Danielle Arigo1, Jacqueline A Mogle2, Megan M Brown1, Savannah R Roberts3, Kristen Pasko1, Meghan L Butryn4, Danielle Symons Downs5. 1. Department of Psychology, Rowan University, Glassboro, NJ. 2. Prevention Research Center, Penn State University, University Park, PA. 3. Department of Psychology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA. 4. Department of Psychology, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA. 5. Departments of Kinesiology and OB/GYN, Penn State University, University Park, PA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Midlife women experience elevated risk for cardiovascular disease and often receive advice to increase physical activity to mitigate this risk. Use of accelerometers to measure ambulatory physical activity requires selection of appropriate thresholds for estimating moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA), and choice of cut points may lead to meaningfully different conclusions about midlife women's physical activity (PA) engagement. This is particularly important given the recent elimination of 10-minute bout requirements for MVPA. This two-phase study examined differences between four cut point methods among midlife women with cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. We used findings from Study 1 (exploratory) to generate hypotheses for Study 2 (confirmatory). METHODS: Across studies, participants (N = 65) were midlife women with an additional CVD risk factor (eg, hypertension). Participants wore waistband accelerometers for seven days. Daily totals were calculated for minutes in light and MVPA using four common quantification methods (Freedson, Matthews, Swartz, and Troiano). RESULTS: Multilevel models showed meaningful differences between methods (P < 0.0001). For total (non-bouted) minutes of MVPA, Freedson and Troiano methods showed that participants barely met MVPA recommendations (30 min per day), whereas Matthews and Swartz methods showed that participants greatly exceeded this goal. As differences between methods were smaller using MVPA bouts of 10 minutes or more (though remained significant), the observed variation was due in part to small bursts of MVPA dispersed throughout the day. CONCLUSIONS: Findings demonstrate the need for careful consideration of PA quantification among midlife women with CVD risk, and for further investigation to determine the most appropriate quantification method. : Video Summary:http://links.lww.com/MENO/A545.
OBJECTIVE: Midlife women experience elevated risk for cardiovascular disease and often receive advice to increase physical activity to mitigate this risk. Use of accelerometers to measure ambulatory physical activity requires selection of appropriate thresholds for estimating moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA), and choice of cut points may lead to meaningfully different conclusions about midlife women's physical activity (PA) engagement. This is particularly important given the recent elimination of 10-minute bout requirements for MVPA. This two-phase study examined differences between four cut point methods among midlife women with cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. We used findings from Study 1 (exploratory) to generate hypotheses for Study 2 (confirmatory). METHODS: Across studies, participants (N = 65) were midlife women with an additional CVD risk factor (eg, hypertension). Participants wore waistband accelerometers for seven days. Daily totals were calculated for minutes in light and MVPA using four common quantification methods (Freedson, Matthews, Swartz, and Troiano). RESULTS: Multilevel models showed meaningful differences between methods (P < 0.0001). For total (non-bouted) minutes of MVPA, Freedson and Troiano methods showed that participants barely metMVPA recommendations (30 min per day), whereas Matthews and Swartz methods showed that participants greatly exceeded this goal. As differences between methods were smaller using MVPA bouts of 10 minutes or more (though remained significant), the observed variation was due in part to small bursts of MVPA dispersed throughout the day. CONCLUSIONS: Findings demonstrate the need for careful consideration of PA quantification among midlife women with CVD risk, and for further investigation to determine the most appropriate quantification method. : Video Summary:http://links.lww.com/MENO/A545.
Authors: Charles E Matthews; Kong Y Chen; Patty S Freedson; Maciej S Buchowski; Bettina M Beech; Russell R Pate; Richard P Troiano Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2008-02-25 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Erreka Gil-Rey; Sara Maldonado-Martín; Natalia Palacios-Samper; Esteban M Gorostiaga Journal: Eur J Sport Sci Date: 2018-11-08 Impact factor: 4.050
Authors: Jorge A Banda; Brent Hutto; Anna Feeney; Karin A Pfeiffer; Kerry McIver; Michael J Lamonte; Steven N Blair; John Vena; Steven P Hooker Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Sandahl H Nelson; Loki Natarajan; Ruth E Patterson; Sheri J Hartman; Caroline A Thompson; Suneeta V Godbole; Eileen Johnson; Catherine R Marinac; Jacqueline Kerr Journal: Am J Health Behav Date: 2019-05-01
Authors: Meghan L Butryn; Mary K Martinelli; Jocelyn E Remmert; Savannah R Roberts; Fengqing Zhang; Evan M Forman; Stephanie M Manasse Journal: Ann Behav Med Date: 2019-08-29
Authors: Tiego A Diniz; Fabricio E Rossi; Clara Suemi da Costa Rosa; Jorge Mota; Ismael F Freitas-Junior Journal: J Aging Phys Act Date: 2016-08-24 Impact factor: 1.961
Authors: Ralph Maddison; Yannan Jiang; Louise Foley; Robert Scragg; Artur Direito; Timothy Olds Journal: J Sci Med Sport Date: 2015-08-15 Impact factor: 4.319
Authors: Danielle Arigo; Kelly A Romano; Kristen Pasko; Laura Travers; M Cole Ainsworth; Daija A Jackson; Megan M Brown Journal: Front Psychol Date: 2022-09-21
Authors: Danielle Arigo; Megan M Brown; Kristen Pasko; Matthew Cole Ainsworth; Laura Travers; Adarsh Gupta; Danielle Symons Downs; Joshua M Smyth Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2020-10-15