Literature DB >> 12615787

Relative intensity of physical activity and risk of coronary heart disease.

I-Min Lee1, Howard D Sesso, Yuko Oguma, Ralph S Paffenbarger.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Current recommendations prescribe at least moderate-intensity physical activity, requiring >or=3 METs (metabolic equivalents) for >or=30 minutes almost daily, generating approximately 1000 kcal/wk. Defining intensity using an absolute scale in METs may be limited because it neglects variations in physical fitness: an activity requiring a particular MET value commands greater physical effort among less fit than more fit persons. It is unknown whether moderate-intensity exercise, relative to an individual's capacity, is associated with reduced coronary heart disease (CHD) rates. METHODS AND
RESULTS: We followed 7337 men (mean age, 66 years) from 1988 to 1995. At baseline, men reported their actual activities and, using the Borg Scale, the perceived level of exertion when exercising (relative intensity). During follow-up, 551 men developed CHD. After multivariate adjustment, the relative risks of CHD among men who perceived their exercise exertion as "moderate," "somewhat strong," and "strong" or more intense were 0.86 (95% confidence interval, 0.66 to 1.13), 0.69 (0.51 to 0.94), and 0.72 (0.52 to 1.00), respectively (P(trend)=0.02), compared with "weak" or less intense. This inverse association extended to men not fulfilling current recommendations, ie, expending <1000 kcal/wk in physical activity or not engaging in activities of >or=3 METs (P(trend)=0.03 and 0.007, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: There is an inverse association between relative intensity of physical activity (an individual's perceived level of exertion) and risk of CHD, even among men not satisfying current activity recommendations. Recommendations for "moderate"-intensity physical activity may need to consider individual fitness levels instead of globally prescribing activities of >or=3 METs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12615787     DOI: 10.1161/01.cir.0000052626.63602.58

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Circulation        ISSN: 0009-7322            Impact factor:   29.690


  68 in total

1.  A systematic review of the evidence for Canada's Physical Activity Guidelines for Adults.

Authors:  Darren Er Warburton; Sarah Charlesworth; Adam Ivey; Lindsay Nettlefold; Shannon Sd Bredin
Journal:  Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act       Date:  2010-05-11       Impact factor: 6.457

Review 2.  Modulation of cardiovascular toxicity in Hodgkin lymphoma: potential role and mechanisms of aerobic training.

Authors:  Anthony F Yu; Lee W Jones
Journal:  Future Cardiol       Date:  2015-08-03

3.  CrossTalk proposal: High intensity interval training does have a role in risk reduction or treatment of disease.

Authors:  Ulrik Wisløff; Jeff S Coombes; Øivind Rognmo
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  2015-12-07       Impact factor: 5.182

4.  Physical activity, cognitive function, and mortality in a US national cohort.

Authors:  R F Gillum; Thomas O Obisesan
Journal:  Ann Epidemiol       Date:  2010-02-19       Impact factor: 3.797

5.  Other advantages to aerobic exercise.

Authors:  Giuseppe Lippi; Gian Luca Salvagno; Gian Cesare Guidi
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2005-10-25       Impact factor: 8.262

6.  Correlations of work, leisure, and sports physical activities and health status with socioeconomic factors: a national study in Israel.

Authors:  E Kahan; Y Fogelman; B Bloch
Journal:  Postgrad Med J       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 2.401

7.  Lifetime physical activity patterns and risk of coronary heart disease.

Authors:  D Rothenbacher; W Koenig; H Brenner
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2006-07-19       Impact factor: 5.994

8.  Health benefits of physical activity.

Authors:  Giuseppe Lippi; Federico Schena; Gian Cesare Guidi
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2006-09-26       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 9.  Health benefits of tennis.

Authors:  Babette M Pluim; J Bart Staal; Bonita L Marks; Stuart Miller; Dave Miley
Journal:  Br J Sports Med       Date:  2007-05-15       Impact factor: 13.800

10.  A practical illustration of the importance of realistic individualized treatment rules in causal inference.

Authors:  Oliver Bembom; Mark J van der Laan
Journal:  Electron J Stat       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 1.125

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.