4 ms·
They talk about intensity, but I wonder if they considered what people might be doing--if the terrain gets rough my step rate is going to look pretty bad becaus
by LorenPechtel 4y ago
They talk about intensity, but I wonder if they considered what people might be doing--if the terrain gets rough my step rate is going to look pretty bad because I'm choosing where to put each step.
I also wonder about the pulse rate data that would have been captured along with the steps. I would say the majority of my steps are with my pack on my back and in the summer months with considerable elevation changes also.
- comfypotato 4y agoI think intensity here is a proxy for metabolic equivalent task (MET). In a lot of literature surrounding recommendations for aerobic activity, it’s generally acknowledged that you need to be around about 3 MET before the cardio activity counts towards cardio health. 2.5 mph walking on flat ground is a benchmark for 3 MET. (This agrees with the findings of this study in that the low-MET slow walking wasn’t correlated as positively with health.) To extend to your point about more intense slower walking, that would still be a higher MET value than slow walking on flat pavement.