Paul T Williams1, Paul D Thompson. 1. Life Sciences Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Donner 464, 1 Cycloton Rd, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA. ptwilliams@lbl.gov
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To test whether equivalent energy expenditure by moderate-intensity (eg, walking) and vigorous-intensity exercise (eg, running) provides equivalent health benefits. APPROACH AND RESULTS: We used the National Runners' (n=33 060) and Walkers' (n=15 945) Health Study cohorts to examine the effect of differences in exercise mode and thereby exercise intensity on coronary heart disease (CHD) risk factors. Baseline expenditure (metabolic equivant hours per day [METh/d]) was compared with self-reported, physician-diagnosed incident hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, diabetes mellitus, and CHD during 6.2 years follow-up. Running significantly decreased the risks for incident hypertension by 4.2% (P<10(-7)), hypercholesterolemia by 4.3% (P<10(-14)), diabetes mellitus by 12.1% (P<10(-5)), and CHD by 4.5% per METh/d (P=0.05). The corresponding reductions for walking were 7.2% (P<10(-6)), 7.0% (P<10(-8)), 12.3% (P<10(-4)), and 9.3% (P=0.01). Relative to <1.8 METh/d, the risk reductions for 1.8 to 3.6, 3.6 to 5.4, 5.4 to 7.2, and ≥7.2 METh/d were as follows: (1) 10.1%, 17.7%, 25.1%, and 34.9% from running and 14.0%, 23.8%, 21.8%, and 38.3% from walking for hypercholesterolemia; (2) 19.7%, 19.4%, 26.8%, and 39.8% from running and 14.7%, 19.1%, 23.6%, and 13.3% from walking for hypertension; and (3) 43.5%, 44.1%, 47.7%, and 68.2% from running, and 34.1%, 44.2% and 23.6% from walking for diabetes mellitus (walking >5.4 METh/d excluded for too few cases). The risk reductions were not significantly different for running than walking for diabetes mellitus (P=0.94), hypertension (P=0.06), or CHD (P=0.26), and only marginally greater for walking than running for hypercholesterolemia (P=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Equivalent energy expenditures by moderate (walking) and vigorous (running) exercise produced similar risk reductions for hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, diabetes mellitus, and possibly CHD.
OBJECTIVE: To test whether equivalent energy expenditure by moderate-intensity (eg, walking) and vigorous-intensity exercise (eg, running) provides equivalent health benefits. APPROACH AND RESULTS: We used the National Runners' (n=33 060) and Walkers' (n=15 945) Health Study cohorts to examine the effect of differences in exercise mode and thereby exercise intensity on coronary heart disease (CHD) risk factors. Baseline expenditure (metabolic equivant hours per day [METh/d]) was compared with self-reported, physician-diagnosed incident hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, diabetes mellitus, and CHD during 6.2 years follow-up. Running significantly decreased the risks for incident hypertension by 4.2% (P<10(-7)), hypercholesterolemia by 4.3% (P<10(-14)), diabetes mellitus by 12.1% (P<10(-5)), and CHD by 4.5% per METh/d (P=0.05). The corresponding reductions for walking were 7.2% (P<10(-6)), 7.0% (P<10(-8)), 12.3% (P<10(-4)), and 9.3% (P=0.01). Relative to <1.8 METh/d, the risk reductions for 1.8 to 3.6, 3.6 to 5.4, 5.4 to 7.2, and ≥7.2 METh/d were as follows: (1) 10.1%, 17.7%, 25.1%, and 34.9% from running and 14.0%, 23.8%, 21.8%, and 38.3% from walking for hypercholesterolemia; (2) 19.7%, 19.4%, 26.8%, and 39.8% from running and 14.7%, 19.1%, 23.6%, and 13.3% from walking for hypertension; and (3) 43.5%, 44.1%, 47.7%, and 68.2% from running, and 34.1%, 44.2% and 23.6% from walking for diabetes mellitus (walking >5.4 METh/d excluded for too few cases). The risk reductions were not significantly different for running than walking for diabetes mellitus (P=0.94), hypertension (P=0.06), or CHD (P=0.26), and only marginally greater for walking than running for hypercholesterolemia (P=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Equivalent energy expenditures by moderate (walking) and vigorous (running) exercise produced similar risk reductions for hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, diabetes mellitus, and possibly CHD.
Authors: R R Pate; M Pratt; S N Blair; W L Haskell; C A Macera; C Bouchard; D Buchner; W Ettinger; G W Heath; A C King Journal: JAMA Date: 1995-02-01 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: William E Kraus; Joseph A Houmard; Brian D Duscha; Kenneth J Knetzger; Michelle B Wharton; Jennifer S McCartney; Connie W Bales; Sarah Henes; Gregory P Samsa; James D Otvos; Krishnaji R Kulkarni; Cris A Slentz Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-11-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: G A Colditz; P Martin; M J Stampfer; W C Willett; L Sampson; B Rosner; C H Hennekens; F E Speizer Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 1986-05 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Daniel J Green; Maria T E Hopman; Jaume Padilla; M Harold Laughlin; Dick H J Thijssen Journal: Physiol Rev Date: 2017-04 Impact factor: 37.312
Authors: Tasnim F Imran; Yash Patel; R Curtis Ellison; J Jeffrey Carr; Donna K Arnett; James S Pankow; Gerardo Heiss; Steven C Hunt; J Michael Gaziano; Luc Djoussé Journal: Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol Date: 2016-04-21 Impact factor: 8.311
Authors: Yuehan Wang; Duck-Chul Lee; Angelique G Brellenthin; Thijs M H Eijsvogels; Xuemei Sui; Timothy S Church; Carl J Lavie; Steven N Blair Journal: Am J Med Date: 2019-05-17 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Connor R Miller; Jean Wactawski-Wende; JoAnn E Manson; Bernhard Haring; Kathleen M Hovey; Deepika Laddu; Aladdin H Shadyab; Robert A Wild; Jennifer W Bea; Lesley F Tinker; Lisa W Martin; Patricia K Nguyen; Lorena Garcia; Christopher A Andrews; Charles B Eaton; Marcia L Stefanick; Michael J LaMonte Journal: Hypertension Date: 2020-09-28 Impact factor: 10.190