Examination of a composite walking measure to inform physical activity guidelines for improving or maintaining cognitive functioning

BackgroundFewer than half of all U.S. adults achieve recommended levels of aerobic activity (150 minutes or more at moderate intensity) (CDC, 2013; USDHHS, 2018). Information related to frequency, dose, duration, and intensity of walking needed to positively impact cognitive function in older adults remains unclear in current U.S. Physical Activity Guidelines (Piercey et al., 2018; Paterson et al., 2010). A paucity of studies have been conducted which examine the association between physical activity (PA), much less PA types, and cognitive function, using a longitudinal, population‐based approach with a racially diverse sample, which limits generalizability of existing findings. Self‐report PA measures often evaluate types of walking separately (e.g., walking for exercise, leisure time, occupational, transportation‐related), without considering total effect of all types of walking on cognitive function. A composite walking measure could provide a more comprehensive picture of perceived daily walking. We examine the association between composite walking and cognitive function and perceptual speed among participants in the Chicago Health and Aging Project (CHAP) over time.MethodCHAP is a longitudinal, population‐based study, which examined risk factors of Alzheimer’s Disease and chronic conditions among diverse older adults (Bienas et al., 2003). Data collection included self‐report walking frequency and duration, demographics, chronic conditions, cognitive activities, APOE ϵ4, and cognitive function during three‐year cycles. A composite walking measure was developed. Composite walking was divided into three categories determined by sample size: no walking, 105 minutes/ week of walking. Mixed effects regression analyses were conducted to test the association between walking and cognitive function and perceptual speed.ResultThe sample consists of N=4,320 CHAP participants (Black/ African American: 65%; Female: 65%; Mean Education: 13 years; Mean Age: 75 years). Findings show that composite walking had a statistically significant association with global cognitive function (category 2 β=.0084, p=.0389; category 3 β=.0099, p=.0187) and perceptual speed (category 2 β=.0117, p=.0164; category 3 β=.0162, p=.0013), after controlling for covariates.ConclusionAlthough it is best to follow PA guidelines, walking for lesser than the recommended amount may still be beneficial for cognitive function, which is useful for promotion of PA among sedentary older adults.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/163936/1/alz044064.pd

Sedentary Behavior Research Network (SBRN) - Terminology Consensus Project process and outcome

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