43
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Association of Daily Step Count and Step Intensity With Mortality Among US Adults

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Key Points

          Question

          What are the associations between daily step counts and step intensity with mortality among US adults?

          Findings

          In this observational study that included 4840 participants, a greater number of steps per day was significantly associated with lower all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio for 8000 steps/d vs 4000 steps/d, 0.49). There was no significant association between step intensity and all-cause mortality after adjusting for the total number of steps per day.

          Meaning

          Greater numbers of steps per day were associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality.

          Abstract

          Importance

          It is unclear whether the number of steps per day and the intensity of stepping are associated with lower mortality.

          Objective

          Describe the dose-response relationship between step count and intensity and mortality.

          Design, Setting, and Participants

          Representative sample of US adults aged at least 40 years in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey who wore an accelerometer for up to 7 days ( from 2003-2006). Mortality was ascertained through December 2015.

          Exposures

          Accelerometer-measured number of steps per day and 3 step intensity measures (extended bout cadence, peak 30-minute cadence, and peak 1-minute cadence [steps/min]). Accelerometer data were based on measurements obtained during a 7-day period at baseline.

          Main Outcomes and Measures

          The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cancer mortality. Hazard ratios (HRs), mortality rates, and 95% CIs were estimated using cubic splines and quartile classifications adjusting for age; sex; race/ethnicity; education; diet; smoking status; body mass index; self-reported health; mobility limitations; and diagnoses of diabetes, stroke, heart disease, heart failure, cancer, chronic bronchitis, and emphysema.

          Results

          A total of 4840 participants (mean age, 56.8 years; 2435 [54%] women; 1732 [36%] individuals with obesity) wore accelerometers for a mean of 5.7 days for a mean of 14.4 hours per day. The mean number of steps per day was 9124. There were 1165 deaths over a mean 10.1 years of follow-up, including 406 CVD and 283 cancer deaths. The unadjusted incidence density for all-cause mortality was 76.7 per 1000 person-years (419 deaths) for the 655 individuals who took less than 4000 steps per day; 21.4 per 1000 person-years (488 deaths) for the 1727 individuals who took 4000 to 7999 steps per day; 6.9 per 1000 person-years (176 deaths) for the 1539 individuals who took 8000 to 11 999 steps per day; and 4.8 per 1000 person-years (82 deaths) for the 919 individuals who took at least 12 000 steps per day. Compared with taking 4000 steps per day, taking 8000 steps per day was associated with significantly lower all-cause mortality (HR, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.44-0.55]), as was taking 12 000 steps per day (HR, 0.35 [95% CI, 0.28-0.45]). Unadjusted incidence density for all-cause mortality by peak 30 cadence was 32.9 per 1000 person-years (406 deaths) for the 1080 individuals who took 18.5 to 56.0 steps per minute; 12.6 per 1000 person-years (207 deaths) for the 1153 individuals who took 56.1 to 69.2 steps per minute; 6.8 per 1000 person-years (124 deaths) for the 1074 individuals who took 69.3 to 82.8 steps per minute; and 5.3 per 1000 person-years (108 deaths) for the 1037 individuals who took 82.9 to 149.5 steps per minute. Greater step intensity was not significantly associated with lower mortality after adjustment for total steps per day (eg, highest vs lowest quartile of peak 30 cadence: HR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.65-1.27]; P value for trend = .34).

          Conclusions and Relevance

          Based on a representative sample of US adults, a greater number of daily steps was significantly associated with lower all-cause mortality. There was no significant association between step intensity and mortality after adjusting for total steps per day.

          Abstract

          This study uses National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data to examine the dose-response relationships between step count (steps/d) and step intensity (steps/min) and mortality in a representative sample of US adults aged 40 years or older.

          Related collections

          Most cited references10

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Accelerometer-measured dose-response for physical activity, sedentary time, and mortality in US adults.

          Moderate-to-vigorous-intensity physical activity is recommended to maintain and improve health, but the mortality benefits of light activity and risk for sedentary time remain uncertain.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Step Counting: A Review of Measurement Considerations and Health-Related Applications

            Step counting has long been used as a method of measuring distance. Starting in the mid-1900s, researchers became interested in using steps per day to quantify ambulatory physical activity. This line of research gained momentum after 1995, with the introduction of reasonably accurate spring-levered pedometers with digital displays. Since 2010, the use of accelerometer-based “activity trackers” by private citizens has skyrocketed. Steps have several advantages as a metric for assessing physical activity: they are intuitive, easy to measure, objective, and they represent a fundamental unit of human ambulatory activity. However, since they measure a human behavior, they have inherent biological variability; this means that measurements must be made over 3–7 days to attain valid and reliable estimates. There are many different kinds of step counters, designed to be worn on various sites on the body; all of these devices have strengths and limitations. In cross-sectional studies, strong associations between steps per day and health variables have been documented. Currently, at least eight prospective, longitudinal studies using accelerometers are being conducted that may help to establish dose–response relationships between steps/day and health outcomes. Longitudinal interventions using step counters have shown that they can help inactive individuals to increase by 2500 steps per day. Step counting is useful for surveillance, and studies have been conducted in a number of countries around the world. Future challenges include the need to establish testing protocols and accuracy standards, and to decide upon the best placement sites. These challenges should be addressed in order to achieve harmonization between studies, and to accurately quantify dose–response relationships.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Routine Assessment and Promotion of Physical Activity in Healthcare Settings: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

              Physical inactivity is one of the most prevalent major health risk factors, with 8 in 10 US adults not meeting aerobic and muscle-strengthening guidelines, and is associated with a high burden of cardiovascular disease. Improving and maintaining recommended levels of physical activity leads to reductions in metabolic, hemodynamic, functional, body composition, and epigenetic risk factors for noncommunicable chronic diseases. Physical activity also has a significant role, in many cases comparable or superior to drug interventions, in the prevention and management of >40 conditions such as diabetes mellitus, cancer, cardiovascular disease, obesity, depression, Alzheimer disease, and arthritis. Whereas most of the modifiable cardiovascular disease risk factors included in the American Heart Association's My Life Check - Life's Simple 7 are evaluated routinely in clinical practice (glucose and lipid profiles, blood pressure, obesity, and smoking), physical activity is typically not assessed. The purpose of this statement is to provide a comprehensive review of the evidence on the feasibility, validity, and effectiveness of assessing and promoting physical activity in healthcare settings for adult patients. It also adds concrete recommendations for healthcare systems, clinical and community care providers, fitness professionals, the technology industry, and other stakeholders in order to catalyze increased adoption of physical activity assessment and promotion in healthcare settings and to contribute to meeting the American Heart Association's 2020 Impact Goals.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA
                JAMA
                JAMA
                JAMA
                American Medical Association
                0098-7484
                1538-3598
                24 March 2020
                24 March 2020
                24 September 2020
                : 323
                : 12
                : 1151-1160
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland
                [2 ]Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland
                [3 ]Department of Kinesiology, Recreation, and Sport Studies, University of Tennessee, Knoxville
                [4 ]Division of Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
                [5 ]Epidemiology and Population Science Laboratory, National Institute on Aging, Bethesda, Maryland
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Corresponding Author: Pedro F. Saint-Maurice, PhD, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, NIH, HHS, 9609 Medical Center Dr, Room 6E-572, Bethesda, MD 20892-9762 ( pedro.saintmaurice@ 123456nih.gov ).
                Accepted for Publication: January 31, 2020.
                Author Contributions: Drs Saint-Maurice and Matthews had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
                Concept and design: Saint-Maurice, Troiano, Carlson, Matthews.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Saint-Maurice, Troiano, Bassett, Graubard, Carlson, Shiroma, Fulton.
                Drafting of the manuscript: Saint-Maurice, Graubard, Carlson, Matthews.
                Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.
                Statistical analysis: Saint-Maurice, Graubard, Carlson, Shiroma.
                Obtained funding: Troiano.
                Administrative, technical, or material support: Troiano, Matthews.
                Supervision: Matthews.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Bassett reported being a paid member of the ActiGraph scientific advisory board from 2013 to 2019 and joining the present study in 2018. The device used in this study was selected in 2002, prior to any involvement by Dr Bassett, and ActiGraph had no involvement in the design, conduct, or interpretation of this study. No other disclosures were reported.
                Funding/Support: Drs Saint-Maurice, Matthews, Graubard, and Shiroma were supported by the National Institutes of Health’s Intramural Research Program. Dr Troiano was supported by the extramural Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences of the National Cancer Institute. Dr Saint-Maurice received additional support from an individual fellowship grant awarded by the Fundacao para a Ciencia e Tecnologia (SFRH/BI/114330/2016) under the Programa Operacional Potencial Humano/Fundo Social Europeu.
                Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The National Institutes of Health was responsible for all data collection and management of baseline and mortality follow-up data but had no role in the design of this study, the analysis and interpretation of the results, or drafting of the manuscript.
                Disclaimer: The findings and conclusions in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or the National Institutes of Health.
                Article
                PMC7093766 PMC7093766 7093766 joi200016
                10.1001/jama.2020.1382
                7093766
                32207799
                5beed15c-7caa-41ca-a0c2-5bed5c0e2ffa
                Copyright 2020 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.
                History
                : 10 May 2019
                : 31 January 2020
                Categories
                Research
                Research
                Original Investigation

                Comments

                Comment on this article