4.3 Article

Dose-Response Between Pedometer Assessed Physical Activity, Functional Fitness, and Fatness in Healthy Adults Aged 50-80 Years

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HUMAN BIOLOGY
Volume 28, Issue 6, Pages 890-894

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/ajhb.22884

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) from Brazil [protocol 6674/2015-01]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: This study examined dose-response relationships of walking with multiple aspects of physical function and measures of body fatness in apparently healthy, independent adults aged 50-80 years. Methods: 201 adults (81 male, 120 female) aged 50-80 years underwent assessment of body mass index (BMI), body fatness, waist circumference (WC) and 6 measures of functional fitness. Sealed pedometery, worn over 7 days, was used to determine physical activity (PA). PA was categorized into three groups (low = 2,501-5,000; medium = 5,001-7,500; and high = >7,501 steps/day). Results: Results from a series of 2 (gender) 3 3 (PA dose) way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), controlling for age, indicated dose-response effects of PA for all functional fitness tests where participants classed as high PA had higher scores for arm curl, chair stand, 6 minute walk, back scratch, and sit and reach and lower scores for the timed up and go test compared to those classed as low and medium PA. There were also significant main effects for PA dose for BMI, WC, and body fat %. Those classed as low PA had significantly higher BMI, WC and body fatness compared to those classed as medium and high PA. Conclusions: This study shows a positive dose-response trend whereby as an individual undertakes more daily steps (based on previously established step-count groups), multiple aspects of functionality increase and anthropometric markers of overweight and obesity decrease. (C) 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available