Publication date: September 2018
Source: Gait & Posture, Volume 65
Author(s): Mallory R. Marshall, Alexander H.K. Montoye, Ashley J. George
Abstract
Background
Pregnancy-related changes in walking speed, gait dynamics, and total physical activity have been reported in past research, but free-living step cadences and their rates of change across pregnancy have not been studied.
Research question
The purpose of this study was to describe free-living stepping cadence in pregnant women and examine differences between second and third trimester women. We hypothesized that physical activity walking cadences would be lower later in pregnancy.
Methods
Fifty pregnant women were recruited for this study and n = 45 was the analytic sample size; 46.7% were in their second trimester (13–25 weeks) while 53.3% were third trimester (≥26 weeks). Participants completed a survey of demographic characteristics and wore an accelerometer on their non-dominant wrist for 7–8 days. These accelerometer data were downloaded in 60-sec epochs, allowing for determination of min-by-min walking cadence, defined as steps/min. Mean steps/day, mean cadence, peak cadence (average cadence over the 30 min of highest cadence in each day), mean time spent in moderate- to vigorous-intensity physical activity (MVPA, time spent with cadence ≥100 steps/min), and mean daily time spent in several cadence ranges were calculated for each participant. Between-trimester differences were determined using independent-samples t-tests.
Results
Average daily steps were 11,060.1 ± 2,955.3; 66.7% of second trimester and 54.2% of third trimester women met daily step recommendations of 10,000 steps/day, but 0.0% of the sample accumulated the recommended 150 min/wk of MVPA. There were no differences by trimester for cadence at any step rates (p > 0.05).
Significance
Overall, pregnant women accumulated high numbers of steps per day but at low cadences; neither daily steps nor cadence varied from second to third trimester. These data suggest that steps and MVPA recommendations are not equivalent and therefore should not be used interchangeably, especially during pregnancy.
from #Audiology via ola Kala on Inoreader https://ift.tt/2Ll1a90
via IFTTT