Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports · 2022
Cadence-based classification of moderate-intensity overground walking in 41- to 85-year-old adults.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Aguiar Elroy J, Mora-Gonzalez Jose, Ducharme Scott W, Moore Christopher C, Gould Zachary R, Chase Colleen J, Amalbert-Birriel Marcos A, Chipkin Stuart R, Staudenmayer John, Zheng Peixuan, Tudor-Locke Catrine
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Walking cadence (steps/min) has emerged as a valid proxy of physical activity intensity, with consensus across numerous laboratory-based treadmill studies that ≥100 steps/min approximates absolutely defined moderate intensity (≥3 metabolic equivalents; METs). We recently reported that this cadence threshold had a classification accuracy of 73.3% for identifying moderate intensity during preferred pace overground walking in young adults. The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the performance of a cadence threshold of ≥100 steps/min for correctly classifying moderate intensity during overground walking in middle- and older-aged adults.
METHODS: Participants (N = 174, 48.3% female, 41-85 years of age) completed laboratory-based cross-sectional study involving an indoor 5-min overground walking trial at their preferred pace. Steps were manually counted and converted to cadence (total steps/5 min). Intensity was measured using indirect calorimetry and expressed as METs. Classification accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, accuracy) of a cadence threshold of ≥100 steps/min to identify individuals walking at ≥3 METs was calculated.
RESULTS: The ≥100 steps/min threshold demonstrated accuracy of 74.7% for classifying moderate intensity. When comparing middle- vs. older-aged adults, similar accuracy (73.4% vs. 75.8%, respectively) and specificity (33.3% vs. 34.5%) were observed. Sensitivity was high, but was lower for middle- vs. older-aged adults (85.2% vs. 93.9%, respectively).
CONCLUSION: A cadence threshold of ≥100 steps/min accurately identified moderate-intensity overground walking. Furthermore, accuracy was similar when comparing middle- and older-aged adults. These findings extend our previous analysis in younger adults and confirm the appropriateness of applying this cadence threshold across the adult lifespan.
METHODS: Participants (N = 174, 48.3% female, 41-85 years of age) completed laboratory-based cross-sectional study involving an indoor 5-min overground walking trial at their preferred pace. Steps were manually counted and converted to cadence (total steps/5 min). Intensity was measured using indirect calorimetry and expressed as METs. Classification accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, accuracy) of a cadence threshold of ≥100 steps/min to identify individuals walking at ≥3 METs was calculated.
RESULTS: The ≥100 steps/min threshold demonstrated accuracy of 74.7% for classifying moderate intensity. When comparing middle- vs. older-aged adults, similar accuracy (73.4% vs. 75.8%, respectively) and specificity (33.3% vs. 34.5%) were observed. Sensitivity was high, but was lower for middle- vs. older-aged adults (85.2% vs. 93.9%, respectively).
CONCLUSION: A cadence threshold of ≥100 steps/min accurately identified moderate-intensity overground walking. Furthermore, accuracy was similar when comparing middle- and older-aged adults. These findings extend our previous analysis in younger adults and confirm the appropriateness of applying this cadence threshold across the adult lifespan.