↓ 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
  • 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
32 news outlets
blogs
11 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
1350 tweeters
facebook
99 Facebook pages
googleplus
9 Google+ users
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
564 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
560 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 1,350 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 560 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%
Spain 2 <1%
Peru 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 547 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 91 16%
Student > Master 87 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 81 14%
Student > Bachelor 54 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 48 9%
Other 124 22%
Unknown 75 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 166 30%
Sports and Recreations 80 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 49 9%
Psychology 39 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 28 5%
Other 74 13%
Unknown 124 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1247. 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 18 June 2020.
All research outputs
#3,899
of 15,573,622 outputs
Outputs from JAMA Internal Medicine
#65
of 4,058 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57
of 227,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JAMA Internal Medicine
#3
of 162 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,573,622 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 4,058 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 135.5. 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 227,712 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 162 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.