Correction to: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 18, 27 (2021)
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-021-01096-w
Following the publication of the original article [1], the authors identified errors in the Results and Conclusions sections of the Abstract. The updated numbers are given below, and the changes have been highlighted in bold typeface.
The sentences currently reads:
Results:
Across all moderate intensity indicators, the segmented regression models estimated optimal cadence thresholds ranging from 123.8–127.5 (ages 21–30), 121.3–126.0 (ages 31–40), 117.7–122.7 (ages 41–50), and 113.3– 116.1 steps/min (ages 51–60). Corresponding values for vigorous intensity were 140.3–144.1, 140.2–142.6, 139.3– 143.6, and 131.6–132.8 steps/min, respectively. ROC analysis estimated chronologically-arranged age groups’ cadence thresholds ranging from 114.5–118, 113.5–114.5, 104.6–112.9, and 103.6–106.0 across all moderate intensity indicators, and 127.5, 121.5, 117.2–123.2, and 113.0 steps/min, respectively, for vigorous intensity
Conclusions:
Heuristic cadence thresholds corresponding to relatively-defined moderate intensity for the chronologically-arranged age groups were ≥ 120, 120, 115, and 105 steps/min, regardless of the intensity indicator (i.e., % HRmax, %HRR, or RPE).
The sentences should read:
Results:
Across all moderate intensity indicators, the segmented regression models estimated optimal cadence thresholds ranging from 123.8–127.5 (ages 21-30), 120.2–126.0 (ages 31-40), 117.7–122.7 (ages 41-50), and 113.3–116.1 steps/min (ages 51-60). Corresponding values for vigorous intensity were 140.3–144.1, 139.6–142.6, 138.7–143.6, and 131.6–132.8 steps/min, respectively. ROC analysis estimated chronologically-arranged age groups’ cadence thresholds ranging from 114.5–118, 113.5–114.5, 104.6–112.9, and 103.6–106.0 across all moderate intensity indicators, and 124.5, 121.5, 117.2–122.2, and 113.0 steps/min, respectively, for vigorous intensity.
Conclusions:
Heuristic cadence thresholds corresponding to relatively-defined moderate intensity for the chronologically-arranged age groups were ≥ 120, 120, 115, and 110 steps/min, regardless of the intensity indicator (i.e., % HRmax, %HRR, or RPE).
The original article [1] has been corrected.
Reference
McAvoy, et al. (2021) Cadence (steps/min) and relative intensity in 21 to 60-year-olds: the CADENCE-adults study. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2021;18:27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-021-01096-w.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
About this article
Cite this article
McAvoy, C.R., Moore, C.C., Aguiar, E.J. et al. Correction: Cadence (steps/min) and relative intensity in 21 to 60-year-olds: the CADENCE-adults study. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 19, 62 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-022-01295-z
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-022-01295-z