W Jack Rejeski1, Anthony P Marsh2, Peter H Brubaker2, Matthew Buman3, Roger A Fielding4, Don Hire5, Todd Manini6, Alvito Rego7, Michael E Miller5. 1. Department of Health and Exercise Science, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina. rejeski@wfu.edu. 2. Department of Health and Exercise Science, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina. 3. SNHP Exercise Science & Health, Arizona State University, Tempe. 4. Nutrition, Exercise Physiology and Sarcopenia Laboratory, Tufts University, Boston, Massachusetts. 5. Department of Biostatistical Sciences, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina. 6. Department of Aging and Geriatric Research. University of Florida, Gainesville. 7. General Internal Medicine and Geriatrics and Preventive Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Accelerometry has become the gold standard for evaluating physical activity in the health sciences. An important feature of using this technology is the cutpoint for determining moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) because this is a key component of exercise prescription. This article focused on evaluating what cutpoint is appropriate for use with older adults70-89 years who are physically compromised. METHODS: The analyses are based on data collected from the Lifestyle Interventions and Independence for Elders (LIFE) study. Accelerometry data were collected during a 40-minute, overground, walking exercise session in a subset of participants at four sites; we also used 1-week baseline and 6-month accelerometry data collected in the main trial. RESULTS: There was extreme variability in median counts per minute (CPM) achieved during a controlled bout of exercise (n = 140; median = 1,220 CPM (25th, 75th percentile = 715, 1,930 CPM). An equation combining age, age(2), and 400 m gait speed explained 61% of the variance in CPM achieved during this session. When applied to the LIFE accelerometry data (n = 1,448), the use of an individually tailored cutpoint based on this equation resulted in markedly different patterns of MVPA as compared with using standard fixed cutpoints. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study have important implications for the use and interpretations of accelerometry data and in the design/delivery of physical activity interventions with older adults.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Accelerometry has become the gold standard for evaluating physical activity in the health sciences. An important feature of using this technology is the cutpoint for determining moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) because this is a key component of exercise prescription. This article focused on evaluating what cutpoint is appropriate for use with older adults 70-89 years who are physically compromised. METHODS: The analyses are based on data collected from the Lifestyle Interventions and Independence for Elders (LIFE) study. Accelerometry data were collected during a 40-minute, overground, walking exercise session in a subset of participants at four sites; we also used 1-week baseline and 6-month accelerometry data collected in the main trial. RESULTS: There was extreme variability in median counts per minute (CPM) achieved during a controlled bout of exercise (n = 140; median = 1,220 CPM (25th, 75th percentile = 715, 1,930 CPM). An equation combining age, age(2), and 400 m gait speed explained 61% of the variance in CPM achieved during this session. When applied to the LIFE accelerometry data (n = 1,448), the use of an individually tailored cutpoint based on this equation resulted in markedly different patterns of MVPA as compared with using standard fixed cutpoints. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study have important implications for the use and interpretations of accelerometry data and in the design/delivery of physical activity interventions with older adults.
Authors: Neville Owen; Phillip B Sparling; Geneviève N Healy; David W Dunstan; Charles E Matthews Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 7.616
Authors: Mark G Abel; James C Hannon; Katie Sell; Tia Lillie; Geri Conlin; David Anderson Journal: Appl Physiol Nutr Metab Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 2.665
Authors: Jennifer A Schrack; Vadim Zipunnikov; Jeff Goldsmith; Jiawei Bai; Eleanor M Simonsick; Ciprian Crainiceanu; Luigi Ferrucci Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2013-12-14 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Genevieve N Healy; David W Dunstan; Jo Salmon; Ester Cerin; Jonathan E Shaw; Paul Z Zimmet; Neville Owen Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2007-05-01 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Anthony P Marsh; Laura C Lovato; Nancy W Glynn; Kimberly Kennedy; Cynthia Castro; Kathryn Domanchuk; Erica McDavitt; Ruben Rodate; Michael Marsiske; Joanne McGloin; Erik J Groessl; Marco Pahor; Jack M Guralnik Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2013-05-28 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Abby C King; Ines Campero; Jylana L Sheats; Cynthia M Castro Sweet; Dulce Garcia; Aldo Chazaro; German Blanco; Michelle Hauser; Fernando Fierros; David K Ahn; Jose Diaz; Monica Done; Juan Fernandez; Timothy Bickmore Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2017-07-22 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Jason Fanning; W Jack Rejeski; Shyh-Huei Chen; Barbara J Nicklas; Michael P Walkup; Robert S Axtell; Roger A Fielding; Nancy W Glynn; Abby C King; Todd M Manini; Mary M McDermott; Anne B Newman; Marco Pahor; Catrine Tudor-Locke; Michael E Miller Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2019-10-04 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Jennifer A Schrack; Pei-Lun Kuo; Amal A Wanigatunga; Junrui Di; Eleanor M Simonsick; Adam P Spira; Luigi Ferrucci; Vadim Zipunnikov Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2019-03-14 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Jennifer A Schrack; Andrew Leroux; Jerome L Fleg; Vadim Zipunnikov; Eleanor M Simonsick; Stephanie A Studenski; Ciprian Crainiceanu; Luigi Ferrucci Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2018-04-17 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Robert T Mankowski; Stephen D Anton; Robert Axtell; Shyh-Huei Chen; Roger A Fielding; Nancy W Glynn; Fang-Chi Hsu; Abby C King; Andrew S Layne; Christiaan Leeuwenburgh; Todd M Manini; Anthony P Marsh; Marco Pahor; Catrine Tudor-Locke; David E Conroy; Thomas W Buford Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2017-08-11 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Andrew S Layne; Fang-Chi Hsu; Steven N Blair; Shyh-Huei Chen; Jennifer Dungan; Roger A Fielding; Nancy W Glynn; Alexandra M Hajduk; Abby C King; Todd M Manini; Anthony P Marsh; Marco Pahor; Christine A Pellegrini; Thomas W Buford Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2016-08-25 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Jason Fanning; W Jack Rejeski; Shyh-Huei Chen; Jack Guralnik; Marco Pahor; Michael E Miller Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2020-03-20 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: W Jack Rejeski; Michael P Walkup; Roger A Fielding; Abby C King; Todd Manini; Anthony P Marsh; Mary McDermott; Emily Y Miller; Anne B Newman; Catrine Tudor-Locke; Robert S Axtell; Michael E Miller Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2018-04-17 Impact factor: 6.053