ArticleJAMA internal medicine2015
Leisure time physical activity and mortality: a detailed pooled analysis of the dose-response relationship.
Article in JAMA internal medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04165473 (A Training Program for Developing Social- and Personal Resources and Its Effects on Emotional, Physical and Social Wellbeing in Adults), which is not on this map. Cited by 678 papers, 14 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
A Training Program for Developing Social- and Personal Resources and Its Effects on Emotional, Physical and Social Wellbeing in Adults
Who cites it
678 citing papers in PubMed, 14 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Coronary Artery Disease in Masters Athletes: A Systematic Review.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Pooled it
- Can too much exercise kill you? A systematic review of the risk of a cardiovascular event or death from long term strenuous exercise.European journal of epidemiology · 2026Pooled it
- Sprint interval training for cardiovascular prevention: a time-efficient alternative or an overstated promise? An umbrella review.European journal of applied physiology · 2026Pooled it
- Physical inactivity in chronic airways disease: an important candidate in the treatable traits paradigm.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2026Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Factors for adherence to a physical activity promotion program in the workplace: a systematic review.BMC public health · 2025Pooled it
- A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Highlights a Link Between Aerobic Fitness and Telomere Maintenance.The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences · 2025Pooled it
- Associations Between Exercise Training, Physical Activity, Sedentary Behaviour and Mortality: An Umbrella Review of Meta-Analyses.Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Digital technology empowers exercise health management in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of mHealth-based interventions on physical activity and body composition in older adults.Frontiers in public health · 2025Pooled it
- Physical activity and constipation: A systematic review of cohort studies.Journal of global health · 2024Pooled it
- Dietary intake, obesity, and physical activity in association with biliary tract cancer risk: Results from meta-analyses of individual-level data from prospective cohort studies of 723,326 adults.International journal of cancer · 2024Pooled it
- Non-occupational physical activity and risk of cardiovascular disease, cancer and mortality outcomes: a dose-response meta-analysis of large prospective studies.British journal of sports medicine · 2023Pooled it
- How to Keep the Balance between Red and Processed Meat Intake and Physical Activity Regarding Mortality: A Dose-Response Meta-Analysis.Nutrients · 2023Pooled it
- Effects of self-monitoring physical activity with a smartphone application combined with physiotherapy coaching in patients with cancer: a randomised controlled trial (SMART-COACH trial).Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2026Trial
- Snacktivity™ to Promote Physical Activity in Primary Care, Community Health and Public Health Settings: A Feasibility Randomised Controlled Trial.International journal of behavioral medicine · 2025Trial
- Comparison of the effect of aerobic and resistance training on fatigue, quality of life and biochemical factors in hemodialysis patients.Scientific reports · 2025Trial
- Bidirectional week-to-week relationships between weekly psychological stress across multiple life domains and engagement with an exercise intervention: secondary analysis of data from a randomized trial.Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine · 2025Trial
- Assessing the Feasibility and Acceptability of Virtual Reality for Remote Group-Mediated Physical Activity in Older Adults: Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR formative research · 2024Trial
- A randomized controlled trial of Promoting Physical Activity in Regional and Remote Cancer Survivors (PPARCS).Journal of sport and health science · 2024Trial
618 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
importanceThe 2008 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans recommended a minimum of 75 vigorous-intensity or 150 moderate-intensity minutes per week (7.5 metabolic-equivalent hours per week) of aerobic activity for substantial health benefit and suggested additional benefits by doing more than double this amount. However, the upper limit of longevity benefit or possible harm with more physical activity is unclear.
objectiveTo quantify the dose-response association between leisure time physical activity and mortality and define the upper limit of benefit or harm associated with increased levels of physical activity. DESIGN, SETTING, AND
participantsWe pooled data from 6 studies in the National Cancer Institute Cohort Consortium (baseline 1992-2003). Population-based prospective cohorts in the United States and Europe with self-reported physical activity were analyzed in 2014. A total of 661,137 men and women (median age, 62 years; range, 21-98 years) and 116,686 deaths were included. We used Cox proportional hazards regression with cohort stratification to generate multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs. Median follow-up time was 14.2 years. EXPOSURES: Leisure time moderate- to vigorous-intensity physical activity. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The upper limit of mortality benefit from high levels of leisure time physical activity.
resultsCompared with individuals reporting no leisure time physical activity, we observed a 20% lower mortality risk among those performing less than the recommended minimum of 7.5 metabolic-equivalent hours per week (HR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.78-0.82]), a 31% lower risk at 1 to 2 times the recommended minimum (HR, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.67-0.70]), and a 37% lower risk at 2 to 3 times the minimum (HR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.62-0.65]). An upper threshold for mortality benefit occurred at 3 to 5 times the physical activity recommendation (HR, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.59-0.62]); however, compared with the recommended minimum, the additional benefit was modest (31% vs 39%). There was no evidence of harm at 10 or more times the recommended minimum (HR, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.59-0.78]). A similar dose-response relationship was observed for mortality due to cardiovascular disease and to cancer. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Meeting the 2008 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans minimum by either moderate- or vigorous-intensity activities was associated with nearly the maximum longevity benefit. We observed a benefit threshold at approximately 3 to 5 times the recommended leisure time physical activity minimum and no excess risk at 10 or more times the minimum. In regard to mortality, health care professionals should encourage inactive adults to perform leisure time physical activity and do not need to discourage adults who already participate in high-activity levels.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.