Acute Effects of Cadence-Controlled Walking on Cognition and Vascular Function in Physically Inactive Older Adults: A Randomized Crossover Study.

BACKGROUND: Cadence-controlled walking may be a desirable approach for older adults to self-monitor exercise intensity and achieve physical activity guidelines. We examined the acute effects of cadence-controlled walking on cognition and vascular function in physically inactive older adults. METHODS: In a randomized crossover design, 26 participants (65% females, 67.8 ± 11.3 years) underwent 30-min acute exercise (walking at 100 steps/min) and control (sitting) conditions. We measured cognition, central blood pressure (BP), and arterial stiffness before, and immediately, after each condition. RESULTS: We observed significant Time × Condition interactions in the Flanker Inhibitory Control and Attention (Flanker) test and Dimensional Change Card Sort (DCCS) test scores, and in central systolic BP, central pulse pressure, and carotid to femoral pulse wave velocity (p < .05). The Flanker and DCCS scores significantly increased after walking (d = 0.4 and 0.5, respectively), but not after sitting. Central systolic BP, central pulse pressure, and carotid to femoral pulse wave velocity significantly increased after sitting but remained unchanged after acute walking (d = 0.4-0.2), with p-values < .05. After walking, significant correlations were observed between DCCS and diastolic BP and central pulse pressure change scores and change scores in central pulse wave velocity, Flanker, and DCCS (rs = -0.45 to -0.52). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that a single bout of cadence-controlled walking elicited an immediate improvement in cognition and might have mitigated increases in arterial stiffness and central BP observed in the seated control condition. Further research is needed to examine the association between cognition and vascular function following acute exercise compared to control conditions. SIGNIFICANCE: Our findings may have practical implications for developing daily physical activity recommendations for improving the cognitive health for successful aging.

Cadence (steps/min) and relative intensity in 61 to 85-year-olds: the CADENCE-Adults study.

BACKGROUND: We previously demonstrated that a heuristic (i.e., evidence-based, rounded yet practical) cadence threshold of ≥ 100 steps/min was associated with absolutely-defined moderate intensity physical activity (i.e., ≥ 3 metabolic equivalents [METs]) in older adults 61-85 years of age. Although it was difficult to ascertain achievement of absolutely-defined vigorous (6 METs) intensity, ≥ 130 steps/min was identified as a defensible threshold for this population. However, little evidence exists regarding cadence thresholds and relatively-defined moderate intensity indicators, including ≥ 64% heart rate [HR] maximum [HRmax = 220-age], ≥ 40% HR reserve [HRR = HRmax-HRresting], and ≥ 12 Borg Scale Rating of Perceived Exertion [RPE]; or vigorous intensity indicators including ≥ 77%HRmax, ≥ 60%HRR, and ≥ 14 RPE. PURPOSE: To analyze the relationship between cadence and relatively-defined physical activity intensity and identify relatively-defined moderate and vigorous heuristic cadence thresholds for older adults 61-85 years of age. METHODS: Ninety-seven ostensibly healthy adults (72.7 ± 6.9 years; 49.5% women) completed up to nine 5-min treadmill walking bouts beginning at 0.5 mph (0.8 km/h) and progressing by 0.5 mph speed increments (with 2-min rest between bouts). Directly-observed (and video-recorded) steps were hand-counted, HR was measured using a chest-strapped monitor, and in the final minute of each bout, participants self-reported RPE. Segmented mixed model regression and Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve analyses identified optimal cadence thresholds associated with relatively-defined moderate (≥ 64%HRmax, ≥ 40%HRR, and ≥ 12 RPE) and vigorous (≥ 77%HRmax, ≥ 60%HRR, and ≥ 14 RPE) intensities. A compromise between the two analytical methods, including Youden's Index (a sum of sensitivity and specificity), positive and negative predictive values, and overall accuracy, yielded final heuristic cadences. RESULTS: Across all relatively-defined moderate intensity indicators, segmented regression models and ROC curve analyses identified optimal cadence thresholds ranging from 105.9 to 112.8 steps/min and 102.0-104.3 steps/min, respectively. Comparable values for vigorous intensity indicators ranged between126.1-132.1 steps/min and 106.7-116.0 steps/min, respectively. Regardless of the relatively-defined intensity indicator, the overall best heuristic cadence threshold aligned with moderate intensity was ≥ 105 steps/min. Vigorous intensity varied between ≥ 115 (greater sensitivity) or ≥ 120 (greater specificity) steps/min. CONCLUSIONS: Heuristic cadence thresholds align with relatively-defined intensity indicators and can be useful for studying and prescribing older adults' physiological response to, and/or perceived experience of, ambulatory physical activity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02650258. Registered 24 December 2015.

Disparities in physical activity between sexual minority and heterosexual women: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Research examining potential differences in physical activity (PA) between sexual minority women (SMW) and heterosexual women have yielded inconsistent results. OBJECTIVE: Therefore, the purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to examine potential differences in PA between SMW and heterosexual women and to identify potential moderators that may partially explain observed differences in PA. METHODS: All studies were peer reviewed, published in English, and included a continuous measure of PA for SMW and heterosexual women. A standardized mean difference effect size (ES) was used to compare groups, with random effects models used to estimate a mean ES and 95% CI using a 3-level meta-analysis model to adjust for the correlation between effects nested within studies. RESULTS: The cumulative results of 24 effects gathered from 7 studies indicated there was no difference in PA between SMW (n = 1619) and heterosexual women (n = 103,295) (ES = -0.038, 95%CI -0.179 to 0.102, p = 0.576). Despite no mean differences, moderate-high heterogeneity was observed, indicating that the results were not consistent across effects (I2 = 64.8%, Q23 = 36.7, p = 0.035). The difference in PA was associated with age (ß = -0.018, 95%CI -0.034 to -0.003, p = 0.022) and BMI (ß = -0.145, 95%CI -0.228 to -0.061, p = 0.002), with a quadratic relationship observed for both variables. CONCLUSIONS: Although the results of the current analysis did not indicate significant differences in PA behaviors between SMW and heterosexual women, age and BMI modify the association and are curvilinear in nature; such that smaller differences in PA were observed between SMW and heterosexual women when samples were middle-aged and overweight.

Cadence-based classification of moderate-intensity overground walking in 41- to 85-year-old adults.

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.

Evaluation of a Type 2 diabetes risk reduction online program for women with recent gestational diabetes: a randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the preliminary efficacy, feasibility and acceptability of the 3-month Body Balance Beyond (BBB) online program among Australian women with overweight/obesity and recent gestational diabetes mellitus. METHODS: Women were randomised into either: 1) High Personalisation (HP) (access to 'BBB' website, video coaching sessions, text message support); 2) Medium Personalisation (MP) (website and text message support); or 3) Low Personalisation (LP) (website only). Generalised linear mixed models were used to evaluate preliminary efficacy, weight, diet quality, physical activity levels, self-efficacy and quality of life (QoL) at baseline and 3-months. Feasibility was assessed by recruitment and retention metrics and acceptability determined via online process evaluation survey at 3-months. RESULTS: Eighty three women were randomised, with 76 completing the study. Self-efficacy scores showed significant improvements in confidence to resist eating in a variety of situations from baseline to 3-months in HP compared to MP and LP groups (P=.03). The difference in mean QoL scores favoured the HP compared to MP and LP groups (P=.03). Half of the women (HP n=17[81%], MP n=12[75%], LP n=9[56%]) lost weight at 3-months. No significant group-by-time effect were reported for other outcomes. Two-thirds of women in the HP group were satisfied with the program overall and 86% would recommend it to others, compared with 25% and 44% in the MP group, and 14% and 36% in the LP group, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Video coaching sessions were associated with improvements in QoL scores and self-efficacy, however further refinement of the BBB website and text messages support could improve program acceptability. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR): ACTRN12619000162112 , registered 5 February 2019.

A catalog of validity indices for step counting wearable technologies during treadmill walking: the CADENCE-adults study.

BACKGROUND: Standardized validation indices (i.e., accuracy, bias, and precision) provide a comprehensive comparison of step counting wearable technologies. PURPOSE: To expand a previously published child/youth catalog of validity indices to include adults (21-40, 41-60 and 61-85 years of age) assessed across a range of treadmill speeds (slow [0.8-3.2 km/h], normal [4.0-6.4 km/h], fast [7.2-8.0 km/h]) and device wear locations (ankle, thigh, waist, and wrist). METHODS: Two hundred fifty-eight adults (52.5 ± 18.7 years, 49.6% female) participated in this laboratory-based study and performed a series of 5-min treadmill bouts while wearing multiple devices; 21 devices in total were evaluated over the course of this multi-year cross-sectional study (2015-2019). The criterion measure was directly observed steps. Computed validity indices included accuracy (mean absolute percentage error, MAPE), bias (mean percentage error, MPE), and precision (correlation coefficient, r; standard deviation, SD; coefficient of variation, CoV). RESULTS: Over the range of normal speeds, 15 devices (Actical, waist-worn ActiGraph GT9X, activPAL, Apple Watch Series 1, Fitbit Ionic, Fitbit One, Fitbit Zip, Garmin vivoactive 3, Garmin vivofit 3, waist-worn GENEActiv, NL-1000, PiezoRx, Samsung Gear Fit2, Samsung Gear Fit2 Pro, and StepWatch) performed at < 5% MAPE. The wrist-worn ActiGraph GT9X displayed the worst accuracy across normal speeds (MAPE = 52%). On average, accuracy was compromised across slow walking speeds for all wearable technologies (MAPE = 40%) while all performed best across normal speeds (MAPE = 7%). When analyzing the data by wear locations, the ankle and thigh demonstrated the best accuracy (both MAPE = 1%), followed by the waist (3%) and the wrist (15%) across normal speeds. There were significant effects of speed, wear location, and age group on accuracy and bias (both p < 0.001) and precision (p ≤ 0.045). CONCLUSIONS: Standardized validation indices cataloged by speed, wear location, and age group across the adult lifespan facilitate selecting, evaluating, or comparing performance of step counting wearable technologies. Speed, wear location, and age displayed a significant effect on accuracy, bias, and precision. Overall, reduced performance was associated with very slow walking speeds (0.8 to 3.2 km/h). Ankle- and thigh-located devices logged the highest accuracy, while those located at the wrist reported the worst accuracy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02650258. Registered 24 December 2015.

Classification of moderate-intensity overground walking speed in 21- to 85-year-old adults.

The Compendium of Physical Activities reports that walking at 2.5 mph associates with absolutely-defined moderate intensity (i.e., ≥3 metabolic equivalents [METs]). However, it is unclear whether this speed threshold is accurate during overground walking and/or across the adult age-span. This study aimed to identify optimal and heuristic speed thresholds associated with 3 METs during overground walking across age groups. Healthy adults (n = 248, 21-85 years old, 49% women) performed a 5-minute self-paced overground walking trial. Speed was measured using an electronic gait mat, and oxygen uptake was measured using indirect calorimetry and converted to METs. Optimal and heuristic thresholds and classification accuracy metrics were determined and compared using ROC curve analyses. Speed thresholds (95% CIs) associated with 3 METs for the whole sample, young (21-40 years), middle-aged (41-60 years) and older-aged (61-85 years) groups were 1.29 (1.25, 1.33), 1.30 (1,26, 1,35), and 1.25 (1.21, 1.29) m/s, respectively. Overall, 3 mph and 5 km/h performed better than 2.5 mph and 4.5 km/h in balancing both sensitivity and specificity (higher Youden's Indices). Overground walking speeds associated with 3 METs were similar across age groups. A heuristic threshold of 3 mph or 5 km/h may better identify absolutely-defined moderate intensity overground walking.

A catalog of validity indices for step counting wearable technologies during treadmill walking: the CADENCE-Kids study.

BACKGROUND: Wearable technologies play an important role in measuring physical activity (PA) and promoting health. Standardized validation indices (i.e., accuracy, bias, and precision) compare performance of step counting wearable technologies in young people. PURPOSE: To produce a catalog of validity indices for step counting wearable technologies assessed during different treadmill speeds (slow [0.8-3.2 km/h], normal [4.0-6.4 km/h], fast [7.2-8.0 km/h]), wear locations (waist, wrist/arm, thigh, and ankle), and age groups (children, 6-12 years; adolescents, 13-17 years; young adults, 18-20 years). METHODS: One hundred seventeen individuals (13.1 ± 4.2 years, 50.4% female) participated in this cross-sectional study and completed 5-min treadmill bouts (0.8 km/h to 8.0 km/h) while wearing eight devices (Waist: Actical, ActiGraph GT3X+, NL-1000, SW-200; Wrist: ActiGraph GT3X+; Arm: SenseWear; Thigh: activPAL; Ankle: StepWatch). Directly observed steps served as the criterion measure. Accuracy (mean absolute percentage error, MAPE), bias (mean percentage error, MPE), and precision (correlation coefficient, r; standard deviation, SD; coefficient of variation, CoV) were computed. RESULTS: Five of the eight tested wearable technologies (i.e., Actical, waist-worn ActiGraph GT3X+, activPAL, StepWatch, and SW-200) performed at < 5% MAPE over the range of normal speeds. More generally, waist (MAPE = 4%), thigh (4%) and ankle (5%) locations displayed higher accuracy than the wrist location (23%) at normal speeds. On average, all wearable technologies displayed the lowest accuracy across slow speeds (MAPE = 50.1 ± 35.5%), and the highest accuracy across normal speeds (MAPE = 15.9 ± 21.7%). Speed and wear location had a significant effect on accuracy and bias (P < 0.001), but not on precision (P > 0.05). Age did not have any effect (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Standardized validation indices focused on accuracy, bias, and precision were cataloged by speed, wear location, and age group to serve as important reference points when selecting and/or evaluating device performance in young people moving forward. Reduced performance can be expected at very slow walking speeds (0.8 to 3.2 km/h) for all devices. Ankle-worn and thigh-worn devices demonstrated the highest accuracy. Speed and wear location had a significant effect on accuracy and bias, but not precision. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01989104 . Registered November 14, 2013.

Walking cadence (steps/min) and intensity in 61-85-year-old adults: the CADENCE-Adults study.

BACKGROUND: Heuristic (i.e., evidence-based, rounded) cadences of ≥100 and ≥ 130 steps/min have consistently corresponded with absolutely-defined moderate (3 metabolic equivalents [METs]) and vigorous (6 METs) physical activity intensity, respectively, in adults 21-60 years of age. There is no consensus regarding similar thresholds in older adults. PURPOSE: To provide heuristic cadence thresholds for 3, 4, 5, and 6 METs in 61-85-year-old adults. METHODS: Ninety-eight community-dwelling ambulatory and ostensibly healthy older adults (age = 72.6 ± 6.9 years; 49% women) walked on a treadmill for a series of 5-min bouts (beginning at 0.5 mph with 0.5 mph increments) in this laboratory-based cross-sectional study until: 1) transitioning to running, 2) reaching ≥75% of their age-predicted maximum heart rate, or 3) reporting a Borg rating of perceived exertion > 13. Cadence was directly observed and hand-tallied. Intensity (oxygen uptake [VO2] mL/kg/min) was assessed with indirect calorimetry and converted to METs (1 MET = 3.5 mL/kg/min). Cadence thresholds were identified via segmented mixed effects model regression and using Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves. Final heuristic cadence thresholds represented an analytical compromise based on classification accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value, and overall accuracy). RESULTS: Cadences of 103.1 (95% Prediction Interval: 70.0-114.2), 116.4 (105.3-127.4), 129.6 (118.6-140.7), and 142.9 steps/min (131.8-148.4) were identified for 3, 4, 5, and 6 METs, respectively, based on the segmented regression. Comparable values based on ROC analysis were 100.3 (95% Confidence Intervals: 95.7-103.1), 111.5 (106.1-112.9), 116.0 (112.4-120.2), and 128.6 steps/min (128.3-136.4). Heuristic cadence thresholds of 100, 110, and 120 were associated with 3, 4, and 5 METs. Data to inform a threshold for ≥6 METs was limited, as only 6/98 (6.0%) participants achieved this intensity. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with previous data collected from 21-40 and 41-60-year-old adults, heuristic cadence thresholds of 100, 110, and 120 steps/min were associated with 3, 4, and 5 METs, respectively, in 61-85-year-old adults. Most older adults tested did not achieve the intensity of ≥6 METs; therefore, our data do not support establishing thresholds corresponding with this intensity level. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02650258 . Registered 24 December 2015.

Cadence (steps/min) and relative intensity in 21 to 60-year-olds: the CADENCE-adults study.

BACKGROUND: Heuristic cadence (steps/min) thresholds of ≥100 and ≥ 130 steps/min correspond with absolutely-defined moderate (3 metabolic equivalents [METs]; 1 MET = 3.5 mL O2·kg- 1·min- 1) and vigorous (6 METs) intensity, respectively. Scarce evidence informs cadence thresholds for relatively-defined moderate (≥ 64% heart rate maximum [HRmax = 220-age], ≥ 40%HR reserve [HRR = HRmax -HRresting, and ≥ 12 Rating of Perceived Exertion [RPE]); or vigorous intensity (≥ 77%HRmax, ≥ 60%HRR, and ≥ 14 RPE). PURPOSE: To identify heuristic cadence thresholds corresponding with relatively-defined moderate and vigorous intensity in 21-60-year-olds. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, 157 adults (40.4 ± 11.5 years; 50.6% men) completed up to twelve 5-min treadmill bouts, beginning at 0.5 mph and increasing by 0.5 mph. Steps were directly observed, HR was measured with chest-worn monitors, and RPE was queried in the final minute of each bout. Segmented mixed model regression and Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve analyses identified optimal cadence thresholds, stratified by age (21-30, 31-40, 41-50, and 51-60 years). Reconciliation of the two analytical models, including trade-offs between sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and overall accuracy, yielded final heuristic cadences. RESULTS: Across all moderate intensity indicators, the segmented regression models estimated optimal cadence thresholds ranging from 123.8-127.5 (ages 21-30), 121.3-126.0 (ages 31-40), 117.7-122.7 (ages 41-50), and 113.3-116.1 steps/min (ages 51-60). Corresponding values for vigorous intensity were 140.3-144.1, 140.2-142.6, 139.3-143.6, and 131.6-132.8 steps/min, respectively. ROC analysis estimated chronologically-arranged age groups' cadence thresholds ranging from 114.5-118, 113.5-114.5, 104.6-112.9, and 103.6-106.0 across all moderate intensity indicators, and 127.5, 121.5, 117.2-123.2, and 113.0 steps/min, respectively, for vigorous intensity. CONCLUSIONS: Heuristic cadence thresholds corresponding to relatively-defined moderate intensity for the chronologically-arranged age groups were ≥ 120, 120, 115, and 105 steps/min, regardless of the intensity indicator (i.e., % HRmax, %HRR, or RPE). Corresponding heuristic values for vigorous intensity indicators were ≥ 135, 130, 125, and 120 steps/min. These cadences are useful for predicting/programming intensity aligned with age-associated differences in physiological response to, and perceived experiences of, moderate and/or vigorous intensity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02650258 . Registered 24 December 2015.

Using Cadence to Predict the Walk-to-Run Transition in Children and Adolescents: A Logistic Regression Approach.

The natural transition from walking to running occurs in adults at ≅140 steps/min. It is unknown when this transition occurs in children and adolescents. The purpose of this study was to develop a model to predict age- and anthropometry-specific preferred transition cadences in individuals 6-20 years of age. Sixty-nine individuals performed sequentially faster 5-min treadmill walking bouts, starting at 0.22 m/s and increasing by 0.22 m/s until completion of the bout during which they freely chose to run. Steps accumulated during each bout were directly observed and converted to cadence (steps/min). A logistic regression model was developed to predict preferred transition cadences using the best subset of parameters. The resulting model, which included age, sex, height, and BMI z-score, produced preferred transition cadences that accurately classified gait behaviour (k-fold cross-validated prediction accuracy =97.02%). This transition cadence ranged from 136-161 steps/min across the developmental age range studied. The preferred transition cadence represents a simple and practical index to predict and classify gait behaviour from wearable sensors in children, adolescents, and young adults. Moreover, herein we provide an equation and an open access online R Shiny app that researchers, practitioners, or clinicians can use to predict individual-specific preferred transition cadences.

Walking cadence (steps/min) and intensity in 41 to 60-year-old adults: the CADENCE-adults study.

BACKGROUND: In younger adults (i.e., those < 40 years of age) a walking cadence of 100 steps/min is a consistently supported threshold indicative of absolutely-defined moderate intensity ambulation (i.e., ≥ 3 metabolic equivalents; METs). Less is known about the cadence-intensity relationship in adults of middle-age. PURPOSE: To establish heuristic (i.e., evidence-based, practical, rounded) cadence thresholds for absolutely-defined moderate (3 METs) and vigorous (6 METs) intensity in adults 41 to 60 years of age. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, 80 healthy adults of middle-age (10 men and 10 women representing each 5-year age-group between 41 to 60 years; body mass index = 26.0 ± 4.0 kg/m2) walked on a treadmill for 5-min bouts beginning at 0.5 mph and increasing in 0.5 mph increments. Performance termination criteria included: 1) transitioning to running, 2) reaching 75% of age-predicted maximum heart rate, or 3) reporting a Borg rating of perceived exertion > 13. Cadence was directly observed (i.e., hand tallied). Intensity (i.e., oxygen uptake [VO2] mL/kg/min) was assessed with an indirect calorimeter and converted to METs (1 MET = 3.5 mL/kg/min). A combination of segmented regression and Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) modeling approaches was used to identify optimal cadence thresholds. Final heuristic thresholds were determined based on an evaluation of classification accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value, overall accuracy). RESULTS: The regression model identified 101.7 (95% Predictive Interval [PI]: 54.9-110.6) and 132.1 (95% PI: 122.0-142.2) steps/min as optimal cadence thresholds for 3 METs and 6 METs, respectively. Corresponding values based on ROC models were 98.5 (95% Confidence Intervals [CI]: 97.1-104.9) and 117.3 (95% CI: 113.1-126.1) steps/min. Considering both modeling approaches, the selected heuristic thresholds for moderate and vigorous intensity were 100 and 130 steps/min, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with our previous report in 21 to 40-year-old adults, cadence thresholds of 100 and 130 steps/min emerged as heuristic values associated with 3 and 6 METs, respectively, in 41 to 60-year-old adults. These values were selected based on their utility for public health messaging and on the trade-offs in classification accuracy parameters from both statistical methods. Findings will need to be confirmed in older adults and in free-living settings.

Walking cadence (steps/min) and intensity in 21-40 year olds: CADENCE-adults.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have reported that walking cadence (steps/min) is associated with absolutely-defined intensity (metabolic equivalents; METs), such that cadence-based thresholds could serve as reasonable proxy values for ambulatory intensities. PURPOSE: To establish definitive heuristic (i.e., evidence-based, practical, rounded) thresholds linking cadence with absolutely-defined moderate (3 METs) and vigorous (6 METs) intensity. METHODS: In this laboratory-based cross-sectional study, 76 healthy adults (10 men and 10 women representing each 5-year age-group category between 21 and 40 years, BMI = 24.8 ± 3.4 kg/m2) performed a series of 5-min treadmill bouts separated by 2-min rests. Bouts began at 0.5 mph and increased in 0.5 mph increments until participants: 1) chose to run, 2) achieved 75% of their predicted maximum heart rate, or 3) reported a Borg rating of perceived exertion > 13. Cadence was hand-tallied, and intensity (METs) was measured using a portable indirect calorimeter. Optimal cadence thresholds for moderate and vigorous ambulatory intensities were identified using a segmented regression model with random coefficients, as well as Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) models. Positive predictive values (PPV) of candidate heuristic thresholds were assessed to determine final heuristic values. RESULTS: Optimal cadence thresholds for 3 METs and 6 METs were 102 and 129 steps/min, respectively, using the regression model, and 96 and 120 steps/min, respectively, using ROC models. Heuristic values were set at 100 steps/min (PPV of 91.4%), and 130 steps/min (PPV of 70.7%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Cadence thresholds of 100 and 130 steps/min can serve as reasonable heuristic thresholds representative of absolutely-defined moderate and vigorous ambulatory intensity, respectively, in 21-40 year olds. These values represent useful proxy values for recommending and modulating the intensity of ambulatory behavior and/or as measurement thresholds for processing accelerometer data. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT02650258 ).

Normative Peak 30-Min Cadence (Steps per Minute) Values for Older Adults: NHANES 2005-2006.

Walking cadence (steps per minute) is associated with the intensity of ambulatory behavior. This analysis provides normative values for peak 30-min cadence, an indicator of "natural best effort" during free-living behavior. A sample of 1,196 older adults (aged from 60 to 85+) with accelerometer data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2005-2006 was used. Peak 30-min cadence was calculated for each individual. Quintile-defined values were computed, stratified by sex and age groups. Smoothed sex-specific centile curves across the age span were fitted using the LMS method. Peak 30-min cadence generally trended lower as age increased. The uppermost quintile value was >85 steps/min (men: 60-64 years), and the lowermost quintile value was <22 steps/min (women: 85+). The highest 95th centile value was 103 steps/min (men: 64-70 years), and the lowest 5th centile value was 15 steps/min (women: 85+). These normative values may be useful for evaluating older adults' "natural best effort" during free-living ambulatory behavior.

Cadence (steps/min) and intensity during ambulation in 6-20 year olds: the CADENCE-kids study.

BACKGROUND: Steps/day is widely utilized to estimate the total volume of ambulatory activity, but it does not directly reflect intensity, a central tenet of public health guidelines. Cadence (steps/min) represents an overlooked opportunity to describe the intensity of ambulatory activity. We sought to establish thresholds linking directly observed cadence with objectively measured intensity in 6-20 year olds. METHODS: One hundred twenty participants completed multiple 5-min bouts on a treadmill, from 13.4 m/min (0.80 km/h) to 134.0 m/min (8.04 km/h). The protocol was terminated when participants naturally transitioned to running, or if they chose to not continue. Steps were visually counted and intensity was objectively measured using a portable metabolic system. Youth metabolic equivalents (METy) were calculated for 6-17 year olds, with moderate intensity defined as ≥4 and < 6 METy, and vigorous intensity as ≥6 METy. Traditional METs were calculated for 18-20 year olds, with moderate intensity defined as ≥3 and < 6 METs, and vigorous intensity defined as ≥6 METs. Optimal cadence thresholds for moderate and vigorous intensity were identified using segmented random coefficients models and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. RESULT: Participants were on average (± SD) aged 13.1 ± 4.3 years, weighed 55.8 ± 22.3 kg, and had a BMI z-score of 0.58 ± 1.21. Moderate intensity thresholds (from regression and ROC analyses) ranged from 128.4 steps/min among 6-8 year olds to 87.3 steps/min among 18-20 year olds. Comparable values for vigorous intensity ranged from 157.7 steps/min among 6-8 year olds to 119.3 steps/min among 18-20 year olds. Considering both regression and ROC approaches, heuristic cadence thresholds (i.e., evidence-based, practical, rounded) ranged from 125 to 90 steps/min for moderate intensity, and 155 to 125 steps/min for vigorous intensity, with higher cadences for younger age groups. Sensitivities and specificities for these heuristic thresholds ranged from 77.8 to 99.0%, indicating fair to excellent classification accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: These heuristic cadence thresholds may be used to prescribe physical activity intensity in public health recommendations. In the research and clinical context, these heuristic cadence thresholds have apparent value for accelerometer-based analytical approaches to determine the intensity of ambulatory activity.

How fast is fast enough? Walking cadence (steps/min) as a practical estimate of intensity in adults: a narrative review.

BACKGROUND: Cadence (steps/min) may be a reasonable proxy-indicator of ambulatory intensity. A summary of current evidence is needed for cadence-based metrics supporting benchmark (standard or point of reference) and threshold (minimums associated with desired outcomes) values that are informed by a systematic process. OBJECTIVE: To review how fast, in terms of cadence, is enough, with reference to crafting public health recommendations in adults. METHODS: A comprehensive search strategy was conducted to identify relevant studies focused on walking cadence and intensity for adults. Identified studies (n=38) included controlled (n=11), free-living observational (n=18) and intervention (n=9) designs. RESULTS: There was a strong relationship between cadence (as measured by direct observation and objective assessments) and intensity (indirect calorimetry). Despite acknowledged interindividual variability, ≥100 steps/min is a consistent heuristic (e.g, evidence-based, rounded) value associated with absolutely defined moderate intensity (3 metabolic equivalents (METs)). Epidemiological studies report notably low mean daily cadences (ie, 7.7 steps/min), shaped primarily by the very large proportion of time (13.5 hours/day) spent between zero and purposeful cadences (<60 steps/min) at the population level. Published values for peak 1-min and 30-min cadences in healthy free-living adults are >100 and >70 steps/min, respectively. Peak cadence indicators are negatively associated with increased age and body mass index. Identified intervention studies used cadence to either prescribe and/or quantify ambulatory intensity but the evidence is best described as preliminary. CONCLUSIONS: A cadence value of ≥100 steps/min in adults appears to be a consistent and reasonable heuristic answer to 'How fast is fast enough?' during sustained and rhythmic ambulatory behaviour. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02650258.

Efficacy of interventions that include diet, aerobic and resistance training components for type 2 diabetes prevention: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

Current recommendations for the prevention of type 2 diabetes advise modification of diet and exercise behaviors including both aerobic and resistance training. However, the efficacy of multi-component interventions involving a combination of these three components has not been established. The aims of this review were to systematically review and meta-analyze the evidence on multi-component (diet + aerobic exercise + resistance training) lifestyle interventions for type 2 diabetes prevention. Eight electronic databases (Medline, Embase, SportDiscus, Web of Science, CINAHL, Informit health collection, Cochrane library and Scopus) were searched up to June 2013. Eligible studies 1) recruited prediabetic adults or individuals at risk of type 2 diabetes; 2) conducted diet and exercise [including both physical activity/aerobic and resistance training] programs; and 3) reported weight and plasma glucose outcomes. In total, 23 articles from eight studies were eligible including five randomized controlled trials, one quasi-experimental, one two-group comparison and one single-group pre-post study. Four studies had a low risk of bias (score ≥ 6/10). Median intervention length was 12 months (range 4-48 months) with a follow-up of 18 months (range 6.5-48 months). The diet and exercise interventions varied slightly in terms of their specific prescriptions. Meta-analysis favored interventions over controls for weight loss (-3.79 kg [-6.13, -1.46; 95% CI], Z = 3.19, P = 0.001) and fasting plasma glucose (-0.13 mmol.L⁻¹ [-0.24, -0.02; 95% CI], Z = 2.42, P = 0.02). Diabetes incidence was only reported in two studies, with reductions of 58% and 56% versus control groups. In summary, multi-component lifestyle type 2 diabetes prevention interventions that include diet and both aerobic and resistance exercise training are modestly effective in inducing weight loss and improving impaired fasting glucose, glucose tolerance, dietary and exercise outcomes in at risk and prediabetic adult populations. These results support the current exercise guidelines for the inclusion of resistance training in type 2 diabetes prevention, however there remains a need for more rigorous studies, with long-term follow-up evaluating program efficacy, muscular fitness outcomes, diabetes incidence and risk reduction.

Comparison of Step-Based Metrics Under Laboratory and Free-Living Conditions in Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome.

CONTEXT: Femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) causes pain and functional limitations. Little is known regarding walking characteristics, volume and intensity evaluated in laboratory and free-living conditions and whether these measures differ between those with FAIS and uninjured individuals. OBJECTIVE: To examine the differences in laboratory gait measures and free-living step-based metrics between individuals with FAIS and uninjured control participants. DESIGN: Comparative, cross-sectional study. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: We enrolled 25 participants with FAIS and 14 uninjured controls. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We evaluated laboratory spatiotemporal gait measures (cadence, velocity, step length, stride length) during self-selected and fast walking speeds using an instrumented walkway. Participants then wore an accelerometer around the waist during waking hours for 7 consecutive days. Free-living step-based metrics included average daily steps, peak 1- and 30-minute cadence, and average daily time spent in walking cadence bands. We compared laboratory gait measures and step-based metrics between groups. RESULTS: The groups did not differ in laboratory spatiotemporal gait measures during both speeds (all p>0.05). The FAIS group took fewer daily steps (5,346±2,141 vs. 7,338±2,787 steps/day; p=0.030) and had a lower peak 1-minute (92.9±23.9 vs. 119.6±16.3 steps/min; p<0.001) and 30- minute cadences (60.9±27.1 vs. 86.8±22.4 steps/min; p=0.003) compared with uninjured controls, respectively. The FAIS group also spent less time in slow (6.0±3.6 vs. 10.3±3.4 min/day; p=0.001), medium (4.5 + 4.2 vs. 8.9±4.4 min/day; p=0.005), and brisk/moderate (4.5±6.2 vs. 12.2±10.3; p=0.020) cadence bands compared with uninjured controls. CONCLUSIONS: Considering only clinical/laboratory gait measures may not be representative of real- world walking-related PA behavior in individuals with FAIS.