Walking cadence (steps/min) and intensity in 41 to 60-year-old adults: the CADENCE-adults study - PubMed (original) (raw)

doi: 10.1186/s12966-020-01045-z.

Scott W Ducharme 2, Elroy J Aguiar 3, John M Schuna Jr 4, Tiago V Barreira 5, Christopher C Moore 6, Colleen J Chase 7, Zachary R Gould 7, Marcos A Amalbert-Birriel 7, Jose Mora-Gonzalez 8, Stuart R Chipkin 7, John Staudenmayer 9

Affiliations

Walking cadence (steps/min) and intensity in 41 to 60-year-old adults: the CADENCE-adults study

Catrine Tudor-Locke et al. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2020.

Abstract

Background: In younger adults (i.e., those < 40 years of age) a walking cadence of 100 steps/min is a consistently supported threshold indicative of absolutely-defined moderate intensity ambulation (i.e., ≥ 3 metabolic equivalents; METs). Less is known about the cadence-intensity relationship in adults of middle-age.

Purpose: To establish heuristic (i.e., evidence-based, practical, rounded) cadence thresholds for absolutely-defined moderate (3 METs) and vigorous (6 METs) intensity in adults 41 to 60 years of age.

Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 80 healthy adults of middle-age (10 men and 10 women representing each 5-year age-group between 41 to 60 years; body mass index = 26.0 ± 4.0 kg/m2) walked on a treadmill for 5-min bouts beginning at 0.5 mph and increasing in 0.5 mph increments. Performance termination criteria included: 1) transitioning to running, 2) reaching 75% of age-predicted maximum heart rate, or 3) reporting a Borg rating of perceived exertion > 13. Cadence was directly observed (i.e., hand tallied). Intensity (i.e., oxygen uptake [VO2] mL/kg/min) was assessed with an indirect calorimeter and converted to METs (1 MET = 3.5 mL/kg/min). A combination of segmented regression and Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) modeling approaches was used to identify optimal cadence thresholds. Final heuristic thresholds were determined based on an evaluation of classification accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value, overall accuracy).

Results: The regression model identified 101.7 (95% Predictive Interval [PI]: 54.9-110.6) and 132.1 (95% PI: 122.0-142.2) steps/min as optimal cadence thresholds for 3 METs and 6 METs, respectively. Corresponding values based on ROC models were 98.5 (95% Confidence Intervals [CI]: 97.1-104.9) and 117.3 (95% CI: 113.1-126.1) steps/min. Considering both modeling approaches, the selected heuristic thresholds for moderate and vigorous intensity were 100 and 130 steps/min, respectively.

Conclusions: Consistent with our previous report in 21 to 40-year-old adults, cadence thresholds of 100 and 130 steps/min emerged as heuristic values associated with 3 and 6 METs, respectively, in 41 to 60-year-old adults. These values were selected based on their utility for public health messaging and on the trade-offs in classification accuracy parameters from both statistical methods. Findings will need to be confirmed in older adults and in free-living settings.

Keywords: Accelerometer; Exercise; Pedometer; Physical activity.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare they have no conflicts of interest. The results of the present study do not constitute endorsement by the American College of Sports Medicine. The results of the study are presented clearly, honestly, and without fabrication, falsification, or inappropriate data manipulation.

Figures

Fig. 1

Fig. 1

Relationship between cadence and METs using a segmented regression model with random coefficients. Breakpoint is at 97.2 steps/min; marginal R2 = 0.81. Red line represents the mean MET values (y-axis) for each corresponding cadence value (x-axis), and the black lines represent the 95% Prediction Intervals. Blue horizontal dotted lines indicate moderate (3 METs) and vigorous (6 METs) intensity, respectively

Fig. 2

Fig. 2

Classification accuracy of heuristic cadence thresholds and MET intensities. A) ≥ 100 steps/min and ≥ 3 METs, B) ≥ 130 steps/min and ≥ 6 METs)

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Tudor-Locke C, Craig CL, Brown WJ, et al. How many steps/day are enough? For adults. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2011;8:79. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-8-79. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Tudor-Locke C, Han H, Aguiar EJ, et al. How fast is fast enough? Walking cadence (steps/min) as a practical estimate of intensity in adults: a narrative review. Br J Sports Med. 2018;52(12):776–788. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2017-097628. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee . 2018 physical activity guidelines advisory committee scientific report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2018.
    1. Kraus WE, Janz KF, Powell KE, et al. Daily step counts for measuring physical activity exposure and its relation to health. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2019;51(6):1206–1212. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000001932. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bassett DR, Jr, Toth LP, LaMunion SR, Crouter SE. Step counting: a review of measurement considerations and health-related applications. Sports Med. 2017;47(7):1303–1315. doi: 10.1007/s40279-016-0663-1. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources