Prospective Association of Daily Steps with Cardiovascular Disease: A Harmonized Meta-Analysis

Background: Taking fewer than the widely promoted “10 000 steps per day” has recently been associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality. The relationship of steps and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk remains poorly described. A meta-analysis examining the dose–response relationship between steps per day and CVD can help inform clinical and public health guidelines. Methods: Eight prospective studies (20 152 adults [ie, ≥18 years of age]) were included with device-measured steps and participants followed for CVD events. Studies quantified steps per day and CVD events were defined as fatal and nonfatal coronary heart disease, stroke, and heart failure. Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were completed using study-specific quartiles and hazard ratios (HR) and 95% CI were meta-analyzed with inverse-variance–weighted random effects models. Results: The mean age of participants was 63.2±12.4 years and 52% were women. The mean follow-up was 6.2 years (123 209 person-years), with a total of 1523 CVD events (12.4 per 1000 participant-years) reported. There was a significant difference in the association of steps per day and CVD between older (ie, ≥60 years of age) and younger adults (ie, <60 years of age). For older adults, the HR for quartile 2 was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.69 to 0.93), 0.62 for quartile 3 (95% CI, 0.52 to 0.74), and 0.51 for quartile 4 (95% CI, 0.41 to 0.63) compared with the lowest quartile. For younger adults, the HR for quartile 2 was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.46 to 1.35), 0.90 for quartile 3 (95% CI, 0.64 to 1.25), and 0.95 for quartile 4 (95% CI, 0.61 to 1.48) compared with the lowest quartile. Restricted cubic splines demonstrated a nonlinear association whereby more steps were associated with decreased risk of CVD among older adults. Conclusions: For older adults, taking more daily steps was associated with a progressively decreased risk of CVD. Monitoring and promoting steps per day is a simple metric for clinician–patient communication and population health to reduce the risk of CVD

Daily steps and all-cause mortality: a meta-analysis of 15 international cohorts

Background Although 10000 steps per day is widely promoted to have health benefits, there is little evidence to support this recommendation. We aimed to determine the association between number of steps per day and stepping rate with all-cause mortality. Methods In this meta-analysis, we identified studies investigating the effect of daily step count on all-cause mortality in adults (aged ≥18 years), via a previously published systematic review and expert knowledge of the field. We asked participating study investigators to process their participant-level data following a standardised protocol. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality collected from death certificates and country registries. We analysed the dose– response association of steps per day and stepping rate with all-cause mortality. We did Cox proportional hazards regression analyses using study-specific quartiles of steps per day and calculated hazard ratios (HRs) with inversevariance weighted random effects models. Findings We identified 15 studies, of which seven were published and eight were unpublished, with study start dates between 1999 and 2018. The total sample included 47 471 adults, among whom there were 3013 deaths (10·1 per 1000 participant-years) over a median follow-up of 7·1 years ([IQR 4·3–9·9]; total sum of follow-up across studies was 297 837 person-years). Quartile median steps per day were 3553 for quartile 1, 5801 for quartile 2, 7842 for quartile 3, and 10 901 for quartile 4. Compared with the lowest quartile, the adjusted HR for all-cause mortality was 0·60 (95% CI 0·51–0·71) for quartile 2, 0·55 (0·49–0·62) for quartile 3, and 0·47 (0·39–0·57) for quartile 4. Restricted cubic splines showed progressively decreasing risk of mortality among adults aged 60 years and older with increasing number of steps per day until 6000–8000 steps per day and among adults younger than 60 years until 8000–10000 steps per day. Adjusting for number of steps per day, comparing quartile 1 with quartile 4, the association between higher stepping rates and mortality was attenuated but remained significant for a peak of 30 min (HR 0·67 [95% CI 0·56–0·83]) and a peak of 60 min (0·67 [0·50–0·90]), but not significant for time (min per day) spent walking at 40 steps per min or faster (1·12 [0·96–1·32]) and 100 steps per min or faster (0·86 [0·58–1·28]). Interpretation Taking more steps per day was associated with a progressively lower risk of all-cause mortality, up to a level that varied by age. The findings from this meta-analysis can be used to inform step guidelines for public health promotion of physical activity

Comparative Analysis of ActiGraph Step Counting Methods in Adults: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE: The primary aim of this study was to compare steps/day across ActiGraph models, wear locations, and filtering methods. A secondary aim was to compare ActiGraph steps/day to those estimated by the ankle-worn StepWatch. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review to identify studies of adults published before May 12, 2022, that compared free-living steps/day of ActiGraph step-counting methods and studies that compared ActiGraph to StepWatch. Random effects meta-analysis compared ActiGraph models, wear locations, filter mechanisms, and ActiGraph to StepWatch steps/day. A sensitivity analysis of wear location by younger and older age was included. RESULTS: Twelve studies, with 46 comparisons, were identified. When worn on the hip, the AM-7164 recorded 123% of the GT series steps (no low-frequency extension (no LFE) or default filter). However, the AM-7164 recorded 72% of the GT series steps when the LFE was enabled. Independent of the filter used (i.e., LFE, no LFE), ActiGraph GT series monitors captured more steps on the wrist than on the hip, especially among older adults. Enabling the LFE on the GT series monitors consistently recorded more steps, regardless of wear location. When using the default filter (no LFE), ActiGraph recorded fewer steps than StepWatch (ActiGraph on hip 73% and ActiGraph on wrist 97% of StepWatch steps). When LFE was enabled, ActiGraph recorded more steps than StepWatch (ActiGraph on the hip 132% and ActiGraph on the wrist 178% of StepWatch steps). CONCLUSIONS: The choice of ActiGraph model, wear location, and filter all impacted steps/day in adults. These can markedly alter the steps recorded compared to a criterion method (StepWatch). This review provides critical insights for comparing studies using different ActiGraph step-counting methods

Daily steps and all-cause mortality: A meta-analysis of 15 international cohorts

Background: Although 10 000 steps per day is widely promoted to have health benefits, there is little evidence to support this recommendation. We aimed to determine the association between number of steps per day and stepping rate with all-cause mortality. Methods: In this meta-analysis, we identified studies investigating the effect of daily step count on all-cause mortality in adults (aged ≥18 years), via a previously published systematic review and expert knowledge of the field. We asked participating study investigators to process their participant-level data following a standardised protocol. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality collected from death certificates and country registries. We analysed the dose–response association of steps per day and stepping rate with all-cause mortality. We did Cox proportional hazards regression analyses using study-specific quartiles of steps per day and calculated hazard ratios (HRs) with inverse-variance weighted random effects models. Findings: We identified 15 studies, of which seven were published and eight were unpublished, with study start dates between 1999 and 2018. The total sample included 47 471 adults, among whom there were 3013 deaths (10·1 per 1000 participant-years) over a median follow-up of 7·1 years ([IQR 4·3–9·9]; total sum of follow-up across studies was 297 837 person-years). Quartile median steps per day were 3553 for quartile 1, 5801 for quartile 2, 7842 for quartile 3, and 10 901 for quartile 4. Compared with the lowest quartile, the adjusted HR for all-cause mortality was 0·60 (95% CI 0·51–0·71) for quartile 2, 0·55 (0·49–0·62) for quartile 3, and 0·47 (0·39–0·57) for quartile 4. Restricted cubic splines showed progressively decreasing risk of mortality among adults aged 60 years and older with increasing number of steps per day until 6000–8000 steps per day and among adults younger than 60 years until 8000–10 000 steps per day. Adjusting for number of steps per day, comparing quartile 1 with quartile 4, the association between higher stepping rates and mortality was attenuated but remained significant for a peak of 30 min (HR 0·67 [95% CI 0·56–0·83]) and a peak of 60 min (0·67 [0·50–0·90]), but not significant for time (min per day) spent walking at 40 steps per min or faster (1·12 [0·96–1·32]) and 100 steps per min or faster (0·86 [0·58–1·28]). Interpretation: Taking more steps per day was associated with a progressively lower risk of all-cause mortality, up to a level that varied by age. The findings from this meta-analysis can be used to inform step guidelines for public health promotion of physical activity

American Cancer Society nutrition and physical activity guideline for cancer survivors

The overall 5-year relative survival rate for all cancers combined is now 68%, and there are over 16.9 million survivors in the United States. Evidence from laboratory and observational studies suggests that factors such as diet, physical activity, and obesity may affect risk for recurrence and overall survival after a cancer diagnosis. The purpose of this American Cancer Society guideline is to provide evidence-based, cancer-specific recommendations for anthropometric parameters, physical activity, diet, and alcohol intake for reducing recurrence and cancer-specific and overall mortality. The audiences for this guideline are health care providers caring for cancer survivors as well as cancer survivors and their families. The guideline is intended to serve as a resource for informing American Cancer Society programs, health policy, and the media. Sources of evidence that form the basis of this guideline are systematic literature reviews, meta-analyses, pooled analyses of cohort studies, and large randomized clinical trials published since 2012. Recommendations for nutrition and physical activity during cancer treatment, informed by current practice, large cancer care organizations, and reviews of other expert bodies, are also presented. To provide additional context for the guidelines, the authors also include information on the relationship between health-related behaviors and comorbidities, long-term sequelae and patient-reported outcomes, and health disparities, with attention to enabling survivors\u27 ability to adhere to recommendations. Approaches to meet survivors\u27 needs are addressed as well as clinical care coordination and resources for nutrition and physical activity counseling after a cancer diagnosis