BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Fast- and usual-paced 400-m walking tests are often used to assess physical fitness or function, respectively, though it is not known how performance converges on these tests. This study aims to determine whether performance on the fast- and usual-paced 400-m walks varies based upon age and physical function. METHODS: Participants (26 men, 38 women aged 70-92) completed a fast- and usual-paced 400-m walk. The Short Physical Performance Battery was used to assess function (score range 0-12). Body mass index and health history were also assessed. RESULTS: Finish times for the fast- and usual-paced 400-m walks were 333.3 and 380.3 s, respectively (P < 0.0001), and highly correlated (r = 0.88, P < 0.001). Higher functioning participants (SPPB > 10) had greater differences between tests compared to lower functioning participants (SPPB ≤ 10) (52.9 vs. 26.2 s, P = 0.005), as did younger participants (age < 80) compared to those age 80 and older (56.8 vs. 32.8 s, P = 0.003). DISCUSSION: Older and lower functioning participants had greater convergence on the fast- and usual-paced 400-m walks. Potentially some of these lower functioning and older adults may have already performed at their maximal capacity during the usual-paced walk, while the younger and higher functioning participants were able to walk substantially faster when asked. CONCLUSIONS: Choice of walking test should consider the age and functional capacity of the population as well as whether function or fitness is of interest.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Fast- and usual-paced 400-m walking tests are often used to assess physical fitness or function, respectively, though it is not known how performance converges on these tests. This study aims to determine whether performance on the fast- and usual-paced 400-m walks varies based upon age and physical function. METHODS:Participants (26 men, 38 women aged 70-92) completed a fast- and usual-paced 400-m walk. The Short Physical Performance Battery was used to assess function (score range 0-12). Body mass index and health history were also assessed. RESULTS: Finish times for the fast- and usual-paced 400-m walks were 333.3 and 380.3 s, respectively (P < 0.0001), and highly correlated (r = 0.88, P < 0.001). Higher functioning participants (SPPB > 10) had greater differences between tests compared to lower functioning participants (SPPB ≤ 10) (52.9 vs. 26.2 s, P = 0.005), as did younger participants (age < 80) compared to those age 80 and older (56.8 vs. 32.8 s, P = 0.003). DISCUSSION: Older and lower functioning participants had greater convergence on the fast- and usual-paced 400-m walks. Potentially some of these lower functioning and older adults may have already performed at their maximal capacity during the usual-paced walk, while the younger and higher functioning participants were able to walk substantially faster when asked. CONCLUSIONS: Choice of walking test should consider the age and functional capacity of the population as well as whether function or fitness is of interest.
Authors: Neil B Alexander; George E Taffet; Frances McFarland Horne; Basil A Eldadah; Luigi Ferrucci; Susan Nayfield; Stephanie Studenski Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Marco Pahor; Jack M Guralnik; Walter T Ambrosius; Steven Blair; Denise E Bonds; Timothy S Church; Mark A Espeland; Roger A Fielding; Thomas M Gill; Erik J Groessl; Abby C King; Stephen B Kritchevsky; Todd M Manini; Mary M McDermott; Michael E Miller; Anne B Newman; W Jack Rejeski; Kaycee M Sink; Jeff D Williamson Journal: JAMA Date: 2014-06-18 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Stephen P Sayers; Jack M Guralnik; Anne B Newman; Jennifer S Brach; Roger A Fielding Journal: Aging Clin Exp Res Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 3.636
Authors: Anne B Newman; Eleanor M Simonsick; Barbara L Naydeck; Robert M Boudreau; Stephen B Kritchevsky; Michael C Nevitt; Marco Pahor; Suzanne Satterfield; Jennifer S Brach; Stephanie A Studenski; Tamara B Harris Journal: JAMA Date: 2006-05-03 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Yves M Rolland; Matteo Cesari; Michael E Miller; Brenda W Penninx; Hal H Atkinson; Marco Pahor Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Marta Karas; Jiawei Bai; Marcin Strączkiewicz; Jaroslaw Harezlak; Nancy W Glynn; Tamara Harris; Vadim Zipunnikov; Ciprian Crainiceanu; Jacek K Urbanek Journal: Stat Biosci Date: 2019-01-12
Authors: Elizabeth P Handing; Stephen R Rapp; Shyh-Huei Chen; W Jack Rejeski; Marie Wiberg; Karen Bandeen-Roche; Suzanne Craft; Dalane Kitzman; Edward H Ip Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2021-03-31 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: Adam J Santanasto; Nancy W Glynn; Laura C Lovato; Steven N Blair; Roger A Fielding; Thomas M Gill; Jack M Guralnik; Fang-Chi Hsu; Abby C King; Elsa S Strotmeyer; Todd M Manini; Anthony P Marsh; Mary M McDermott; Bret H Goodpaster; Marco Pahor; Anne B Newman Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2017-02-21 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: E J Shiroma; M A Schepps; J Harezlak; K Y Chen; C E Matthews; A Koster; P Caserotti; N W Glynn; T B Harris Journal: Physiol Meas Date: 2016-09-21 Impact factor: 2.833
Authors: Wendy C King; Jia-Yuh Chen; Steven H Belle; Anita P Courcoulas; Gregory F Dakin; Katherine A Elder; David R Flum; Marcelo W Hinojosa; James E Mitchell; Walter J Pories; Bruce M Wolfe; Susan Z Yanovski Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-04-05 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Mary E Winger; Paolo Caserotti; Jane A Cauley; Robert M Boudreau; Sara R Piva; Peggy M Cawthon; Tamara B Harris; Elizabeth Barrett-Connor; Howard A Fink; Deborah M Kado; Elsa S Strotmeyer Journal: Aging Clin Exp Res Date: 2019-12-18 Impact factor: 3.636