AIM: To established population norms for pedometer determined step counts in older Australians. METHODS: A representative sample of 684 participants over the age of 55 years wore a pedometer for a week in Newcastle, Australia. RESULTS: Response rate was 32%. Median daily step count was 8605 in those aged 55-59 years declining to 3778 in those over 80 years old. The proportion who reached 8000 steps per day was 62% in those 55-59 years and 12% in those over 80 years. Daily step counts were highest on Thursdays and Fridays and least on Sundays. Weekend days had on average 620 less steps than weekdays. After adjusting for age, there was a negative association of step count with body mass index >30, and with a history of arthritis but no significant association with other demographic variables. CONCLUSION: Pedometry is feasible in an elderly sample, and research involving pedometers must take days of the week into account.
AIM: To established population norms for pedometer determined step counts in older Australians. METHODS: A representative sample of 684 participants over the age of 55 years wore a pedometer for a week in Newcastle, Australia. RESULTS: Response rate was 32%. Median daily step count was 8605 in those aged 55-59 years declining to 3778 in those over 80 years old. The proportion who reached 8000 steps per day was 62% in those 55-59 years and 12% in those over 80 years. Daily step counts were highest on Thursdays and Fridays and least on Sundays. Weekend days had on average 620 less steps than weekdays. After adjusting for age, there was a negative association of step count with body mass index >30, and with a history of arthritis but no significant association with other demographic variables. CONCLUSION: Pedometry is feasible in an elderly sample, and research involving pedometers must take days of the week into account.
Authors: Catrine Tudor-Locke; Cora L Craig; Yukitoshi Aoyagi; Rhonda C Bell; Karen A Croteau; Ilse De Bourdeaudhuij; Ben Ewald; Andrew W Gardner; Yoshiro Hatano; Lesley D Lutes; Sandra M Matsudo; Farah A Ramirez-Marrero; Laura Q Rogers; David A Rowe; Michael D Schmidt; Mark A Tully; Steven N Blair Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2011-07-28 Impact factor: 6.457
Authors: Erica L James; Ben Ewald; Natalie Johnson; Wendy Brown; Fiona G Stacey; Patrick Mcelduff; Angela Booth; Fan Yang; Charlotte Hespe; Ronald C Plotnikoff Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2014-12-29 Impact factor: 2.497
Authors: Pui Fung Li; Mark A McEvoy; Sharmaine McKiernan; Peter W Schofield; Lesley K MacDonald-Wicks; Amanda J Patterson Journal: Nutrients Date: 2021-03-11 Impact factor: 5.717
Authors: Joanne Allen; Kerry J Inder; Terry J Lewin; John R Attia; Brian J Kelly Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2013-04-17 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Jochen Klenk; Raphael Simon Peter; Kilian Rapp; Dhayana Dallmeier; Dietrich Rothenbacher; Michael Denkinger; Gisela Büchele; T Becker; B Böhm; K Scharffetter-Kochanek; J Stingl; W Koenig; M Riepe; R Peter; H Geiger; A Ludolph; C von Arnim; G Nagel; G Weinmayr; J M Steinacker; R Laszlo Journal: Eur Rev Aging Phys Act Date: 2019-10-27 Impact factor: 3.878
Authors: Paolo Bruseghini; Enrico Tam; Elisa Calabria; Chiara Milanese; Carlo Capelli; Christel Galvani Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-02-08 Impact factor: 3.390