Preferred Walking Speed As An Indicator Of Walking Intensity

Abstract

The intensity of walking plays a substantial role in obtaining health benefits. Recently, several intensity prescription methods using heart rate and real-time walking cadence have been introduced to instruct physical activity intensity (e.g., light, moderate, vigorous). However, these methods are often impossible without using relevant activity monitors in free-living and must meet a number of demands (e.g., easy-to-use and non-obtrusive) for successful results. Thus, it would be beneficial to determine if preferred walking speeds can substitute these commonly used methods to achieve the desired walking intensity for optimal health outcomes. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine the potential of preferred walking speeds for achieving recommended physical activity intensity for health benefits. METHODS: Thirty-six healthy adults (age: 20-65 years; 18 female) participated in this study. The procedures were conducted twice on separate days (e.g., visit 1 & 2 for each participant). On both days, participants performed short-distance walking tests at preferred slow, normal, and fast walking speeds while concurrently measuring spatial and physiological gait parameters including walking cadence, stride length, walking speed, oxygen consumption, and heart rate. Repeated measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to examine the changes in the gait parameters in accordance with the preferred walking speeds. In addition, paired t-tests were used to compare the parameters of the two visits. RESULTS: All measurement outcomes were significantly higher (p < .001) at the faster preferred walking speed compared to the slower ones. In addition, significant discrepancies between the two visits were found in all gait parameters (p < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Preferred walking speeds could be a proxy for prescribing walking intensity in a free-living setting, and thus it is attributable to an increase in the prevalence of meeting the physical activity guidelines. However, the need for refinement still remains, especially for clinical purposes, as no reliable results were found in repeated trials.