Author
Listed:
- Hsueh-wen Chow
- Chia-Hua Ho
Abstract
Despite the rapid worldwide expansion of parks with outdoor fitness equipment (OFE), no objective data regarding the intensity of activity associated with using OFE are available. Hence, this study quantified the energy expenditure and intensity of physical activity by examining four outdoor fitness devices widely used by older adults and provides objective evidence-based intensity references for the Compendium of Physical Activities. Sixteen older adults (mean age: 70.7 ± 5.6 yr) equipped with a portable metabolic system for measuring energy expenditure and activity intensity completed tasks while walking or using four types of OFE. Descriptive statistics and repeated-measures ANOVA with the Bonferroni post hoc test were employed. The energy expenditure and activity intensity for using an air walker at tempos of 80, 100, and 120 bpm were 50.78 ± 14.76 (2.81 ± 0.85), 59.62 ± 14.23 (3.26 ± 0.82), and 65.62 ± 18.27 (3.55 ± 1.02) cal/kg/min (METs), respectively. The induced energy and intensity output values for a ski machine were 54.00 ± 14.31 (3.02 ± 0.87), 68.87 ± 22.74 (3.82 ± 1.35), and 74.55 ± 23.39 (4.05 ± 1.35) cal/kg/min (METs), at 80, 100, and 120 bpm, respectively. The energy output for a waist twister at 60 bpm was 38.43 ± 20.16 cal/kg/min (2.05 ± 1.15 METs), and that for a double arm stretch at 80 bpm was 31.05 ± 12.58 cal/kg/min (1.63 ± 0.70 METs). These findings indicate that activity on the ski machine and air walker could be considered to have moderate intensity, whereas the intensity of activity on the waist twister and double arm stretch was significantly lower than that for walking at either 3.2 km/h or 4 km/h and could be considered only light intensity. The MET values for the OFE were lower than those for similar indoor fitness equipment. The results of this study provide crucial implications for public health practices concerning the development of active living environments.
Suggested Citation
Hsueh-wen Chow & Chia-Hua Ho, 2018.
"Does the use of outdoor fitness equipment by older adults qualify as moderate to vigorous physical activity?,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(4), pages 1-13, April.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pone00:0196507
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0196507
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0196507. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.