Revisiting "How Many Steps Are Enough?"
Revisiting "How Many Steps Are Enough?"
复制标题
DOI：
10.1249/mss.0b013e31817c7133
复制
发表时间：
2008-07-01
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Kang, Minsoo
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Tudor-Locke, Catrine;Hatano, Yoshiro;Kang, Minsoo
随着研究人员和从业人员对计步器的持续广泛接受，需要基于证据的步数/日指数来促进公共卫生中身体活动（PA）的测量和激励应用。因此，本文的目的是重复，更新，并扩大目前的理解剂量-反应关系方面的计步器确定的PA。任何基于步数计的PA指南都假定步数测量准确且标准化;目前，建立仪器质量控制的行业标准仅限于日本，日本的公共卫生步数计应用和10，000步.d（-1）口号可追溯到20世纪60年代。成人公共卫生指南提倡>= 30分钟的至少中等强度的每日PA，并且这转化为3000-4000步，如果它们是：>= 100步.min（-1））; 2）在至少10分钟的回合中累积;和3）超过和高于PA的某个最小水平（即，每日步数），低于该步数的个体可能被归类为久坐不动。基于区域的层次结构对于成年人的测量和激励目的都是有用的：1）= 10，000 - 12，499步.d（-1）（活跃）;和5）>= 12，500步.d（-1）（高度活跃）。支持特定于青年的分界点的证据正在出现。基于选定的健康结果的标准参考方法，从测量的角度来看，有可能推进成人和儿童的循证步数/日标准。需要承认和考虑的权衡是，当基于证据的截止点被个人解释为无法实现的目标时，对动机的影响。
With continued widespread acceptance of pedometers by both researchers and practitioners, evidence-based steps/day indices are needed to facilitate measurement and motivation applications of physical activity (PA) in public health. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to reprise, update, and extend the current understanding of dose-response relationships in terms of pedometer-determined PA. Any pedometer-based PA guideline presumes an accurate and standardized measure of steps; at this time, industry standards establishing quality control of instrumentation is limited to Japan where public health pedometer applications and the 10,000 steps.d(-1) slogan are traceable to the 1960s. Adult public health guidelines promote >= 30 min of at least moderate-intensity daily PA, and this translates to 3000-4000 steps if they are: 1) at least moderate intensity (i.e., >= 100 steps.min(-1)); 2) accumulated in at least 10-min bouts; and 3) taken over and above some minimal level of PA (i.e., number of daily steps) below which individuals might be classified as sedentary. A zone-based hierarchy is useful for both measurement and motivation purposes in adults: 1) = 10,000-12,499 steps.d(-1) (active); and 5) >= 12,500 steps.d(-1) (highly active). Evidence to support youth-specific cutoff points is emerging. Criterion-referenced approaches based on selected health outcomes present the potential for advancing evidence-based steps/day standards in both adults and children from a measurement perspective. A tradeoff that needs to be acknowledged and considered is the impact on motivation when evidence-based cutoff points are interpreted by individuals as unattainable goals.