Catherine A Richardson1, Nancy W Glynn2, Luigi G Ferrucci3, Dawn C Mackey4. 1. Department of Biomedical Physiology and Kinesiology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada. 2. Center for Aging and Population Health, Department of Epidemiology, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 3. San Francisco Coordinating Center, California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute. 4. Department of Biomedical Physiology and Kinesiology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada. California Pacific Medical Center, San Francisco. dmackey@sfu.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Slow gait speed increases morbidity and mortality in older adults. We examined how preferred gait speed is associated with energetic requirements of walking, fatigability, and fatigue. METHODS: Older adults (n = 36, 70-89 years) were categorized as slow or fast walkers based on median 400-m gait speed. We measured VO2peak by graded treadmill exercise test and VO2 during 5-minute treadmill walking tests at standard (0.72 m/s) and preferred gait speeds. Fatigability was assessed with the Situational Fatigue Scale and the Borg rating of perceived exertion at the end of walking tests. Fatigue was assessed by questionnaire. RESULTS: Preferred gait speed over 400 m (range: 0.75-1.58 m/s) averaged 1.34 m/s for fast walkers versus 1.05 m/s for slow walkers (p < .001). VO2peak was 26% lower (18.5 vs 25.1ml/kg/min, p = .001) in slow walkers than fast walkers. To walk at 0.72 m/s, slow walkers used a larger percentage of VO2peak (59% vs 42%, p < .001). To walk at preferred gait speed, slow walkers used more energy per unit distance (0.211 vs 0.186ml/kg/m, p = .047). Slow walkers reported higher rating of perceived exertion during walking and greater overall fatigability on the Situational Fatigue Scale, but no differences in fatigue. CONCLUSIONS: Slow walking was associated with reduced aerobic capacity, greater energetic cost of walking, and greater fatigability. Interventions to improve aerobic capacity or decrease energetic cost of walking may prevent slowing of gait speed and promote mobility in older adults.
BACKGROUND: Slow gait speed increases morbidity and mortality in older adults. We examined how preferred gait speed is associated with energetic requirements of walking, fatigability, and fatigue. METHODS: Older adults (n = 36, 70-89 years) were categorized as slow or fast walkers based on median 400-m gait speed. We measured VO2peak by graded treadmill exercise test and VO2 during 5-minute treadmill walking tests at standard (0.72 m/s) and preferred gait speeds. Fatigability was assessed with the Situational Fatigue Scale and the Borg rating of perceived exertion at the end of walking tests. Fatigue was assessed by questionnaire. RESULTS: Preferred gait speed over 400 m (range: 0.75-1.58 m/s) averaged 1.34 m/s for fast walkers versus 1.05 m/s for slow walkers (p < .001). VO2peak was 26% lower (18.5 vs 25.1ml/kg/min, p = .001) in slow walkers than fast walkers. To walk at 0.72 m/s, slow walkers used a larger percentage of VO2peak (59% vs 42%, p < .001). To walk at preferred gait speed, slow walkers used more energy per unit distance (0.211 vs 0.186ml/kg/m, p = .047). Slow walkers reported higher rating of perceived exertion during walking and greater overall fatigability on the Situational Fatigue Scale, but no differences in fatigue. CONCLUSIONS: Slow walking was associated with reduced aerobic capacity, greater energetic cost of walking, and greater fatigability. Interventions to improve aerobic capacity or decrease energetic cost of walking may prevent slowing of gait speed and promote mobility in older adults.
Authors: Rachel C Colley; Didier Garriguet; Ian Janssen; Cora L Craig; Janine Clarke; Mark S Tremblay Journal: Health Rep Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 4.796
Authors: Wesley M Fiser; Nicholas P Hays; Sarah Clary Rogers; Oumitana Kajkenova; Ann Elizabeth Williams; Christopher M Evans; William J Evans Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2010-08-01 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Stephanie Studenski; Subashan Perera; Kushang Patel; Caterina Rosano; Kimberly Faulkner; Marco Inzitari; Jennifer Brach; Julie Chandler; Peggy Cawthon; Elizabeth Barrett Connor; Michael Nevitt; Marjolein Visser; Stephen Kritchevsky; Stefania Badinelli; Tamara Harris; Anne B Newman; Jane Cauley; Luigi Ferrucci; Jack Guralnik Journal: JAMA Date: 2011-01-05 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: John F Schnelle; Maciej S Buchowski; Talat A Ikizler; Daniel W Durkin; Linda Beuscher; Sandra F Simmons Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2012-08-02 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Alina Ionela Palimaru; William E Cunningham; Marcus Dillistone; Arturo Vargas-Bustamante; Honghu Liu; Ron D Hays Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2018-04-26 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Vincenzo Valiani; Duane B Corbett; Jeffrey D Knaggs; Todd M Manini Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2016-06-06 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Jennifer A Schrack; Amal A Wanigatunga; Vadim Zipunnikov; Pei-Lun Kuo; Eleanor M Simonsick; Luigi Ferrucci Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2020-09-16 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Adam J Santanasto; Paul M Coen; Nancy W Glynn; Kevin E Conley; Sharon A Jubrias; Francesca Amati; Elsa S Strotmeyer; Robert M Boudreau; Bret H Goodpaster; Anne B Newman Journal: Exp Gerontol Date: 2016-04-12 Impact factor: 4.032
Authors: Jennifer A Schrack; Vadim Zipunnikov; Eleanor M Simonsick; Stephanie Studenski; Luigi Ferrucci Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2016-02-05 Impact factor: 6.053