3 ms·
Kind of curious about this (and this is something mentioned in the study itself). It seems that the observations about step count are just correlational and not
by jabbany 5y ago
Kind of curious about this (and this is something mentioned in the study itself). It seems that the observations about step count are just correlational and not causal.
I wonder if the step count thing correlates with some other factors that are more causal? Like in the case of older adults, maybe those who walked more didn't have other physical conditions correlated with earlier mortality that prevented them from doing so?
Also the meta-analysis linked to doesn't seem to say that mortality risk is _reduced_ by _increasing_ step count (implying an intervention) as the article implies. Rather just that people with the higher step counts had lower mortality rates.
- generalenvelope 5y agoI don't think there's anything uniquely beneficial about walking in comparison to other types of aerobic activity (running, biking, playing a sport) - though it may be more accessible/enjoyable which is important when considering adherence. It makes sense that mortality risk would be reduced by increasing step count, as that means increasing aerobic activity. See the 2019 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans: https://health.gov/sites/default/files/2019-09/Physical_Activity_Guidelines_2nd_edition.pdf https://health.gov/sites/default/files/2019-09/Physical_Acti... Page 35 specifically outlines their justification for the recommendation of 150-300 minutes of moderate physical activity per week for adults. I will add that something like 80-90% of Americans don't meet the physical activity guidelines (150-300min moderate intensity aerobics + 2 days of muscle strengthening activities for major muscle groups, per week) - walking is one of the most accessible activities and is fairly "easy", so I think this is useful as a blanket recommendation.