Literature DB >> 30409088

Objectively measured absolute and relative physical activity intensity levels in postmenopausal women.

Erreka Gil-Rey1,2, Sara Maldonado-Martín2, Natalia Palacios-Samper1, Esteban M Gorostiaga1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To investigate how objectively measured physical activity (PA) levels differ according to absolute moderate intensity recommendation (3-6 METs) and relative to individual lactate thresholds (LT1 and LT2), and to verify if high-fit women record higher PA levels compared to women with lower aerobic fitness.
METHODS: Seventy-five postmenopausal women performed an incremental exercise test and several constant-velocity tests wearing an accelerometer to identify the activity counts (ct min-1) corresponding to LT1 and LT2. Individual linear regression determined activity counts cut-points for each intensity: (1) sedentary (<200 ct min-1), (2) light (from 200 ct min-1 to ct min-1 at LT1), (3) moderate (ct min-1 between LT1 and LT2) and (4) vigorous (ct min-1 > LT2). Participants then wore an accelerometer during a week to measure the time spent at each PA intensity level.
RESULTS: According to absolute intensity categorisation, high-fit postmenopausal women recorded twice as much time at moderate-to-vigorous PA (MVPA) (P < 0.01) than low-fit women. However, when PA intensity was calculated relative to individual lactate thresholds, MVPA was significantly reduced by half (P < 0.01) and the data revealed no differences (P = 0.62) between groups (∼20 min day-1 at MVPA).
CONCLUSIONS: Accelerometer cut-points derived from absolute moderate-intensity recommendations overestimated MVPA. Similar time at MVPA was recorded by high- and low-fit postmenopausal women when the cut-points were tailored to individual lactate thresholds. A more accurate estimation of PA behaviour could be provided with the use of individually tailored accelerometer cut-points.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Accelerometry; cardiorespiratory fitness; individually tailored cut-points; moderate-to-vigorous physical activity

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30409088     DOI: 10.1080/17461391.2018.1539528

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Sport Sci        ISSN: 1536-7290            Impact factor:   4.050


  4 in total

1.  Differences between accelerometer cut point methods among midlife women with cardiovascular risk markers.

Authors:  Danielle Arigo; Jacqueline A Mogle; Megan M Brown; Savannah R Roberts; Kristen Pasko; Meghan L Butryn; Danielle Symons Downs
Journal:  Menopause       Date:  2020-05       Impact factor: 2.953

2.  Validity of traditional physical activity intensity calibration methods and the feasibility of self-paced walking and running on individualised calibration of physical activity intensity in children.

Authors:  Eero A Haapala; Ying Gao; Anssi Vanhala; Timo Rantalainen; Taija Finni
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-07-03       Impact factor: 4.379

3.  Associations of fitness, motor competence, and adiposity with the indicators of physical activity intensity during different physical activities in children.

Authors:  Eero A Haapala; Ying Gao; Jani Hartikainen; Timo Rantalainen; Taija Finni
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-06-15       Impact factor: 4.379

4.  Absolute Accelerometer-Based Intensity Prescription Compared to Physiological Variables in Pregnant and Nonpregnant Women.

Authors:  Philipp Birnbaumer; Pavel Dietz; Estelle Dorothy Watson; Gudani Mukoma; Alexander Müller; Matteo Christian Sattler; Johannes Jaunig; Mireille Nicoline Maria van Poppel; Peter Hofmann
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2020-08-05       Impact factor: 3.390

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.