Dale S. Bond

Bio: Dale S. Bond is an academic researcher from Brown University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Weight loss & Migraine. The author has an hindex of 38, co-authored 146 publications receiving 5945 citations. Previous affiliations of Dale S. Bond include Virginia Commonwealth University & University of Gothenburg.

Letter to the Editor: Standardized use of the terms "sedentary" and "sedentary behaviours"

Abstract: There has recently been an increase in research related to the health impact of sedentary behaviour (e.g., sitting) (Tremblay et al. 2010). Numerous studies suggest that those who engage in high amounts of sedentary behaviour can be at increased risk of morbidity and mortality regardless of their level of moderateto vigorous-intensity physical activity (MVPA) (Dunstan et al. 2010; Grøntved and Hu 2011; Katzmarzyk et al. 2009; Thorp et al. 2011; Wijndaele et al. 2011). Further, it has been noted that there is often little association between sedentary behaviour and MVPA (Biddle et al. 2004; Ekelund et al. 2006) and that it is possible for an individual to accumulate large amounts of both MVPA and sedentary behaviour in the course of a day (Healy et al. 2008; Katzmarzyk et al. 2009; Owen et al. 2010; Tremblay et al. 2010; Wong and Leatherdale 2008). Taken together, these findings suggest that too much sitting and too little MVPA represent separate and distinct risk factors for chronic, noncommunicable diseases (e.g., cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer). While research into the biology and health impact of sedentary behaviour represents an exciting new field of study, current inconsistencies in terminology are confusing for students, researchers, policymakers, and the general public. In short, the term “sedentary” currently has two separate and contradictory operational definitions. In this emerging field of research, sedentary behaviours are typically defined by both low energy expenditure (e.g., resting metabolic rate, typically ≤1.5 metabolic equivalents (METs)) and a sitting or reclining posture (Owen et al. 2010; Pate et al. 2008; Tremblay et al. 2010). In this context, a person may be described as sedentary if they engage in a large amount of sedentary behaviour. In contrast, in the sport and exercise literature the term sedentary is frequently used to describe the absence of some threshold of MVPA (Church et al. 2009; Melanson et al. 2009; Mullen et al. 2011; Sims et al. 2012; Smith et al. 2010). Thus, it is common for researchers in this field to describe a participant as sedentary because they are not meeting physical activity guidelines. Hence, many exercise studies include a “sedentary control group” or refer to their participants as coming from a “sedentary population” because of their lack of physical activity without actually measuring or assessing their level of sedentary behaviour. It is not difficult to see how these conflicting definitions of the term sedentary can easily lead to confusion. When reading the title or abstract of an article, it is often difficult to ascertain which definition of sedentary the authors have employed. If an article focuses on the health impact of a “sedentary lifestyle”, are they concerned with excessive sitting–lying down, the lack of physical activity, or both? Further, it is surprisingly common for articles within a given academic journal to oscillate between one definition and the other. To prevent further confusion, we propose that journal editors adopt a consistent definition of the term sedentary and require that all manuscripts published within their journal adhere to this common terminology. We suggest that journals formally define sedentary behaviour as any waking behaviour characterized by an energy expenditure ≤1.5 METs while in a sitting or reclining posture. In contrast, we suggest that authors use the term “inactive” to describe those who are performing insufficient amounts of MVPA (i.e., not meeting specified physical activity guidelines). The formal adoption of the above definitions by journal editors and reviewers would greatly improve the clarity of research and discussion related to these important health behaviours and help researchers searching for studies specific to sedentary behaviour or physical inactivity. We hope the research community will support these definitions and we look forward to further improvements in our understanding of the health impacts of sedentary behaviour and physical activity.

Becoming physically active after bariatric surgery is associated with improved weight loss and health-related quality of life.

Abstract: The purpose of this study was to determine whether pre- to postoperative increases in physical activity (PA) are associated with weight loss and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) following bariatric surgery. Participants were 199 Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) surgery patients. The International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) was used to categorize participants into three groups according to their preoperative and /1-year postoperative PA level: (i) Inactive/Active ( or=200-min/week), (ii) Active/Active (>or=200-min/week/>or=200-min/week) and (iii) Inactive/Inactive (<200-min/week/<200-min/week). The Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 (SF-36) was used to assess HRQoL. Analyses of covariance were conducted to examine the effects of PA group on weight and HRQoL changes. Inactive/Active participants, compared with Inactive/Inactive individuals, had greater reductions in weight (52.5 +/- 15.4 vs. 46.4 +/- 12.8 kg) and BMI (18.9 +/- 4.6 vs. 16.9 +/- 4.2 kg/m(2)). Weight loss outcomes in the Inactive/Active and Active/Active groups were similar to each other. Inactive/Active and Active/Active participants reported greater improvements than Inactive/Inactive participants on the mental component summary (MCS) score and the general health, vitality and mental health domains (P < 0.01). Although the direction of causation is not clear, these findings suggest that RYGB patients who become active postoperatively achieve weight losses and HRQoL improvements that are greater than those experienced by patients who remain inactive and comparable to those attained by patients who stay active. Future randomized controlled trials should examine whether assisting patients who are inactive preoperatively to increase their PA postoperatively contributes to optimization of weight loss and HRQoL outcomes.

Pre- to postoperative physical activity changes in bariatric surgery patients: self report vs. objective measures.

Abstract: Bariatric surgery patients report significant pre- to postoperative increases in physical activity (PA). However, it is unclear whether objective measures would corroborate these changes. The present study compared self-reported and accelerometer-based estimates of changes in moderate-to-vigorous intensity PA (MVPA) from pre- (pre-op) to 6 months postsurgery (post-op). Twenty bariatric surgery (65% laparoscopic-adjustable gastric banding, 35% gastric bypass) patients (46.2 ± 9.8 years, 88% female, pre-op BMI = 50.8 ± 9.7 kg/m2) wore RT3 accelerometers as an objective measure of MVPA and completed the Paffenbarger Physical Activity Questionnaire (PPAQ) as a subjective measure before and 6 months after bariatric surgery. Time (min/week) spent in MVPA was calculated for the PPAQ and RT3 (≥1-min and ≥10-min bouts) at pre-op and post-op. Self-reported MVPA increased fivefold from pre-op to post-op (44.6 ± 80.8 to 212.3 ± 212.4 min/week; P < 0.005). By contrast, the RT3 showed nonsignificant decreases in MVPA for both ≥1-min (186.0 ± 169.0 to 151.2 ± 118.3 min/week) and ≥10-min (41.3 ± 109.3 to 39.8 ± 71.3 min/ week) bouts. At pre-op, the percentage of participants who accumulated ≥150-min/week of MVPA in bouts ≥10-min according to the PPAQ and RT3 was identical (10%). However, at post-op, 55% of participants reported compliance with the recommendation compared to 5% based on RT3 measurement (P = 0.002). Objectively-measured changes in MVPA from pre-op to 6 months post-op appear to be much smaller than self-reported changes. Further research involving larger samples is needed to confirm these findings and to determine whether self-report and objective PA measures are differentially associated with surgical weight loss outcomes.

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

Abstract: 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

Applied Longitudinal Data Analysis Modeling Change And Event Occurrence

Abstract: Thank you very much for downloading applied longitudinal data analysis modeling change and event occurrence. As you may know, people have look hundreds times for their favorite novels like this applied longitudinal data analysis modeling change and event occurrence, but end up in malicious downloads. Rather than enjoying a good book with a cup of coffee in the afternoon, instead they are facing with some infectious virus inside their computer.

Cardiovascular effects of intensive lifestyle intervention in type 2 diabetes.

Abstract: In 16 study centers in the United States, we randomly assigned 5145 overweight or obese patients with type 2 diabetes to participate in an intensive lifestyle interven tion that promoted weight loss through decreased caloric intake and increased physical activity (intervention group) or to receive diabetes support and education (control group). The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascu lar causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for angina during a maximum follow-up of 13.5 years. Results The trial was stopped early on the basis of a futility analysis when the median fol low-up was 9.6 years. Weight loss was greater in the intervention group than in the control group throughout the study (8.6% vs. 0.7% at 1 year; 6.0% vs. 3.5% at study end). The intensive lifestyle intervention also produced greater reductions in gly cated hemoglobin and greater initial improvements in fitness and all cardiovascular risk factors, except for low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol levels. The primary outcome occurred in 403 patients in the intervention group and in 418 in the control group (1.83 and 1.92 events per 100 person-years, respectively; hazard ratio in the intervention group, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.83 to 1.09; P = 0.51). Conclusions An intensive lifestyle intervention focusing on weight loss did not reduce the rate of cardiovascular events in overweight or obese adults with type 2 diabetes. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and others; Look AHEAD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00017953.)

Sedentary behavior research network (SBRN) - terminology consensus project process and outcome

Abstract: Background: The prominence of sedentary behavior research in health science has grown rapidly. With this growth there is increasing urgency for clear, common and accepted terminology and definitions. Such standardization is difficult to achieve, especially across multi-disciplinary researchers, practitioners, and industries. The Sedentary Behavior Research Network (SBRN) undertook a Terminology Consensus Project to address this need. Method: First, a literature review was completed to identify key terms in sedentary behavior research. These key terms were then reviewed and modified by a Steering Committee formed by SBRN. Next, SBRN members were invited to contribute to this project and interested participants reviewed and provided feedback on the proposed list of terms and draft definitions through an online survey. Finally, a conceptual model and consensus definitions (including caveats and examples for all age groups and functional abilities) were finalized based on the feedback received from the 87 SBRN member participants who responded to the original invitation and survey. Results: Consensus definitions for the terms physical inactivity, stationary behavior, sedentary behavior, standing, screen time, non-screen-based sedentary time, sitting, reclining, lying, sedentary behavior pattern, as well as how the terms bouts, breaks, and interruptions should be used in this context are provided. Conclusion: It is hoped that the definitions resulting from this comprehensive, transparent, and broad-based participatory process will result in standardized terminology that is widely supported and adopted, thereby advancing future research, interventions, policies, and practices related to sedentary behaviors.