↓ Skip to main content

Leisure Time Physical Activity and Mortality

Overview of attention for article published in JAMA Internal Medicine, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#40 of 3,221)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
31 news outlets
blogs
11 blogs
twitter
1371 tweeters
facebook
99 Facebook pages
googleplus
9 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
286 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
301 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Leisure Time Physical Activity and Mortality
Published in
JAMA Internal Medicine, June 2015
DOI 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.0533
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hannah Arem, Steven C. Moore, Alpa Patel, Patricia Hartge, Amy Berrington de Gonzalez, Kala Visvanathan, Peter T. Campbell, Michal Freedman, Elisabete Weiderpass, Hans Olov Adami, Martha S. Linet, I.-Min Lee, Charles E. Matthews

Abstract

The 2008 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans recommended a minimum of 75 vigorous-intensity or 150 moderate-intensity minutes per week (7.5 metabolic-equivalent hours per week) of aerobic activity for substantial health benefit and suggested additional benefits by doing more than double this amount. However, the upper limit of longevity benefit or possible harm with more physical activity is unclear. To quantify the dose-response association between leisure time physical activity and mortality and define the upper limit of benefit or harm associated with increased levels of physical activity. We pooled data from 6 studies in the National Cancer Institute Cohort Consortium (baseline 1992-2003). Population-based prospective cohorts in the United States and Europe with self-reported physical activity were analyzed in 2014. A total of 661 137 men and women (median age, 62 years; range, 21-98 years) and 116 686 deaths were included. We used Cox proportional hazards regression with cohort stratification to generate multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs. Median follow-up time was 14.2 years. Leisure time moderate- to vigorous-intensity physical activity. The upper limit of mortality benefit from high levels of leisure time physical activity. Compared with individuals reporting no leisure time physical activity, we observed a 20% lower mortality risk among those performing less than the recommended minimum of 7.5 metabolic-equivalent hours per week (HR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.78-0.82]), a 31% lower risk at 1 to 2 times the recommended minimum (HR, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.67-0.70]), and a 37% lower risk at 2 to 3 times the minimum (HR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.62-0.65]). An upper threshold for mortality benefit occurred at 3 to 5 times the physical activity recommendation (HR, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.59-0.62]); however, compared with the recommended minimum, the additional benefit was modest (31% vs 39%). There was no evidence of harm at 10 or more times the recommended minimum (HR, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.59-0.78]). A similar dose-response relationship was observed for mortality due to cardiovascular disease and to cancer. Meeting the 2008 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans minimum by either moderate- or vigorous-intensity activities was associated with nearly the maximum longevity benefit. We observed a benefit threshold at approximately 3 to 5 times the recommended leisure time physical activity minimum and no excess risk at 10 or more times the minimum. In regard to mortality, health care professionals should encourage inactive adults to perform leisure time physical activity and do not need to discourage adults who already participate in high-activity levels.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 1,371 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 301 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 3 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
France 2 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Peru 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Other 3 <1%
Unknown 285 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 54 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 50 17%
Student > Master 42 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 30 10%
Student > Bachelor 29 10%
Other 96 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 97 32%
Unspecified 44 15%
Sports and Recreations 44 15%
Psychology 27 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 22 7%
Other 67 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1268. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 November 2018.
All research outputs
#1,754
of 12,144,616 outputs
Outputs from JAMA Internal Medicine
#40
of 3,221 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49
of 218,832 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JAMA Internal Medicine
#3
of 175 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,144,616 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,221 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 120.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 218,832 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 175 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.