CRAIG, C. L., A. L. MARSHALL, M. SJOSTROM, A. E. BAUMAN, M. L. BOOTH, B. E. AINSWORTH, M. PRATT, U. EKELUND, A. YNGVE, J. F. SALLIS, and P. OJA. International Physical Activity Questionnaire: 12-Country Reliability and Validity. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., Vol. 35, No. 8, pp. 1381-1395, 2003. Background: Physical inactivity is a global concern, but diverse physical activity measures in use prevent international comparisons. The International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) was developed as an instrument for cross-national monitoring of physical activity and inactivity. Methods: Between 1997 and 1998, an International Consensus Group developed four long and four short forms of the IPAQ instruments (administered by telephone interview or self-administration, with two alternate reference periods, either the "last 7 d" or a "usual week" of recalled physical activity). During 2000, 14 centers from 12 countries collected reliability and/or validity data on at least two of the eight IPAQ instruments. Test-retest repeatability was assessed within the same week. Concurrent (inter-method) validity was assessed at the same administration, and criterion IPAQ validity was assessed against the CSA (now MTI) accelerometer. Spearman's correlation coefficients are reported, based on the total reported physical activity. Results: Overall, the IPAQ questionnaires produced repeatable data (Spearman's clustered around 0.8), with comparable data from short and long forms. Criterion validity had a median of about 0.30, which was comparable to most other self-report validation studies. The "usual week" and "last 7 d" reference periods performed similarly, and the reliability of telephone administration was similar to the self-administered mode. Conclusions: The IPAQ instruments have acceptable measurement properties, at least as good as other established self-reports. Considering the diverse samples in this study, IPAQ has reasonable measurement properties for monitoring population levels of physical activity among 18- to 65-yr-old adults in diverse settings. The short IPAQ form "last 7 d recall" is recommended for national monitoring and the long form for research requiring more detailed assessment. Key Words: MEASUREMENT, SURVEILLANCE, EPIDEMIOLOGY

/pdf/international-physical-activity-questionnaire-12-country-3yuciy7gb2.pdf

International physical activity questionnaire: 12-country reliability and validity

The purpose of this Position Stand is to provide guidance to professionals who counsel and prescribe individualized exercise to apparently healthy adults of all ages. These recommendations also may apply to adults with certain chronic diseases or disabilities, when appropriately evaluated and advised by a health professional. This document supersedes the 1998 American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) Position Stand, "The Recommended Quantity and Quality of Exercise for Developing and Maintaining Cardiorespiratory and Muscular Fitness, and Flexibility in Healthy Adults." The scientific evidence demonstrating the beneficial effects of exercise is indisputable, and the benefits of exercise far outweigh the risks in most adults. A program of regular exercise that includes cardiorespiratory, resistance, flexibility, and neuromotor exercise training beyond activities of daily living to improve and maintain physical fitness and health is essential for most adults. The ACSM recommends that most adults engage in moderate-intensity cardiorespiratory exercise training for ≥30 min·d on ≥5 d·wk for a total of ≥150 min·wk, vigorous-intensity cardiorespiratory exercise training for ≥20 min·d on ≥3 d·wk (≥75 min·wk), or a combination of moderate- and vigorous-intensity exercise to achieve a total energy expenditure of ≥500-1000 MET·min·wk. On 2-3 d·wk, adults should also perform resistance exercises for each of the major muscle groups, and neuromotor exercise involving balance, agility, and coordination. Crucial to maintaining joint range of movement, completing a series of flexibility exercises for each the major muscle-tendon groups (a total of 60 s per exercise) on ≥2 d·wk is recommended. The exercise program should be modified according to an individual's habitual physical activity, physical function, health status, exercise responses, and stated goals. Adults who are unable or unwilling to meet the exercise targets outlined here still can benefit from engaging in amounts of exercise less than recommended. In addition to exercising regularly, there are health benefits in concurrently reducing total time engaged in sedentary pursuits and also by interspersing frequent, short bouts of standing and physical activity between periods of sedentary activity, even in physically active adults. Behaviorally based exercise interventions, the use of behavior change strategies, supervision by an experienced fitness instructor, and exercise that is pleasant and enjoyable can improve adoption and adherence to prescribed exercise programs. Educating adults about and screening for signs and symptoms of CHD and gradual progression of exercise intensity and volume may reduce the risks of exercise. Consultations with a medical professional and diagnostic exercise testing for CHD are useful when clinically indicated but are not recommended for universal screening to enhance the safety of exercise.

/pdf/quantity-and-quality-of-exercise-for-developing-and-1fohxlhqop.pdf

Quantity and Quality of Exercise for Developing and Maintaining Cardiorespiratory, Musculoskeletal, and Neuromotor Fitness in Apparently Healthy Adults: Guidance for Prescribing Exercise

WRITING GROUP MEMBERS Emelia J. Benjamin, MD, SCM, FAHA Michael J. Blaha, MD, MPH Stephanie E. Chiuve, ScD Mary Cushman, MD, MSc, FAHA Sandeep R. Das, MD, MPH, FAHA Rajat Deo, MD, MTR Sarah D. de Ferranti, MD, MPH James Floyd, MD, MS Myriam Fornage, PhD, FAHA Cathleen Gillespie, MS Carmen R. Isasi, MD, PhD, FAHA Monik C. Jiménez, ScD, SM Lori Chaffin Jordan, MD, PhD Suzanne E. Judd, PhD Daniel Lackland, DrPH, FAHA Judith H. Lichtman, PhD, MPH, FAHA Lynda Lisabeth, PhD, MPH, FAHA Simin Liu, MD, ScD, FAHA Chris T. Longenecker, MD Rachel H. Mackey, PhD, MPH, FAHA Kunihiro Matsushita, MD, PhD, FAHA Dariush Mozaffarian, MD, DrPH, FAHA Michael E. Mussolino, PhD, FAHA Khurram Nasir, MD, MPH, FAHA Robert W. Neumar, MD, PhD, FAHA Latha Palaniappan, MD, MS, FAHA Dilip K. Pandey, MBBS, MS, PhD, FAHA Ravi R. Thiagarajan, MD, MPH Mathew J. Reeves, PhD Matthew Ritchey, PT, DPT, OCS, MPH Carlos J. Rodriguez, MD, MPH, FAHA Gregory A. Roth, MD, MPH Wayne D. Rosamond, PhD, FAHA Comilla Sasson, MD, PhD, FAHA Amytis Towfighi, MD Connie W. Tsao, MD, MPH Melanie B. Turner, MPH Salim S. Virani, MD, PhD, FAHA Jenifer H. Voeks, PhD Joshua Z. Willey, MD, MS John T. Wilkins, MD Jason HY. Wu, MSc, PhD, FAHA Heather M. Alger, PhD Sally S. Wong, PhD, RD, CDN, FAHA Paul Muntner, PhD, MHSc On behalf of the American Heart Association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics—2017 Update

Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics—2017 Update: A Report From the American Heart Association

Summary—In 1995 the American College of Sports Medicine and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published national guidelines on Physical Activity and Public Health The Committee on Exercise and Cardiac Rehabilitation of the American Heart Association endorsed and supported these recommendations The purpose of the present report is to update and clarify the 1995 recommendations on the types and amounts of physical activity needed by healthy adults to improve and maintain health Development of this document was by an expert panel of scientists, including physicians, epidemiologists, exercise scientists, and public health specialists This panel reviewed advances in pertinent physiologic, epidemiologic, and clinical scientific data, including primary research articles and reviews published since the original recommendation was issued in 1995 Issues considered by the panel included new scientific evidence relating physical activity to health, physical activity recommendations by various organizations in the interim, and communications issues Key points related to updating the physical activity recommendation were outlined and writing groups were formed A draft manuscript was prepared and circulated for review to the expert panel as well as to outside experts Comments were integrated into the final recommendation Primary Recommendation—To promote and maintain health, all healthy adults aged 18 to 65 yr need moderate-intensity aerobic (endurance) physical activity for a minimum of 30 min on five days each week or vigorous-intensity aerobic physical activity for a minimum of 20 min on three days each week [I (A)] Combinations of moderate- and vigorous-intensity activity can be performed to meet this recommendation [IIa (B)] For example, a person can meet the recommendation by walking briskly for 30 min twice during the week and then jogging for 20 min on two other days Moderate-intensity aerobic activity, which is generally equivalent to a brisk walk and noticeably accelerates the heart rate, can be accumulated toward the 30-min minimum by performing bouts each lasting 10 or more minutes [I (B)] Vigorous-intensity activity is exemplified by jogging, and causes rapid breathing and a substantial increase in heart rate In addition, every adult should perform activities that maintain or increase muscular strength and endurance a minimum of two days each week [IIa (A)] Because of the dose-response relation between physical activity and health, persons who wish to further improve their personal fitness, reduce their risk for chronic diseases and disabilities or prevent unhealthy weight gain may benefit by exceeding the minimum recommended amounts of physical activity [I (A)] (Circulation 2007;116:1081-1093)

/pdf/physical-activity-and-public-health-updated-recommendation-5ar650n64d.pdf

Physical Activity and Public Health Updated Recommendation for Adults From the American College of Sports Medicine and the American Heart Association

Author(s): Writing Group Members; Mozaffarian, Dariush; Benjamin, Emelia J; Go, Alan S; Arnett, Donna K; Blaha, Michael J; Cushman, Mary; Das, Sandeep R; de Ferranti, Sarah; Despres, Jean-Pierre; Fullerton, Heather J; Howard, Virginia J; Huffman, Mark D; Isasi, Carmen R; Jimenez, Monik C; Judd, Suzanne E; Kissela, Brett M; Lichtman, Judith H; Lisabeth, Lynda D; Liu, Simin; Mackey, Rachel H; Magid, David J; McGuire, Darren K; Mohler, Emile R; Moy, Claudia S; Muntner, Paul; Mussolino, Michael E; Nasir, Khurram; Neumar, Robert W; Nichol, Graham; Palaniappan, Latha; Pandey, Dilip K; Reeves, Mathew J; Rodriguez, Carlos J; Rosamond, Wayne; Sorlie, Paul D; Stein, Joel; Towfighi, Amytis; Turan, Tanya N; Virani, Salim S; Woo, Daniel; Yeh, Robert W; Turner, Melanie B; American Heart Association Statistics Committee; Stroke Statistics Subcommittee

Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics—2016 Update: A Report From the American Heart Association

We provide an updated version of the Compendium of Physical Activities, a coding scheme that classifies specific physical activity (PA) by rate of energy expenditure. It was developed to enhance the comparability of results across studies using self-reports of PA. The Compendium coding scheme links a five-digit code that describes physical activities by major headings (e.g., occupation, transportation, etc.) and specific activities within each major heading with its intensity, defined as the ratio of work metabolic rate to a standard resting metabolic rate (MET). Energy expenditure in MET-minutes, MET-hours, kcal, or kcal per kilogram body weight can be estimated for specific activities by type or MET intensity. Additions to the Compendium were obtained from studies describing daily PA patterns of adults and studies measuring the energy cost of specific physical activities in field settings. The updated version includes two new major headings of volunteer and religious activities, extends the number of specific activities from 477 to 605, and provides updated MET intensity levels for selected activities.

http://www.lisaworkman.com/uploads/3/1/7/1/3171788/ainsworth_et_al._2000_-_msse.pdf

Compendium of physical activities: an update of activity codes and MET intensities.

The deleterious health consequences of physical inactivity are vast, and they are of paramount clinical and research importance. Risk identification, benchmarks, efficacy, and evaluation of physical activity behavior change initiatives for clinicians and researchers all require a clear understanding of how to assess physical activity. In the present report, we have provided a clear rationale for the importance of assessing physical activity levels, and we have documented key concepts in understanding the different dimensions, domains, and terminology associated with physical activity measurement. The assessment methods presented allow for a greater understanding of the vast number of options available to clinicians and researchers when trying to assess physical activity levels in their patients or participants. The primary outcome desired is the main determining factor in the choice of physical activity assessment method. In combination with issues of feasibility/practicality, the availability of resources, and administration considerations, the desired outcome guides the choice of an appropriate assessment tool. The decision matrix, along with the accompanying tables, provides a mechanism for this selection that takes all of these factors into account. Clearly, the assessment method adopted and implemented will vary depending on circumstances, because there is no single best instrument appropriate for every situation. In summary, physical activity assessment should be considered a vital health measure that is tracked regularly over time. All other major modifiable cardiovascular risk factors (diabetes mellitus, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, obesity, and smoking) are assessed routinely. Physical activity status should also be assessed regularly. Multiple physical activity assessment methods provide reasonably accurate outcome measures, with choices dependent on setting-specific resources and constraints. The present scientific statement provides a guide to allow professionals to make a goal-specific selection of a meaningful physical activity assessment method.

Guide to the Assessment of Physical Activity: Clinical and Research Applications A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

PURPOSE Cross-sectional studies show that individuals who walk more tend to be thinner than those who walk less. This does not mean, however, that the associa- tion between higher step counts and lower weight is causal or that encouraging sedentary individuals to increase step counts helps them lose weight. METHODS In this meta-analysis, we searched 6 electronic databases and contacted pedometer experts to identify pedometer-based walking studies without a dietary intervention that reported weight change as an outcome. We included randomized controlled trials and prospective cohort studies published after January 1, 1995, in either English or Japanese, with 5 or more adult participants and at least 1 cohort enrolled in a pedometer-based walking intervention lasting at least 4 weeks. RESULTS Nine studies met the study inclusion criteria. Cohort sample size ranged from 15 to 106, for a total of 307 participants, 73% of whom were women and 27% of whom were men. The duration of the intervention ranged from 4 weeks to 1 year, with a median duration of 16 weeks. The pooled estimate of mean weight change from baseline using a fi xed-effects model and combining data from all 9 cohorts was -1.27 kg (95% confi dence interval, -1.85 to -0.70 kg). Longer intervention duration was associated with greater weight change. On average, participants lost 0.05 kg per week during the interventions. CONCLUSION Pedometer-based walking programs result in a modest amount of weight loss. Longer programs lead to more weight loss than shorter programs.

/pdf/a-meta-analysis-of-pedometer-based-walking-interventions-and-5g5gq976yv.pdf

A Meta-Analysis of Pedometer-Based Walking Interventions and Weight Loss

AINSWORTH, B. E., D. R. BASSETT, JR., S. J. STRATH, A. M. SWARTZ, W. L. O’BRIEN, R. W. THOMPSON, D. A. JONES, C. A. MACERA, and C. D. KIMSEY. Comparison of three methods for measuring time spent in physical activity. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., Vol. 32, No. 9, Suppl., pp. S457–S464, 2000.PurposeThree m

Comparison of three methods for measuring the time spent in physical activity

STRATH, S. J., D. R. BASSETT, JR., A. M. SWARTZ, and D. L. THOMPSON. Simultaneous heart rate-motion sensor technique to estimate energy expenditure. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., Vol. 33, No. 12, 2001, pp. 2118–2123.
Heart rate (HR) and motion sensors represent promising tools for physical activity (PA) assessment, as each provides an estimate of energy expenditure (EE). Although each has inherent limitations, the simultaneous use of HR and motion sensors may increase the accuracy of EE estimates. The primary purpose of this study was to establish the accuracy of predicting EE from the simultaneous HR-motion sensor technique. In addition, the accuracy of EE estimated by the simultaneous HR-motion sensor technique was compared to that of HR and motion sensors used independently.
Thirty participants (16 men: age, 33.1 ± 12.2 yr; BMI, 26.1 ± 0.7 kg·m−2; and 14 women: age, 31.9 ± 13.1 yr; BMI, 27.2 ± 1.1 kg·m−2 (mean ± SD)) performed arm and leg work in the laboratory for the purpose of developing individualized HR-VO2 regression equations. Participants then performed physical tasks in a field setting for 15 min each. CSA accelerometers placed on the arm and leg were to discriminate between upper and lower body movement, and HR was then used to predict EE (METs) from the corresponding arm or leg laboratory regression equation. A hip-mounted CSA accelerometer and Yamax pedometer were also used to predict EE. Predicted values (METs) were compared to measured values (METs), obtained via a portable metabolic measurement system (Cosmed K4b2).
The Yamax pedometer and the CSA accelerometer on the hip significantly underestimated the energy cost of selected physical activities, whereas HR alone significantly overestimated the energy cost of selected physical activities. The simultaneous HR-motion sensor technique showed the strongest relationship with VO2 (R2 = 0.81) and did not significantly over- or underpredict the energy cost (P = 0.341).
The simultaneous HR-motion sensor technique is a good predictor of EE during selected lifestyle activities, and allows researchers to more accurately quantify free-living PA.

A. M. Swartz

Papers

Compendium of physical activities: an update of activity codes and MET intensities.

Guide to the Assessment of Physical Activity: Clinical and Research Applications A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

A Meta-Analysis of Pedometer-Based Walking Interventions and Weight Loss

Comparison of three methods for measuring the time spent in physical activity

Simultaneous heart rate-motion sensor technique to estimate energy expenditure.