Department of Human Nutrition and Hospitality Management

Permanent URI for this community

https://ir.ua.edu/handle/123456789/59

Browse

Browsing Department of Human Nutrition and Hospitality Management by Author "Amalbert-Birriel, Marcos A."

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Cadence (steps/min) and relative intensity in 21 to 60-year-olds: the CADENCE-adults study
    (BMC, 2021) McAvoy, Cayla R.; Moore, Christopher C.; Aguiar, Elroy J.; Ducharme, Scott W.; Schuna, John M., Jr.; Barreira, Tiago V.; Chase, Colleen J.; Gould, Zachary R.; Amalbert-Birriel, Marcos A.; Chipkin, Stuart R.; Staudenmayer, John; Tudor-Locke, Catrine; Mora-Gonzalez, Jose; University of North Carolina; University of North Carolina Charlotte; University of North Carolina Chapel Hill; University of Alabama Tuscaloosa; California State University Long Beach; Oregon State University; Syracuse University; University of Massachusetts Amherst
    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 O-2 center dot kg(- 1)center dot 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.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Cadence (steps/min) and relative intensity in 21 to 60-year-olds: the CADENCE-adults study (vol 18, 27, 2021)
    (BMC, 2022) McAvoy, Cayla R.; Moore, Christopher C.; Aguiar, Elroy J.; Ducharme, Scott W.; Schuna, John M., Jr.; Barreira, Tiago V.; Chase, Colleen J.; Gould, Zachary R.; Amalbert-Birriel, Marcos A.; Chipkin, Stuart R.; Staudenmayer, John; Tudor-Locke, Catrine; Mora-Gonzalez, Jose; University of North Carolina; University of North Carolina Charlotte; University of North Carolina Chapel Hill; University of Alabama Tuscaloosa; California State University Long Beach; Oregon State University; Syracuse University; University of Massachusetts Amherst
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Walking cadence (steps/min) and intensity in 41 to 60-year-old adults: the CADENCE-adults study
    (BMC, 2020) Tudor-Locke, Catrine; Ducharme, Scott W.; Aguiar, Elroy J.; Schuna, John M., Jr.; Barreira, Tiago V.; Moore, Christopher C.; Chase, Colleen J.; Gould, Zachary R.; Amalbert-Birriel, Marcos A.; Mora-Gonzalez, Jose; Chipkin, Stuart R.; Staudenmayer, John; University of North Carolina; University of North Carolina Charlotte; California State University Long Beach; University of Alabama Tuscaloosa; Oregon State University; Syracuse University; University of North Carolina Chapel Hill; University of Massachusetts Amherst
    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/m(2)) 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.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Walking cadence (steps/min) and intensity in 61-85-year-old adults: the CADENCE-Adults study
    (BMC, 2021) Tudor-Locke, Catrine; Mora-Gonzalez, Jose; Ducharme, Scott W.; Aguiar, Elroy J.; Schuna, John M., Jr.; Barreira, Tiago, V; Moore, Christopher C.; Chase, Colleen J.; Gould, Zachary R.; Amalbert-Birriel, Marcos A.; Chipkin, Stuart R.; Staudenmayer, John; University of North Carolina; University of North Carolina Charlotte; California State University Long Beach; University of Alabama Tuscaloosa; Oregon State University; Syracuse University; University of North Carolina Chapel Hill; University of Massachusetts Amherst
    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.