4.7 Article

Association of regular physical activity with total and cause-specific mortality among middle-aged and older Chinese: a prospective cohort study

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 7, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/srep39939

关键词

-

资金

  1. Natural Science Foundation of China [81573121]
  2. 111 Project [B12004]
  3. Innovative Research Team in University of Ministry of Education of China [IRT1246]
  4. China Medical Board [12-113]
  5. Program for Changjiang Scholars

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Association between physical activity and mortality has rarely been investigated among the Chinese population. Furthermore, the most appropriate amount of physical activity for longevity benefits remains unclear. We used data from the Dongfeng-Tongji cohort, including 24,606 middle-aged and older retired adults in 2008 and followed to 2013, to quantify linear and non-linear dose-response relationships between regular physical activity and mortality risks by Cox proportional hazards model. Compared with participants who did not engage in regular physical activity, those performing regular physical activity had significantly 46%, 56%, and 49% decreased risks of mortality from all causes, circulatory, and respiratory diseases, respectively. Each one-SD increase in regular physical activity was associated with 32% decrease of respiratory disease mortality. There were significant nonlinear dose-response associations between regular physical activity and mortality from all causes and circulatory diseases. Mortality risks decreased monotonically with increased regular physical activity amount, and appeared to reach a threshold at around 100 MET-hours/week. More mortality benefits were found among non-smokers than that among current and former smokers. Our results suggest that middle-aged and older Chinese adults can achieve mortality benefits from regular physical activity at the WHO recommended minimum, and the benefit threshold appears at approximately 100 MET hours/week.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据