Dose-response association between the daily step count and all-cause mortality: A systematic review and meta-analysis tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.108…

Compared with the low-step count population, the high-step count population had a 62% lower risk of all-cause death
(HR = 0.38, 95% CI 0.27–0.49). There was a non-linear dose-response relationship between the daily step count and all-cause mortality. Compared with the least (1895 steps), the first quartile (4000 steps/day) had a 37% lower risk for all causes of death (HR = 0.63, 0.57–0.71),
the second quartile (6388 steps/day) had a 60% lower risk for all causes of death (HR = 0.40, 0.32–0.49), the third quartile (9994.3 steps/day) had a 75% lower risk of all-cause death than the first quartile (HR = 0.25, 0.19–0.33).

'Only' observational, but impressive HR! #walk

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Stuart Phillips

Stuart Phillips Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @mackinprof

Mar 27
@theproof @GardnerPhD If nitrogen balance related to a physiological outcome, I could believe that it was a meaningful outcome. The main flaw in using the RDA is as if it’s a target 🎯 It’s not! The flaws in Nbal are many, well known, and painstakingly documented. It’s been shown, numerous times 1/n
@theproof @GardnerPhD To reflect adaptive, and at the EAR accommodative, processes. Thus, it’s not optimal but rather a reflection of a economy of N use. These are old points made by many. So, in answer to your question Simon, it it likely that a number of people can stay in N balance, through 2/n
@theproof @GardnerPhD Consuming plant proteins that are not as processed, yes. The question becomes, is that a good thing? The answer is, it depends. When able to live in this state without stressors - viral infection as a pertinent recent example - it’s probably fine. But when a stressor happens 3/n
Read 12 tweets
Feb 23
Lifting light(er) weights, a 🧵

After posting something about light(er) weights in promoting muscle mass and strength gains, it's always interesting to read the emails I get. They range from, thank you, this is so liberating to read, it hurts when I lift heavy, and I never knew
lifting lighter had the same effects. Then I get emails excoriating "my" paradigm (as if it's mine) and that lifting light(er) weights is a waste of time. Most of the latter types of emails talk about the "fear" of people prescribing exercise that clients will see no benefit
and that it's a "waste of time" to light 3lb dumbells to improve arm strength or bodyweight squats do not make you stronger. It's honestly stunning to read the knots into which people will twist themselves and their narrative as to why lighter weights don't "work." My take
Read 18 tweets
Feb 22
Systematic review and meta-analysis of protein intake to support muscle mass and function in healthy adults pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35187864/

Bench press strength is slightly increased by ingesting more protein in <65 years old subjects during RE training
(SMD = 0.18, 95% CI 0.03:0.33, P = 0.01, 32 studies, low level of evidence). The effects of ingesting more protein are unclear when assessing handgrip strength and only marginal for performance in physical function tests. In conclusion, increasing daily protein ingestion results
in small additional gains in LBM and lower body muscle strength gains in healthy adults enrolled in resistance exercise training. There is a slight effect on bench press strength and minimal effect performance in physical function tests.
Read 4 tweets
Jan 1
Many arguments around protein requirements and adequacy are based on a foundation that the RDA is correct, is a target intake at which we should aim, and represents a level beyond which no further health benefit would result.

Hot take: None of these assumptions are true and
it has been shown time and again, using various methods, that optimal levels of protein intake are high(er) than the RDA. How much higher? Well, there I can agree we have room for discussion!

As for the 'downsides' of consuming 'too much' protein, it's probably prudent
to remind folks that the AMDR says protein intake at 10-35% of total Ein is associated with good health. But that's a big range!

Most evidence, in my experience/view, points to intakes >RDA (more than could be cited here) but that benefit plateaus approaching 1.6 g/kg/d
Read 5 tweets
May 9, 2020
Stop saying that higher protein intakes cause renal failure, you are wrong. From the WHO/FAO:
“…the suggestion that the decline of glomerular filtration rate that occurs with advancing age in healthy subjects can be attenuated by reducing the protein content
in the diet has no foundation.”
From the IOM in setting the last DRI:
“…protein content of diet is not related to progressive decline in kidney function with age.”

A causal link? No evidence:
Changes in Kidney Function Do Not Differ between Healthy Adults Consuming
Higher- Compared with Lower- or Normal-Protein Diets: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
academic.oup.com/jn/article/148…
A Systematic Review of Renal Health in Healthy Individuals Associated with Protein Intake above the US Recommended
Read 4 tweets
Mar 31, 2020
So it's playing out like this. Build up your muscle, stay fit; it's our reserve against a catabolic episode (1). When you relax and put your feet up, things go south (fast) and take, it appears, a long-time to recover (2).
Now this pandemic has provided a blanket catabolic episode for lots of people, and the age demographics and poor metabolic health of folks don't bode well (3). People can say it 'only' kills older people and those with pre-existing conditions, but who in NA is healthy anymore?
Lack of sleep, poor nutrition, lack of exercise, cancer is prevalent, plus exposure to a test of immunity and resilience equals a poor outcome? Likely never been a time, and hopefully, there will never be another time when the message of building resilience to a catabolic threat
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(