Walking Cadence to Exercise at Moderate Intensity for Adults: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Most adults choose walking as a leisure activity. However, many do not reach the international physical activity guidelines for adults, which recommend moderate intensity aerobic activity for at least 150 minutes/week in bouts of 10 minutes. Purpose. This systematic review provides an update on the walking cadence required to reach moderate intensity in adults and older adults, identifies variables associated with reaching moderate intensity, and evaluates how walking cadence intensity should be measured, but the main purpose is to report the interventions that have been attempted to prescribe walking cadence to increase time spent at moderate intensity or other outcomes for adults and older adults. Methods. SportDISCUS, Scopus, and PubMed databases were searched. We identified 3,917 articles and 31 were retained for this systematic review. Only articles written in English were included. Results. In general, 100 steps/minute is prescribed for adults to achieve moderate intensity, but older adults may require a higher cadence. Currently, few studies have explored using walking cadence prescription as an intervention to increase physical activity levels. Conclusion. Prescribing walking cadence as a way to increase physical activity levels has potential as a practical and useful strategy, but more evidence is required to assess its ability to increase physical activity levels at moderate intensity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".