Effectiveness of three different walking prescription durations on total physical activity in normal- and overweight women

Yves Schutz, Dac Min Tuan Nguyen, Nuala M Byrne, Andrew P Hills, Yves Schutz, Dac Min Tuan Nguyen, Nuala M Byrne, Andrew P Hills

Abstract

Objective: While there is a dose-response relationship between physical activity (PA) and health benefit, little is known about the effectiveness of different PA prescriptions on total daily PA.

Aim: To test, under real-life conditions and using an objective, non-invasive measurement technique (accelerometry), the effect of prescribing additional physical activity (walking only) of different durations (30, 60 and 90 min/day) on compliance (to the activity prescribed) and compensation (to total daily PA). Participants in each group were prescribed 5 sessions of walking per week over 4 weeks.

Methods: 55 normal-weight and overweight women (mean BMI 25 ± 5 kg/m(2), height 165 ± 1 cm, weight 68 ± 2 kg and mean age 27 ± 1 years) were randomly assigned to 3 prescription groups: 30, 60 or 90 min/day PA.

Results: Walking duration resulted in an almost linear increase in the number of steps per day during the prescription period from an average of about 10,000 steps per day for the 30-min prescription to about 14,000 for the 90-min prescription. Compliance was excellent for the 30-min prescription but decreased significantly with 60-min and 90-min prescriptions. In parallel, degree of compensation subsequent to exercise increased progressively as length of prescription increased.

Conclusion: A 30-min prescription of extra walking 5 times per week was well tolerated. However, in order to increase total PA further, much more than 60 min of walking may need to be prescribed in the majority of individuals. While total exercise 'volume' increased with prescriptions longer than 30 min, compliance to the prescription decreased and greater compensation was evident.

© 2014 S. Karger GmbH, Freiburg.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Experimental design. Note the double baseline periods before and after intervention (2 weeks each), allowing first a comparison of activity between the 2 baseline periods and second the ability to track any continuation of walking (carry over) beyond the completion of the 4-week physical activity prescription.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Total number of steps over 24 h during the baseline, prescription periods (first and second) and post-prescription periods. Values are shown as mean ± SEM. **p #p < 0.05 versus 30-min prescription.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Net increase in walking duration (over baseline) during the first and second walking prescription period (2 weeks each). Dotted lines represent the 3 durations prescribed. Values are shown as mean ± SEM.
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Relative compliance (adherence) to walking prescription during each walking prescription period. Values are shown as mean ± SEM.
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Relative compensation (%) to walking prescription. Values are shown as mean ± SEM. #p < 0.05 versus 30-min prescription.
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
AEE. Values are shown as mean ± SEM. **p #p < 0.05 versus 30-min prescription.

References

    1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services . Physical Activity and Health: A Report of the Surgeon General in National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 1996.
    1. Institute of Medicine . Dietary Reference Intake, Energy, Carbohydrate, Fiber, Fat, Fatty Acids, Cholesterol, Protein and Amino Acids. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2002.
    1. World Health Organization . Global Recommendations on Physical Activity for Health. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2010.
    1. Pate RR, Pratt M, Blair SN, et al. Physical activity and public health: a recommendation from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American College of Sports Medicine. J Am Med Assoc. 1995;273:402–407.
    1. Haskell WL, Lee I-M, Pate RP, Powell KE, Blair SN, Franklin BA, Macera CA, Heath GW, Thompson PD, Bauman A. Physical activity and public health: updated recommendation for adults from the American College of Sports Medicine and the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2007;116:1081–1093.
    1. Lee IM, Buchner DM. The importance of walking to public health. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2008;40(suppl 7):S512–S518.
    1. Simpson ME, Serdula M, Galuska DA, et al. Walking trends among US adults: the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, 1987-2000. Am J Prev Med. 2003;25:95–100.
    1. Pollock M, Gaesser G, Butcher J, Despres J, Dishman R, Franklin B. American College of Sports Medicine position stand: the recommended quantity and quality of exercise for developing and maintaining cardiorespiratory and muscular fitness, and flexibility in healthy adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1998;30:975–991.
    1. Hills AP, Byrne NM, Wearing S, Armstrong T. Validation of the intensity of walking for pleasure in obese adults. Prev Med. 2006;42:47–50.
    1. Williams PT. Association between walking distance and percentiles of body mass index in older and younger men. Br J Sports Med. 2008;42:352–356.
    1. Brooks AG, Gunn SM, Withers RT, Gore CJ, Plummer JL. Predicting walking METs and energy expenditure from speed or accelerometry. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2005;37:1216–1223.
    1. Rhodes RE, Warburton DE, Murray H. Characteristics of physical activity guidelines and their effect on adherence: a review of randomized trials. Sports Med. 2009;39:355–375.
    1. Williams PT. Advantage of distance- versus time-based estimates of walking in predicting adiposity. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2012;44:1728–1737.
    1. Weinsier RL, Hunter GR, Desmond RA, Byrne NM, Zuckerman PA, Darnell BE. Free-living activity energy expenditure in women successful and unsuccessful at maintaining a normal body weight. Am J Clin Nutr. 2002;75:499–504.
    1. Saris WH, Blair SN, Van Baak MA, et al. How much physical activity is enough to prevent unhealthy weight gain? Outcome of the IASO 1st Stock Conference and consensus statement. Obes Res. 2003;4:101–114.
    1. Kumahara H, Schutz Y, Ayabe M, Yoshioka M, Yoshitake Y, Shindo M, Ishii K, Tanaka H. The use of uniaxial accelerometry for the assessment of physical-activity-related energy expenditure: a validation study against whole-body indirect calorimetry. Br J Nutr. 2004;91:235–243.
    1. Kumahara H, Tanaka H, Terrier P, Ishii K, Oppert JM, Guy-Grand B, Schutz Y. Comparison of two accelerometers for assessing daily energy expenditure in adults. J Phys Act Health. 2004;1:270–280.
    1. Sequeira MM, Rickenbach M, Wietlisbach V, Tullen B, Schutz Y. Physical activity assessment using a pedometer and its comparison with a questionnaire in a large population survey. Am J Epidemiol. 1995;142:989–999.
    1. Samuels TY, Raedeke TD, Mahar MT, Karvinen KH, DuBose KD. A randomized controlled trial of continuous activity, short bouts, and a 10,000 step guideline in inactive adults. Prev Med. 2011;52:12–125.
    1. Hagströmer M, Oja P, Sjöström M. Physical activity and inactivity in an adult population assessed by accelerometry. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2007;39:1502–1508.
    1. Troiano RP, Berrigan D, Dodd KW, Mâsse LC, Tilert T, McDowell M. Physical activity in the United States measured by accelerometer. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2008;40:181–188.
    1. Haskell WL, Blair SN, Hill JO. Physical activity: health outcomes and importance for public health policy. Prev Med. 2009;49:280–282.
    1. Abel M, Hannon J, Mullineaux D, Beighle A. Determination of step rate thresholds corresponding to physical activity intensity classifications in adults. J Phys Act Health. 2011;8:45–51.
    1. Ekkekakis P, Backhouse SH, Gray C, Lind E. Walking is popular among adults but is it pleasant? A framework for clarifying the link between walking and affect as illustrated in two studies. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2008;9:246–264.
    1. Williams PT. Advantage of distance- versus time-based estimates of walking in predicting adiposity. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2012;44:1728–1737.

Source: PubMed

3
Abonner