ArticleFrontiers in public health2022
Perspectives on exercise intensity, volume, step characteristics and health outcomes in walking for transport.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Recommendations for Lifestyle Physical Activity and Exercise During the Perinatal Period: A Narrative Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Simple step counting captures comparable health information to complex accelerometer measurements.Journal of internal medicine · 2025Article
- Is dog walking suitable for physical activity promotion? Investigating the exercise intensity of on-leash dog walking.Preventive medicine reports · 2024Article
- Determination of moderate walking intensity using step rate and VOBMC public health · 2024Article
- Article
- Perspectives on exercise intensity, volume, step characteristics and health outcomes in walking for transport.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Quantification of movement intensity and energy utilization, together with frequency of trips, duration, distance, step counts and cadence, is essential for interpreting the character of habitual walking for transport, and its potential support of health. The purpose of the study is to illuminate this with valid methods and novel perspectives, and to thereby provide a new basis for characterizing and interpreting walking in relation to health outcomes. Methods: Habitual middle-aged commuting pedestrians (males = 10, females = 10) were investigated in the laboratory at rest and with maximal treadmill and cycle ergometer tests. Thereafter, levels of oxygen uptake, energy expenditure, ventilation, heart rate, blood lactate, rated perceived exertion, cadence, number of steps, duration, distance, and speed were recorded during the normal walking commute of each participant in Greater Stockholm, Sweden. The number of commutes per week over the year was self-reported. Results: Walking in the field demanded about 30% more energy per km compared to level treadmill walking. For both sexes, the walking intensity in field was about 46% of maximal oxygen uptake, and energy expenditure amounted to 0.96 kcal · kg Conclusion: Walking in naturalistic field settings demands its own studies. When males and females walk to work, their relative aerobic intensities and absolute energy demands for a given distance are similar. It is equivalent to the lower part of the moderate relative intensity domain. The combination of oxygen uptake, trip duration and frequency leads to high and sustained levels of MET-hours as well as energy expenditure per week over the year, with a clear health enhancing potential. Based on this study we recommend 6000 transport steps per day, or equivalent, during five weekdays, over the year, in order to reach optimal health gains.
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.