Giddy Up

Stop the clocks: Brisk walking may slow biological ageing process, study shows
https://le.ac.uk/news/2022/april/walking-speed-ageing

Researchers from the University of Leicester at the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Leicester Biomedical Research Centre studied genetic data from 405,981 middle-aged UK Biobank participants and found that a faster walking pace, independent of the amount of physical activity, was associated with longer telomere.

Researchers from the University of Leicester have previously shown using UK Biobank that as little as 10 minutes of brisk walking a day is associated with longer life expectancy, and that brisk walkers have up to 20 years’ greater life expectancy compared to slow walkers.

The study doesn’t define the speed of a “brisk” walk, but most fitness experts define “brisk” as 100 steps per minute or 3.0 to 3.5 mph.

intercst

2 Likes

<The study doesn’t define the speed of a “brisk” walk>

As a petite lady, I can tell you that I don’t walk as fast as a tall man even when I’m walking briskly. And the tall man can’t step as quickly as my short legs.

The professionals use METs (metabolic units) to classify exercise.

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/01.cir.0000435708.67…

**Walking, for instance, is often described as a moderate-intensity physical activity; however, the actual intensity for an individual may vary. In absolute terms, walking at a speed of ˜3 mph is equivalent to 3 METs, which meets the criteria for moderate intensity. However, a difference can be noted when one compares individuals of different fitness levels (person A with a o2max of 17.5 mL O2·kg-1·min-1 [5 METs] versus person B with a o2max of 42 mL O2·kg-1·min-1 [12 METs]) walking together at a speed of 3 mph. From an absolute standpoint, both person A and person B are performing at the same absolute level of physical activity intensity (3 METs). From a relative standpoint, though, person A is performing at a hard-intensity level (walking at 60% of o2max), whereas person B is performing a light-intensity activity (walking at 25% of o2max).** [end quote]

But measuring oxygen consumption takes special equipment.

It’s easier to look at heart rate using a pulse oximeter. (Which is handy to have in case of Covid.)

https://www.heart.org/en/healthy-living/fitness/fitness-basi…
Heart Rate (HR), beats per minute (bpm)


Age 	     Target Zone,50-85% Average Maximum Heart Rate, 100%

20 years 	100-170 bpm 	200 bpm
30 years 	95-162 bpm 	190 bpm
35 years 	93-157 bpm 	185 bpm
40 years 	90-153 bpm 	180 bpm
45 years 	88-149 bpm 	175 bpm
50 years 	85-145 bpm 	170 bpm
55 years 	83-140 bpm 	165 bpm
60 years 	80-136 bpm 	160 bpm
65 years 	78-132 bpm 	155 bpm
70 years 	75-128 bpm 	150 bpm

So if I do a HIIT or Zumba class and get my heart rate over 130 I feel like I’ve had a good workout. My resting pulse is 65 so I don’t consider 78 to be a worthwhile “target” for exercise. I do an hour a day of brisk exercise, 6 days a week (360 minutes) plus a nice stroll with the dogs that I enjoy but don’t consider a real cardio workout.

Wendy

7 Likes

Before covid, and family issues, care of our failing DD, I as doing a 2-1/4 mile walk in an hour, a little longer if distracted to take photos, or just lazy… So now 2 years later, I’ve started back with the walking, 3 days a week, and if covid counts stay down a bit more, will restart the twice a week gym time, generally an hour of a variety of mostly upper body work… For now the gym is on hold… ButI and DW added too many pounds in the last couple years, stores, lack of exercise, comfort foods, holidays, birthdays, any number of rationalizations, but in the end, we need to get back into a routine… Chart isn’t high enough as far as age, I just rolled over 80 last October, so it does give a fair estimate… resting rate in the 50s, low 60s, but nearly any steady thing like walking family steady raises it to 105 or so, no pain, just uncomfortable, so I’m just taking it easy… My regular pat, that 2-1/4 miles is flat, has a variety of benches, so my game is to keep trying to pass up this benches, go further and further until I’m back to doing the whole loop, for now, a little less than half and return, so maybe 1-3/4 last Friday, will continue the push tomorrow, maybe earlier in the day…

Not easy, but I already feel less lower back achiness…

Thiscovid has certainly messed up a lot of us… Double boosted…

weco

2 Likes

Researchers from the University of Leicester have previously shown using UK Biobank data that as little as 10 minutes of brisk walking a day is associated with longer life expectancy, and that brisk walkers have up to 20 years’ greater life expectancy compared to slow walkers

Bold claims. But then this does come from a press release …so they would say that, wouldn’t they? It’s a statement designed to attract media attention and banner headlines…and ultimately lead readers astray. Just 10 minutes of brisk walking?

By coincidence an article referring to a similar claim crossed my radar screen this morning. Different article, similar claims…

https://peterattiamd.com/does-walking-10-minutes-per-day-ext…

If it sounds too good to be true…

1 Like

For sure, Wendy, “brisk” means whatever it means for the individual and it’s as much dependent on an individual’s fitness as height or stride length. I’m a fair bit better conditioned than my husband and it’s reflected in my “casual”, conversational walking speed… such that I have to check myself frequently and slow down as he’s huffing and puffing and I’m barely breathing any harder.

Using an HRM to help gauge relative intensity is useful but also has a few pitfalls…especially when using an age predicted formula to determine maximum heart rate. The Fox & Haskell formula (220-age) that’s reproduced above is about the oldest and best known among the general public so is the one most criticized. It was developed by a couple of cardiologists and an exercise physiologist in the early 1970s to aid in prescribing heart rate zones for cardiac rehab patients and has been challenged by researchers ever since who’ve come up with their own allegedly more accurate age predicted formula. They all suffer from the same problem, though…that maximum heart rates are specific to an individual and any formula based on averages is likely to be off for a good many.

It would be entirely possible to have half a dozen or more folk, all equally fit and born on the same day, to have tested maximum heart rates that are all different…within a range of 10-15 bpm variation.

Anecdotally, I did my last VO2MAX test just before my 60th birthday and my measured maximum during that test was 180 bpm. Ironically, one of the master instructors for the SPINNING programme…a nationally ranked mountain bike racer a fair bit younger than me…always tested much lower than her age predicted max. In practical terms, for someone like, me working to an age predicted formula and a little bit easier than the zones prescribe, it wouldn’t have dire consequences. OTOH, for someone who’s inadvertently working too hard (because their real max heart rate is much lower than age predicted) might be the demographic that suffers.

1 Like

I am changing my exercise routine to include more walking and weight training. I may cut my biking a little.

Ms. Wolf and I do an outdoor walk of 3.6 miles in an hour every day, except substituting a treadmill on days with ice and snow.

I’m 6’ and she’s at least 6” smaller. Sometimes I have trouble keeping up with her, but then again I rationalize it because I have more mass to move. And after a dark chocolate binge, considerably more mass (but lots of antioxidants, speaking of rationalization). :o

Great to hear about the 20 year bonus. But now my new worry is that if I didn’t walk, what if I was supposed to die 19 years and 364 days ago?

AW

1 Like

Isn’t there an inherent bias in all aging studies like this?
People who are in good health, generally, live longer and do activities like walking.
People who aren’t in such great health do not go on walks.

Mike

3 Likes

Isn’t there an inherent bias in all aging studies like this?

Yep, the so-called healthy user bias. Folk who commit to an exercise program are more likely to follow the other healthy lifestyle choices that Couchlandrians don’t. Also, as you point out, activities like walking tend to be confined to the folk who can walk and probably act more as a surrogate marker for those who can get out and about vs. those too sick to try.

Observational studies do try to account for the variables like this but these limitations are hard to account for completely and, besides,
the discussions on confounding variables rarely seem to form part of these press release…not such sexy reading I guess.

I once had a neighbor who thought I was weird because I walked to places that were just a few blocks away. In my opinion, a round trip walk to a place 3 or 4 blocks away is normal and not an act of athleticism or endurance.

That neighbor wasn’t disabled, but he was a smoker. I guess he was Exhibit A on the impact of smoking on lung health and heart health.

3 Likes

I once had a neighbor who thought I was weird because I walked to places that were just a few blocks away. In my opinion, a round trip walk to a place 3 or 4 blocks away is normal and not an act of athleticism or endurance.

I make it a point to walk everywhere within a 3 mi radius of my home unless I’m carrying back a 50 lb bag of dog food. I typically walk 40-50 miles per week.

I got my oil changed on Saturday at the recommended 7,500 mile interval. Last oil change was July 2017.

intercst

I make it a point to walk everywhere within a 3 mi radius of my home…

Yes, indeed. We’ve spent half of each year in Honolulu over the past decade and have never owned a motor vehicle there. Also haven’t used the bus system in 2+ years (pandemic). That’s a lot of walking, including with bags of groceries. But also–very happily–a lot of outrigger canoe paddling. And a fair amount of running (well, trotting now) and swimming. Don’t bike much anymore: too many drivers barely paying attention.

I’m 73. Max HR=175. Resting HR=56. Feed and water me, and I can go 130-139 BPM all day long (and have). I’m not an exceptional athlete. I’ve just been doing it for more than half a century.

4 Likes

<<and that brisk walkers have up to 20 years’ greater life expectancy compared to slow walkers.>>

The study doesn’t define the speed of a “brisk” walk, but most fitness experts define “brisk” as 100 steps per minute or 3.0 to 3.5 mph.

Oh no, this is terrible news. I won’t be able to retire for a longer time, or I have to calculate SWR for 50 years instead of 30 years. :rofl:

Now that I’ve worn an Apple watch for a few months, because it measures many things, I know my walking speed at all times. So, my brisk walk speed is 14’30"-15’, or 4 - 4.15 mi/hr. My standard walking speed is 16’-16’45" (3.5 - 3.75 mi/hr). And my slow, excruciating walking speed with most other folks is 18’ - 20’ (3 - 3.25 mi/hr).

Today’s walk for example, having just contracted covid, a leisurely walk in the heat of the day (someone recommended getting additional vitamin D to fight the virus), was 16’53"!

1 Like

I got my oil changed on Saturday at the recommended 7,500 mile interval. Last oil change was July 2017.

Interesting. As I recall, my car manuals usually say “7,500 OR 6 months whichever comes sooner” or something similar to that. But I suppose if you use synthetic oils, it is probably fine for years.

But I suppose if you use synthetic oils, it is probably fine for years.

VW specifies Castrol synthetic for my car, and a change interval of no more than 10,000 miles/1 year.

Steve