Nov. 21, 2007
PARALLEL UNIVERSE: Love Me, Love My Pedometer
By David M. Kinchen
Editor, Huntington News Network
As a commentary on health from Scripps Howard News Service posted on our web sites has just pointed out, the next six week block of time -- from just before Thanksgiving to New Year's Day -- is the most dangerous time of the year for your waistline.
Do not -- I repeat, Do Not Under Any Circumstances reply in any way to the question posed by a spouse or other loved one: "Does this make me look fat?" I supply, along with this column, a photo of me taken in Chicago late in September 2007 that I love because it's so slimming. Is it the blue mock turtleneck or is it -- next picture, please -- my AARP pedometer. The photo of me was made at the old Chicago Public Library -- now used as a cultural and visitors center for my favorite city -- on Michigan Avenue between Randolph and Washington Streets. The fiberglass bovine at Washington and Michigan is the last remnant of an exhibition of street cattle that were displayed all over Chicago several years ago.
Coincidentally, or maybe not, because there are no coincidences, the Chicago-based American Medical Association, in the Wednesday, Nov. 21, 2007 issue of JAMA, its journal, has a positive article on pedometers.
According to the article -- here's a link: http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/298/19/2296 -- People who use pedometers when they exercise lose more weight, exercise more and have lower blood pressure than people who don't use pedometers.
Taking note of the popularity of pedometers -- and a lot of that is due to the freebie from AARP that I got when I renewed my membership in the group -- the researchers decided to evaluate "the association of pedometer use with physical activity and health outcomes among outpatient adults."
The researchers -- and here are their names: Dena M. Bravata, MD, MS; Crystal Smith-Spangler, MD; Vandana Sundaram, MPH; Allison L. Gienger, BA; Nancy Lin, ScD; Robyn Lewis, MA; Christopher D. Stave, MLS; Ingram Olkin, PhD; John R. Sirard, PhD
went to the articles:
Data Sources English-language articles from MEDLINE, EMBASE, Sport Discus, PsychINFO, Cochrane Library, Thompson Scientific (formerly known as Thompson ISI), and ERIC (1966-2007); bibliographies of retrieved articles; and conference proceedings.
According to the article in JAMA, "Studies were eligible for inclusion if they reported an assessment of pedometer use among adult outpatients, reported a change in steps per day, and included more than 5 participants."
"Two investigators independently abstracted data about the intervention; participants; number of steps per day; and presence or absence of obesity, diabetes, hypertension, or hyperlipidemia. Data were pooled using random-effects calculations, and meta-regression was performed."
Don't ask me what a "meta-regression" is. Sounds like math and I was an English major!
According to the report: "Our searches identified 2246 citations; 26 studies with a total of 2767 participants met inclusion criteria (8 randomized controlled trials [RCTs] and 18 observational studies). The participants' mean (SD) age was 49 (9) years and 85% were women. The mean intervention duration was 18 weeks. In the RCTs, pedometer users significantly increased their physical activity by 2491 steps per day more than control participants (95% confidence interval [CI], 1098-3885 steps per day, P < .001). Among the observational studies, pedometer users significantly increased their physical activity by 2183 steps per day over baseline (95% CI, 1571-2796 steps per day, P < .0001). Overall, pedometer users increased their physical activity by 26.9% over baseline. An important predictor of increased physical activity was having a step goal such as 10 000 steps per day (P = .001). When data from all studies were combined, pedometer users significantly decreased their body mass index by 0.38 (95% CI, 0.05-0.72; P = .03). This decrease was associated with older age (P = .001) and having a step goal (P = .04). Intervention participants significantly decreased their systolic blood pressure by 3.8 mm Hg (95% CI, 1.7-5.9 mm Hg, P < .001). This decrease was associated with greater baseline systolic blood pressure (P = .009) and change in steps per day (P = .08)."
Whew! Sounds scientific to this caveman ... er... English major.
The bottom line, according to the article: "The results suggest that the use of a pedometer is associated with significant increases in physical activity and significant decreases in body mass index and blood pressure. Whether these changes are durable over the long term is undetermined."
And, for the record, here are the affiliations of the above named researchers:
Author Affiliations: Center for Primary Care and Outcomes Research (Drs Bravata and Lin and Mss Sundaram, Gienger, and Lewis), Department of Internal Medicine (Dr Smith-Spangler), Stanford University School of Medicine, Lane Medical Library (Mr Stave), and Department of Statistics (Dr Olkin), Stanford University, Stanford; Department of Internal Medicine, California Pacific Medical Center, San Francisco (Dr Bravata); Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, California (Ms Sundaram); and School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis (Dr Sirard).
So, unpack that pedometer that's been sitting idly in the box it came in, read the calibration instructions and, GET OUT THERE! Park the car far from the store and walk, something that I've found in my 69 years on this planet is the best exercise for life.
PARALLEL UNIVERSE: Love Me, Love My Pedometer
By David M. Kinchen
Editor, Huntington News Network
As a commentary on health from Scripps Howard News Service posted on our web sites has just pointed out, the next six week block of time -- from just before Thanksgiving to New Year's Day -- is the most dangerous time of the year for your waistline.
Do not -- I repeat, Do Not Under Any Circumstances reply in any way to the question posed by a spouse or other loved one: "Does this make me look fat?" I supply, along with this column, a photo of me taken in Chicago late in September 2007 that I love because it's so slimming. Is it the blue mock turtleneck or is it -- next picture, please -- my AARP pedometer. The photo of me was made at the old Chicago Public Library -- now used as a cultural and visitors center for my favorite city -- on Michigan Avenue between Randolph and Washington Streets. The fiberglass bovine at Washington and Michigan is the last remnant of an exhibition of street cattle that were displayed all over Chicago several years ago.
Coincidentally, or maybe not, because there are no coincidences, the Chicago-based American Medical Association, in the Wednesday, Nov. 21, 2007 issue of JAMA, its journal, has a positive article on pedometers.
According to the article -- here's a link: http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/298/19/2296 -- People who use pedometers when they exercise lose more weight, exercise more and have lower blood pressure than people who don't use pedometers.
Taking note of the popularity of pedometers -- and a lot of that is due to the freebie from AARP that I got when I renewed my membership in the group -- the researchers decided to evaluate "the association of pedometer use with physical activity and health outcomes among outpatient adults."
The researchers -- and here are their names: Dena M. Bravata, MD, MS; Crystal Smith-Spangler, MD; Vandana Sundaram, MPH; Allison L. Gienger, BA; Nancy Lin, ScD; Robyn Lewis, MA; Christopher D. Stave, MLS; Ingram Olkin, PhD; John R. Sirard, PhD
went to the articles:
Data Sources English-language articles from MEDLINE, EMBASE, Sport Discus, PsychINFO, Cochrane Library, Thompson Scientific (formerly known as Thompson ISI), and ERIC (1966-2007); bibliographies of retrieved articles; and conference proceedings.
According to the article in JAMA, "Studies were eligible for inclusion if they reported an assessment of pedometer use among adult outpatients, reported a change in steps per day, and included more than 5 participants."
"Two investigators independently abstracted data about the intervention; participants; number of steps per day; and presence or absence of obesity, diabetes, hypertension, or hyperlipidemia. Data were pooled using random-effects calculations, and meta-regression was performed."
Don't ask me what a "meta-regression" is. Sounds like math and I was an English major!
According to the report: "Our searches identified 2246 citations; 26 studies with a total of 2767 participants met inclusion criteria (8 randomized controlled trials [RCTs] and 18 observational studies). The participants' mean (SD) age was 49 (9) years and 85% were women. The mean intervention duration was 18 weeks. In the RCTs, pedometer users significantly increased their physical activity by 2491 steps per day more than control participants (95% confidence interval [CI], 1098-3885 steps per day, P < .001). Among the observational studies, pedometer users significantly increased their physical activity by 2183 steps per day over baseline (95% CI, 1571-2796 steps per day, P < .0001). Overall, pedometer users increased their physical activity by 26.9% over baseline. An important predictor of increased physical activity was having a step goal such as 10 000 steps per day (P = .001). When data from all studies were combined, pedometer users significantly decreased their body mass index by 0.38 (95% CI, 0.05-0.72; P = .03). This decrease was associated with older age (P = .001) and having a step goal (P = .04). Intervention participants significantly decreased their systolic blood pressure by 3.8 mm Hg (95% CI, 1.7-5.9 mm Hg, P < .001). This decrease was associated with greater baseline systolic blood pressure (P = .009) and change in steps per day (P = .08)."
Whew! Sounds scientific to this caveman ... er... English major.
The bottom line, according to the article: "The results suggest that the use of a pedometer is associated with significant increases in physical activity and significant decreases in body mass index and blood pressure. Whether these changes are durable over the long term is undetermined."
And, for the record, here are the affiliations of the above named researchers:
Author Affiliations: Center for Primary Care and Outcomes Research (Drs Bravata and Lin and Mss Sundaram, Gienger, and Lewis), Department of Internal Medicine (Dr Smith-Spangler), Stanford University School of Medicine, Lane Medical Library (Mr Stave), and Department of Statistics (Dr Olkin), Stanford University, Stanford; Department of Internal Medicine, California Pacific Medical Center, San Francisco (Dr Bravata); Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, California (Ms Sundaram); and School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis (Dr Sirard).
So, unpack that pedometer that's been sitting idly in the box it came in, read the calibration instructions and, GET OUT THERE! Park the car far from the store and walk, something that I've found in my 69 years on this planet is the best exercise for life.
