercise Activity Thermogenesis in Human Obesity.
In: Feingold KR, Anawalt B, Boyce A, Chrousos G, de
Herder WW, Dhatariya K, et al. (eds.) Endotext. South
Dartmouth (MA): MDText.com, Inc.; 2000.
28. Loprinzi PD, Cardinal BJ. Association between
biologic outcomes and objectively measured
physical activity accumulated in≥ 10-minute
bouts and< 10-minute bouts. American Journal
of Health Promotion, 2013; 27(3): 143–151.
https://doi.org/10.4278/ajhp.110916-QUAN-348
29. Abu-Omar K, Rütten A. Relation of leisure
time, occupational, domestic, and commuting
physical activity to health indicators in Europe.
Preventive Medicine, 2008; 47(3): 319–323.

372
of Physical Culture
and Sports
PEDAGOGY
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2008.03.012
30. Bahls M, Groß S, Baumeister SE, Völzke H, Gläser S,
Ewert R, et al. Association of domain-specic physical
activity and cardiorespiratory tness with all-cause
and cause-specic mortality in two population-based
cohort studies. Scientic Reports, 2018; 8(1): 1–9.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-34468-7
31. Besson H, Ekelund U, Brage S, Luben R,
Bingham S, Khaw KT, Wareham NJ. Relationship
between subdomains of total physical
activity and mortality. Medicine & Science in
Sports & Exercise, 2008; 40(11): 1909–1915.
https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0b013e318180bcad
32. Stamatakis E, Hamer M, Lawlor DA. Physical
activity, mortality, and cardiovascular disease: is
domestic physical activity benecial? The Scottish
Health Survey—1995, 1998, and 2003. American
Journal of Epidemiology, 2009; 169(10): 1191–1200.
https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwp042
33. Pu B, Zhang L, Tang Z, Qiu Y. The relationship
between health consciousness and home-
based exercise in China during the COVID-19
pandemic. International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health, 2020; 17(16): 5693.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17165693
34. Jiménez-Pavón D, Carbonell-Baeza A, Lavie CJ.
Physical exercise as therapy to ght against the
mental and physical consequences of COVID-19
quarantine: Special focus in older people. Progress
in Cardiovascular Diseases, 2020; 63(3): 386–388.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pcad.2020.03.009
35. Lippi G, Henry BM, Sanchis-Gomar F. Physical
inactivity and cardiovascular disease atthe time of
coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). European
Journal of Preventive Cardiology, 2020; 27(9): 906–908.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2047487320916823
36. Tanucan JCM, Uytico BJ. Webinar-based capacity
building for teachers: “Lifeblood in facing the new
normal of education”. Pertanika Journal of Social
Sciences and Humanities, 2021; 29(2): 1035–1053.
https://doi.org/10.47836/pjssh.29.2.16
37. Tanucan JCM, Bojos M. Filipino families’ wellness
in slum communities: The tales of survival in
times of pandemic. Pertanika Journal of Social
Sciences & Humanities, 2021; 29(1): 311–328.
https://doi.org/10.47836/pjssh.29.1.18
38. Teng Z, Pontes HM, Nie Q, Grifths MD, Guo C.
Depression and anxiety symptoms associated with
internet gaming disorder before and during the
COVID-19 pandemic: A longitudinal study. Journal
of Behavioral Addictions, 2021; 10(1): 169–180.
https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.2021.00016
39. Paschke K, Austermann MI, Simon-Kutscher
K, Thomasius R. Adolescent gaming and social
media usage before and during the COVID-19
pandemic. SUCHT, 2021; 67(1):13–22.
https://doi.org/10.1024/0939-5911/a000694
40. Tanucan JCM, Hernani MR. Physical education
curriculum in standard-based and competency-
based education. International Journal of Health,
Physical Education and Computer Science in Sports,
2018; 30(1): 26–33.
41. Tanucan JCM, Hernani MR, Diano F. Filipino
physical education teachers’ technological
pedagogical content knowledge on remote digital
teaching. International Journal of Information
and Education Technology, 2021; 11(9): 416–423.
https://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2021.11.9.1544
42. Department of Education. Department of Education
Order No. 034, s. 2019. Revised Physical Fitness Test
Manual [Internet]; 2019 Dec 09 [cited 2022 Oct 5].
Available from: https://www.deped.gov.ph/wp-
content/uploads/2019/12/DO_s2019_034.pdf
43. Garcia M, Custodio E. Home quarantine - based
rhythmic exercises: new tness assessment and
intervention in teaching physical education.
Physical Education of Students, 2021; 25(1): 51–57.
https://doi.org/10.15561/20755279.2021.0107
44. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for
the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.) Hillsdale,
New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1998.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203771587
45. Vukovic RK, Wilson AM, Nash KK. Naming
speed decits in adults with reading disabilities:
A test of the double-decit hypothesis. Journal
of Learning Disabilities, 2004; 37(5): 440–450.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194040370050601
46. Seol J, Park I, Kokudo C, Zhang S, Suzuki C,
Yajima K, Satoh M, Tokuyama K, Okura T. Distinct
effects of low-intensity physical activity in
the evening on sleep quality in older women:
A comparison of exercise and housework.
Experimental Gerontology, 2021; 143: 111165.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exger.2020.111165
47. Jacob L, Smith L, Jackson SE, Shin JI, Haro JM,
Vancampfort D, et al. A. Informal caregiving and
physical activity among 204, 315 adults in 38 low-
and middle-income countries: A cross-sectional
study. Preventive Medicine, 2020; 132: 106007.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2020.106007
48. Lawlor DA, Taylor M, Bedford C, Ebrahim S. Is
housework good for health? Levels of physical
activity and factors associated with activity in
elderly women. Results from the British Women’s
Heart and Health Study. Journal of Epidemiology
& Community Health, 2002; 56(6): 473–478.
https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.56.6.473
49. Stamatakis E, Hillsdon M, Primatesta P.
Domestic physical activity in relationship to
multiple CVD risk factors. American Journal
of Preventive Medicine, 2007; 32: 320–327.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2006.12.020
50. Yu R, Leung J, Woo J. Housework
Reduces All-Cause and Cancer Mortality in
Chinese Men. PLoS One, 2013; 8.5: e61529.
https://doi.org/10.1371/annotation/0877cd36-
268a-4ecd-af2efc24421c7bdc
51. Cardoso Jr, CG, Gomides RS, Queiroz ACC,
Pinto LG, da Silveira Lobo F, Tinucci T, et
al. Acute and chronic effects of aerobic and
resistance exercise on ambulatory blood
pressure. Clinics, 2010; 65(3): 317–325.
https://doi.org/10.1590/S1807-59322010000300013

373
2022
0606
Information about the authors:
Jem Cloyd M. Tanucan; (Corresponding Author); https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9697-2618; tanucanj@cnu.
edu.ph; College of Teacher Education, Cebu Normal University; Cebu City, Philippines.
Marino A. Garcia; https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9651-8979; garciam@cnu.edu.ph; College of Arts and Sciences,
Cebu Normal University; Cebu City, Philippines.
Marlon T. Bojos; https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1699-0240; bojosm@cnu.edu.ph; College of Teacher Education,
Cebu Normal University; Cebu City, Philippines.
Cite this article as:
Tanucan JCM, Garcia MA, Bojos MT. Housework-based exercise versus conventional exercise on health-
related tness of adolescent learners. Pedagogy of Physical Culture and Sports, 2022;26(6):364–373.
https://doi.org/10.15561/26649837.2022.0602
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en).
Received: 23.09.2022
Accepted: 28.10.2022; Published: 30.12.2022