Advertisement

Inverse association between changes in energetic cost of walking and vertical accelerations in non-metastatic breast cancer survivors

  • Stephen J. CarterEmail author
  • Laura Q. Rogers
  • Heather R. Bowles
  • Lyse A. Norian
  • Gary R. Hunter
Original Article
  • 102 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

With accelerometry, the utility to detect changes in physical activity are predicated on the assumption that walking energetics and gait mechanics do not change. The present work examined associations between changes (∆) in walking energetics, exercise self-efficacy, and several accelerometer-derived metrics.

Methods

Secondary analyses were performed among a sub-sample (n = 29) of breast cancer survivors participating in a larger randomized trial. During 4 min of treadmill walking (0.89 m s−1, 0% grade), indirect calorimetry quantified steady-state energy expenditure (EE), wherein, participants were fitted with a heart rate monitor and hip-worn triaxial accelerometer. Exercise self-efficacy was measured using a 9-item questionnaire, while vector magnitude (VM) and individual planes (e.g., mediolateral, vertical, and anteroposterior) of the movement were extracted for data analyses. Evaluations were made at baseline and after 3 months.

Results

From baseline to 3 months, the energetic cost of walking (kcals min−1) significantly decreased by an average of  − 5.1% (p = 0.001; d = 0.46). Conversely, VM significantly increased (p = 0.007; d = 0.53), exclusively due to greater vertical accelerations (acc) (+ 5.7 ± 7.8 acc; p = 0.001; d = 0.69). Changes in vertical accelerations were inversely and positively associated with ∆walking EE (r = − 0.37; p = 0.047) and ∆exercise self-efficacy (r = 0.39; p = 0.034), respectively.

Conclusion

Hip-worn accelerometers do not appear well-suited to correctly detect changes in ease of walking as evidenced by reduced energetic cost. Further research should determine if a divergence between measured EE and vertical accelerations could contribute to erroneous inferences in free-living physical activity.

Keywords

Cardiovascular Energy expenditure Exercise training Non-metastatic Physical activity 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to recognize David R. Bryan, MA, and Sara Mansfield, MS, for their commitment and respective contributions. The authors also wish to express their appreciation to the participants for their willingness to complete this investigation.

Author contributions

SJC, LQR, HRB, LAN, and GRH participated in the execution of the study including, data analyses, drafting, review, and final approval of the manuscript.

Funding

This project was supported by the following funding sources: U01CA136859, R25CA047888, and P30DK056336.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. American College of Sports Medicine (2010) ACSM's Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription. Lippincott, Williams, and Wilkins, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  2. Bandura A (1977) Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol Rev 84:191–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Browning RC, Kram R (2005) Energetic cost and preferred speed of walking in obese vs. normal weight women. Obes Res 13:891–899CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Browning RC, Baker EA, Herron JA, Kram R (2006) Effects of obesity and sex on the energetic cost and preferred speed of walking. J Appl Physiol 100:390–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carter SJ, Herron RL, Rogers LQ, Hunter GR (2016) Is 'high-intensity' a bad word? J Physiother 62:175.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphys.2016.05.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carter SJ, Hunter GR, Norian LA, Turan B, Rogers LQ (2018) Ease of walking associates with greater free-living physical activity and reduced depressive symptomology in breast cancer survivors: pilot randomized trial. Support Care Cancer 26:1675–1683.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-017-4015-y Google Scholar
  7. Cavagna GA, Heglund NC, Taylor CR (1977) Mechanical work in terrestrial locomotion: two basic mechanisms for minimizing energy expenditure. Am J Physiol 233:R243–R261.  https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpregu.1977.233.5.R243 Google Scholar
  8. Deimling GT, Arendt JA, Kypriotakis G, Bowman KF (2009) Functioning of older, long-term cancer survivors: the role of cancer and comorbidities. J Am Geriatr Soc 57(Suppl 2):S289–S292.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2009.02515.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Elme A, Utriainen M, Kellokumpu-Lehtinen P et al (2013) Obesity and physical inactivity are related to impaired physical health of breast cancer survivors. Anticancer Res 33:1595–1602Google Scholar
  10. Goran MI, Carpenter WH, McGloin A, Johnson R, Hardin JM, Weinsier RL (1995) Energy expenditure in children of lean and obese parents. Am J Physiol 268:E917–E924.  https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpendo.1995.268.5.E917 Google Scholar
  11. Gross AL, May BJ, Axilbund JE, Armstrong DK, Roden RB, Visvanathan K (2015) Weight change in breast cancer survivors compared to cancer-free women: a prospective study in women at familial risk of breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 24:1262–1269.  https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-15-0212 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hall KS, Howe CA, Rana SR, Martin CL, Morey MC (2013) METs and accelerometry of walking in older adults: standard versus measured energy cost. Med Sci Sports Exerc 45:574–582.  https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0b013e318276c73c CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hunter GR, McCarthy JP, Bamman MM, Larson-Meyer DE, Fisher G, Newcomer BR (2011) Exercise economy in African American and European American women. Eur J Appl Physiol 111:1863–1869.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-010-1816-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hunter GR, McCarthy JP, Carter SJ et al (2015) Muscle fiber type, Achilles tendon length, potentiation, and running economy. J Strength Cond Res 29:1302–1309.  https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000000760 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Irwin ML, Crumley D, McTiernan A et al (2003) Physical activity levels before and after a diagnosis of breast carcinoma: the Health, Eating, Activity, and Lifestyle (HEAL) study. Cancer 97:1746–1757.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.11227 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ishikawa M, Komi PV (2008) Muscle fascicle and tendon behavior during human locomotion revisited. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 36:193–199.  https://doi.org/10.1097/JES.0b013e3181878417 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lawler JP, White RG (2003) Temporal responses in energy expenditure and respiratory quotient following feeding in the muskox: influence of season on energy costs of eating and standing and an endogenous heat increment. Can J Zool 81:1524–1538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lee IM, Shiroma EJ (2014) Using accelerometers to measure physical activity in large-scale epidemiological studies: issues and challenges. Br J Sports Med 48:197–201.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2013-093154 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mason C, Alfano CM, Smith AW et al (2013) Long-term physical activity trends in breast cancer survivors. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 22:1153–1161.  https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-13-0141 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Middleton A, Fritz SL, Lusardi M (2015) Walking speed: the functional vital sign. J Aging Phys Act 23:314–322.  https://doi.org/10.1123/japa.2013-0236 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Miller KD, Siegel RL, Lin CC et al (2016) Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2016. CA Cancer J Clin 66:271–289.  https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21349 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pedisic Z, Bauman A (2015) Accelerometer-based measures in physical activity surveillance: current practices and issues. Br J Sports Med 49:219–223.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2013-093407 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pinto BM, Trunzo JJ, Reiss P, Shiu SY (2002) Exercise participation after diagnosis of breast cancer: trends and effects on mood and quality of life. Psychooncology 11:389–400.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.594 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rogers LQ, Courneya KS, Verhulst S, Markwell S, Lanzotti V, Shah P (2006) Exercise barrier and task self-efficacy in breast cancer patients during treatment. Support Care Cancer 14:84–90.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-005-0851-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rogers LQ, McAuley E, Anton PM et al (2012) Better exercise adherence after treatment for cancer (BEAT Cancer) study: rationale, design, and methods. Contemp Clin Trials 33:124–137.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2011.09.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rowland JH (2008) Cancer survivorship: rethinking the cancer control continuum. Semin Oncol Nurs 24:145–152.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soncn.2008.05.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sawicki GS, Lewis CL, Ferris DP (2009) It pays to have a spring in your step. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 37:130–138.  https://doi.org/10.1097/JES.0b013e31819c2df6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A (2018) Cancer statistics, 2018. CA Cancer J Clin 68:7–30.  https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21442 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Speck RM, Courneya KS, Masse LC, Duval S, Schmitz KH (2010) An update of controlled physical activity trials in cancer survivors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Cancer Surviv 4:87–100.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11764-009-0110-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Thomas JR, Salazar W, Landers DM (1991) What is missing in p < .05? Res Q Exerc Sport 62:344–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Troeschel AN, Leach CR, Shuval K, Stein KD, Patel AV (2018) Physical activity in cancer survivors during "re-entry" following cancer treatment. Prev Chronic Dis 15:E65.  https://doi.org/10.5888/pcd15.170277 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Van Remoortel H, Giavedoni S, Raste Y et al (2012) Validity of activity monitors in health and chronic disease: a systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 9:84.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-9-84 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Kinesiology, School of Public Health – BloomingtonIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Nutrition SciencesUniversity of Alabama at BirminghamBirminghamUSA
  3. 3.Division of Cancer PreventionNational Cancer InstituteMarylandUSA

Personalised recommendations