4.2 Article

Accelerometer-Measured Physical Activity and Cardiometabolic Risk Factors by Race-Ethnicity: 2003-2006 NHANES

Journal

JOURNAL OF RACIAL AND ETHNIC HEALTH DISPARITIES
Volume 9, Issue 5, Pages 1607-1615

Publisher

SPRINGER INT PUBL AG
DOI: 10.1007/s40615-021-01100-w

Keywords

Accelerometry; Risk factors; Metabolic health; Physical activity; Race-ethnicity

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Despite equivalent doses of physical activity, there are differences in cardiometabolic risk factors among different race-ethnic groups in the US, particularly among individuals with the highest levels of physical activity.
Previous studies suggest that the magnitude of morbidity/mortality reduction may differ between race-ethnic groups despite equated dose of physical activity (PA). The purpose of this study was to compare the potential racial-ethnic differences in cardiometabolic risk factors (CMRF) across quartiles of accelerometer-derived total activity counts/day (TAC/d) among US adults. The final sample (n=4144) included adults who participated in the 2003-2006 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). CMRF included fasting glucose (FG), fasting insulin (FI), HOMA-IR, resting systolic (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP), waist circumference (WC), BMI, CRP, HDL-C, LDL-C, and triglycerides. Race-ethnic groups examined included non-Hispanic white (NHW), non-Hispanic black (NHB), and Mexican American (MA). In the highest quartile, NHW had significantly lower values of HOMA-IR, FI, SBP, BMI, WC, and HDL-C when compared to NHB. Compared to MA in the highest quartile, NHW had significantly lower values of HOMA-IR, FI, BMI, and triglycerides. Significant race-ethnic differences were found for several CMRF, especially among those who were in the top quartile of PA (e.g., the most active adults). It is probable that the protective effect of higher volumes of PA on CMRF is moderated by other non-PA factors distinct to NHB and MA.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available