Intervention to reduce sedentary behaviour and improve outcomes after stroke (Get Set Go): a study protocol for the process evaluation of a pilot cluster randomised controlled trial (RECREATE).

INTRODUCTION: Stroke survivors spend long periods of time engaging in sedentary behaviour (SB) even when their functional recovery is good. In the RECREATE programme, an intervention aimed at reducing SB ('Get Set Go') will be implemented and evaluated in a pragmatic external pilot cluster randomised controlled trial with embedded process and economic evaluations. We report the protocol for the process evaluation which will address the following objectives: (1) describe and clarify causal assumptions about the intervention, and its mechanisms of impact; (2) assess implementation fidelity; (3) explore views, perceptions and acceptability of the intervention to staff, stroke survivors and their carers; (4) establish the contextual factors that influence implementation, intervention mechanisms and outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This pilot trial will be conducted in 15 UK-based National Health Service stroke services. This process evaluation study, underpinned by the Medical Research Council guidance, will be undertaken in six of the randomised services (four intervention, two control). Data collection includes the following: observations of staff training sessions, non-participant observations in inpatient and community settings, semi-structured interviews with staff, patients and carers, and documentary analysis of key intervention components. Additional quantitative implementation data will be collected in all sites. Training observations and documentary analysis data will be summarised, with other observational and interview data analysed using thematic analysis. Relevant theories will be used to interpret the findings, including the theoretical domains framework, normalisation process theory and the theoretical framework of acceptability. Anticipated outputs include the following: recommendations for intervention refinements (both content and implementation); a revised implementation plan and a refined logic model. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved by Yorkshire & The Humber - Bradford Leeds Research Ethics Committee (REC reference: 19/YH/0403). Findings will be disseminated via peer review publications, and national and international conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN82280581.

RECREATE: a study protocol for a multicentre pilot cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) in UK stroke services evaluating an intervention to reduce sedentary behaviour in stroke survivors (Get Set Go) with embedded process and economic evaluations.

INTRODUCTION: Sedentary behaviour (sitting or lying during waking hours without being otherwise active) is strongly associated with adverse health outcomes, including all-cause, cancer and cardiovascular mortality in adults. Stroke survivors are consistently reported as being more sedentary than healthy age-matched controls, spending more hours sedentary daily and sustaining longer unbroken bouts of sedentary time. An evidence-based and clinically feasible intervention ('Get Set Go') was developed. A pragmatic definitive trial to evaluate Get Set Go was planned; however, due to the unprecedented effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on National Health Service (NHS) services this study was reduced in size and scope to become an external pilot trial. We report the protocol for this external pilot trial, which aims to undertake a preliminary exploration of whether Get Set Go is likely to improve ability to complete extended activities of daily living in the first year post-stroke and inform future trial designs in stroke rehabilitation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study is a pragmatic, multicentre, two-arm, external pilot cluster randomised controlled trial with embedded process and economic evaluations. UK-based stroke services will be randomised 1:1 to the intervention (usual care plus Get Set Go) or control (usual care) arm. Fifteen stroke services will recruit 300-400 stroke inpatient and carer participants, with follow-up at 6, 12 and 24 months. The proposed primary endpoint is stroke survivor self-reported Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living scale at 12 months. Endpoint analyses will be exploratory and provide preliminary estimates of intervention effect. The process evaluation will provide valuable information on intervention fidelity, acceptability and how it can be optimised. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by Yorkshire and The Humber - Bradford-Leeds Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 19/YH/0403). Results will be disseminated through journal publications and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This trial was registered prospectively on 01 April 2020 (ISRCTN ref: ISRCTN82280581).

Systematic review of process evaluations of interventions in trials investigating sedentary behaviour in adults.

OBJECTIVES: To systematically review and synthesise findings from process evaluations of interventions in trials which measured sedentary behaviour as an outcome in adults to explore: (1) how intervention content, implementation, mechanisms of impact and context influence outcomes and (2) how these interventions are experienced from different perspectives (participants, carers, staff). DESIGN: Systematic review and narrative synthesis underpinned by the Medical Research Council process evaluation framework. DATA SOURCES: Databases searches were conducted in March 2019 then updated in May 2020 and October 2021 in: CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, AMED; EMBASE, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, Web of Science and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included: Process evaluations of trials including interventions where sedentary behaviour was measured as an outcome in adults aged 16 or over from clinical or non-clinical populations. We excluded studies if interventions were delivered in educational or workplace settings, or if they were laboratory studies focused on immediate effects of breaking sitting. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers extracted and coded data into a framework and assessed the quality of studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. We synthesised findings using a narrative approach. RESULTS: 17 process evaluations were included. Five interventions focused on reducing sedentary behaviour or sitting time, 12 aimed to increase physical activity or promote healthier lifestyles. Process evaluations indicated changes in sedentary behaviour outcomes were shaped by numerous factors including: barriers (eg, staffing difficulties and scheduling problems) and facilitators (eg, allowing for flexibility) to intervention delivery; contextual factors (eg, usual lifestyle and religious events) and individual factors (eg, pain, tiredness, illness, age and individual preferences). DISCUSSION: Intervention requires careful consideration of different factors that could influence changes in sedentary behaviour outcomes to ensure that interventions can be tailored to suit different individuals and groups. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018087403.

Stroke survivors' perceptions of their sedentary behaviours three months after stroke.

PURPOSE: Sedentary behaviour is any waking behaviour in sitting, lying or reclining postures with low energy expenditure. High sedentary behaviour levels, common after stroke, are associated with poor health and higher levels of mobility disability. The aim of this study was to undertake a behavioural diagnosis of sedentary behaviour in the early phase after stroke to inform interventions that may reduce sedentary behaviour and associated disability. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Independently mobile stroke survivors were interviewed three months after stroke. The topic guide was informed by the central layer of the Behaviour Change Wheel to explore three components: capability, opportunity and motivation. This model recognises that behaviour is the consequence of an interacting system of these components. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using The Framework Method. RESULTS: Thirty one people were interviewed (66.7 years; 16 male). The perception of diminished capability to reduce sedentary behaviour due to physical tiredness/fatigue, and pain/discomfort acting as both a motivator and inhibitor to movement, were discussed. Environmental barriers and the importance of social interaction were highlighted. Perceived motivation to reduce sedentary behaviour was influenced by enjoyment of sedentary behaviours, fear of falling and habitual nature of sedentary behaviours. CONCLUSIONS: This information will inform evidence-based sedentary behaviour interventions after stroke.Implications for rehabilitationHigher levels of sedentary behaviours are associated with poor health and stroke survivors are highly sedentary.Stroke survivors have complex reasons for spending time in sedentary behaviours including fatigue, pain, fear of falling and environmental barriers.Future interventions should educate stroke survivors on the health consequences of sedentary behaviours and encourage an increased awareness of time spent sedentary.Supporting stroke survivors to identify enjoyable and achievable activities that involve standing and movement, and ideally social interaction, is recommended.

A co-production approach guided by the behaviour change wheel to develop an intervention for reducing sedentary behaviour after stroke.

BACKGROUND: Stroke survivors are highly sedentary; thus, breaking up long uninterrupted bouts of sedentary behaviour could have substantial health benefit. However, there are no intervention strategies specifically aimed at reducing sedentary behaviour tailored for stroke survivors. The purpose of this study was to use co-production approaches to develop an intervention to reduce sedentary behaviour after stroke. METHODS: A series of five co-production workshops with stroke survivors, their caregivers, stroke service staff, exercise professionals, and researchers were conducted in parallel in two-stroke services (England and Scotland). Workshop format was informed by the behaviour change wheel (BCW) framework for developing interventions and incorporated systematic review and empirical evidence. Taking an iterative approach, data from activities and audio recordings were analysed following each workshop and findings used to inform subsequent workshops, to inform both the activities of the next workshop and ongoing intervention development. FINDINGS: Co-production workshop participants (n = 43) included 17 staff, 14 stroke survivors, six caregivers and six researchers. The target behaviour for stroke survivors is to increase standing and moving, and the target behaviour for caregivers and staff is to support and encourage stroke survivors to increase standing and moving. The developed intervention is primarily based on co-produced solutions to barriers to achieving the target behaviour. The developed intervention includes 34 behaviour change techniques. The intervention is to be delivered through stroke services, commencing in the inpatient setting and following through discharge into the community. Participants reported that taking part in intervention development was a positive experience. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first study that has combined the use of co-production and the BCW to develop an intervention for use in stroke care. In-depth reporting of how a co-production approach was combined with the BCW framework, including the design of bespoke materials for workshop activities, should prove useful to other researchers and practitioners involved in intervention development in stroke.

Factors influencing sedentary behaviours after stroke: findings from qualitative observations and interviews with stroke survivors and their caregivers.

BACKGROUND: Stroke survivors are more sedentary than healthy, age-matched controls, independent of functional capacity. Interventions are needed to encourage a reduction in overall sedentary time, and regular breaks in prolonged periods of sedentary behaviour. This study captured the views and experiences of stroke survivors and their caregivers related to sedentary behaviour after stroke, to inform the development of an intervention to reduce sedentary behaviour. METHODS: Mixed-methods qualitative study. Non-participant observations were completed in two stroke services, inclusive of inpatient and community settings in the United Kingdom. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with stroke survivors and their caregivers (if available) at six- or nine-months post-stroke. Underpinned by the capability, opportunity and motivation (COM-B) model of behaviour change, observational data (132 h) were analysed thematically and interview data (n = 31 stroke survivors, n = 12 caregivers) were analysed using the Framework approach. RESULTS: Observation participants differed in functional ability whereas stroke survivor interviewees were all ambulant. Six themes related to sedentary behaviour after stroke were generated: (1) sedentary behaviour levels and patterns after stroke; (2) the physical and social environment in the stroke service and in the home; (3) standing and movement capability after stroke; (4) emotion and motivation after stroke; (5) caregivers' influence on, and role in influencing stroke survivors' sedentary behaviour; and (6) intervening to reduce sedentary behaviour after stroke. Capability, opportunity and motivation were influenced by the impact of the stroke and caregivers' inclination to support sedentary behaviour reduction. Stroke survivors reported being more sedentary than they were pre-stroke due to impaired balance and co-ordination, increased fatigue, and reduced confidence in mobilising. Caregivers inclination to support stroke survivors to reduce sedentary behaviour depended on factors including their willingness to withdraw from the caregiver role, and their perception of whether the stroke survivor would act on their encouragement. CONCLUSIONS: Many stroke survivors indicate being open to reducing sedentary behaviour, with appropriate support from stroke service staff and caregivers. The findings from this study have contributed to an intervention development process using the Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW) approach to develop strategies to reduce sedentary behaviour after stroke.

A protocol for a systematic review of process evaluations of interventions investigating sedentary behaviour in adults.

INTRODUCTION: Sedentary behaviour is defined as any waking behaviour characterised by low energy expenditure ≤1.5 metabolic equivalents while in a sitting, lying or reclining posture. The expanding evidence base suggests that sedentary behaviour may have a detrimental effect on health, well-being and is associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality. We aim to review process evaluations of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which included a measure of sedentary behaviour in adults in order to develop an understanding of intervention content, mechanisms of impact, implementation and delivery approaches and contexts, in which interventions were reported to be effective or effective. A secondary aim is to summarise participants, family and staff experiences of such interventions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Ten electronic databases and reference lists from previous similar reviews will be searched. Eligible studies will be process evaluations of RCTs that measure sedentary behaviour as a primary or secondary outcome in adults. As this review will contribute to a programme to develop a community-based intervention to reduce sedentary behaviour in stroke survivors, interventions delivered in schools, colleges, universities or workplaces will be excluded. Two reviewers will perform study selection, data extraction and quality assessment. Disagreements between reviewers will be resolved by a third reviewer. Process evaluation data to be extracted include the aims and methods used in the process evaluation; implementation data; mechanisms of impact; contextual factors; participant, family and staff experiences of the interventions. A narrative approach will be used to synthesise and report qualitative and quantitative data. Reporting of the review will be informed by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidance. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required as it is a protocol for a systematic review. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018087403.

What Do Older People Do When Sitting and Why? Implications for Decreasing Sedentary Behavior.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Sitting less can reduce older adults' risk of ill health and disability. Effective sedentary behavior interventions require greater understanding of what older adults do when sitting (and not sitting), and why. This study compares the types, context, and role of sitting activities in the daily lives of older men and women who sit more or less than average. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Semistructured interviews with 44 older men and women of different ages, socioeconomic status, and objectively measured sedentary behavior were analyzed using social practice theory to explore the multifactorial, inter-relational influences on their sedentary behavior. Thematic frameworks facilitated between-group comparisons. RESULTS: Older adults described many different leisure time, household, transport, and occupational sitting and non-sitting activities. Leisure-time sitting in the home (e.g., watching TV) was most common, but many non-sitting activities, including "pottering" doing household chores, also took place at home. Other people and access to leisure facilities were associated with lower sedentary behavior. The distinction between being busy/not busy was more important to most participants than sitting/not sitting, and informed their judgments about high-value "purposeful" (social, cognitively active, restorative) sitting and low-value "passive" sitting. Declining physical function contributed to temporal sitting patterns that did not vary much from day-to-day. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Sitting is associated with cognitive, social, and/or restorative benefits, embedded within older adults' daily routines, and therefore difficult to change. Useful strategies include supporting older adults to engage with other people and local facilities outside the home, and break up periods of passive sitting at home.

Using an individualised consultation and activPAL™ feedback to reduce sedentary time in older Scottish adults: results of a feasibility and pilot study.

OBJECTIVE: Sedentary behaviours have been linked to poor health, independent of physical activity levels. The objective of this study was to explore an individualised intervention strategy aimed at reducing sedentary behaviours in older Scottish adults. METHODS: This feasibility and pilot study was a pre-experimental (one group pretest-posttest) study design. Participants were enrolled into the study in January-March 2012 and data analysis was completed April-October 2012. The study was based in Glasgow, Scotland. Participants received an individualised consultation targeting sedentary behaviour incorporating feedback from an activPAL activity monitor. Outcome measures were objectively (activPAL) and subjectively measured (Sedentary Behaviour Questionnaire) sedentary time. RESULTS: Twenty four participants received the intervention. Objectively measured total time spent sitting/lying was reduced by 24 min/day (p=0.042), a reduction of 2.2%. Total time spent in stepping activities, such as walking increased by 13 min/day (p=0.044). Self-report data suggested participants achieved behaviour change by reducing time spent watching television and/or using motorised transport. CONCLUSION: Interventions to reduce sedentary behaviours in older people are urgently needed. The results of this feasibility and pilot study suggest a consultation approach may help individuals reduce time spent in sedentary behaviours. A larger, controlled trial is warranted with a diverse sample to increase generalisability.

Increasing older adults' walking through primary care: results of a pilot randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Physical activity can positively influence health for older adults. Primary care is a good setting for physical activity promotion. OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility of a pedometer-based walking programme in combination with physical activity consultations. DESIGN: Two-arm (intervention/control) 12-week randomized controlled trial with a 12-week follow-up for the intervention group. SETTING: One general practice in Glasgow, UK. PARTICIPANTS: PARTICIPANTS were aged ≥65 years. The intervention group received two 30-minute physical activity consultations from a trained practice nurse, a pedometer and a walking programme. The control group continued as normal for 12 weeks and then received the intervention. Both groups were followed up at 12 and 24 weeks. OUTCOME MEASURES: Step counts were measured by sealed pedometers and an activPALTM monitor. Psychosocial variables were assessed and focus groups conducted. RESULTS: The response rate was 66% (187/284), and 90% of those randomized (37/41) completed the study. Qualitative data suggested that the pedometer and nurse were helpful to the intervention. Step counts (activPAL) showed a significant increase from baseline to week 12 for the intervention group, while the control group showed no change. Between weeks 12 and 24, step counts were maintained in the intervention group, and increased for the control group after receiving the intervention. The intervention was associated with improved quality of life and reduced sedentary time. CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible to recruit and retain older adults from primary care and help them increase walking. A larger trial is necessary to confirm findings and consider cost-effectiveness.

Does physical activity counselling enhance the effects of a pedometer-based intervention over the long-term: 12-month findings from the Walking for Wellbeing in the west study.

BACKGROUND: Pedometers provide a simple, cost effective means of motivating individuals to increase walking yet few studies have considered if short term changes in walking behaviour can be maintained in the long-term. The role of physical activity consultations in such interventions is unclear. The purpose of this study was to assess the sustainability of pedometer-based interventions and empirically examine the role of physical activity consultations using long-term results of a community-based walking study. METHODS: 79 low active Scottish men and women (63 women and 16 men) from the Walking for Wellbeing in the West intervention study were randomly assigned to receive either: Group 1; pedometer-based walking programme plus physical activity consultations or Group 2; pedometer-based walking programme and minimal advice. Step counts (Omron HJ-109E Step-O-Meter pedometer), 7 day recall of physical activity (IPAQ long), mood (PANAS) and quality of life (EuroQol EQ-5D) were assessed pre-intervention and 12, 24 and 48 weeks after receiving the intervention. Body mass, body mass index and waist and hip circumference were assessed pre-intervention and 12 and 24 weeks after receiving the intervention. Analyses were performed on an intention to treat basis (baseline value carried forward for missing data) using mixed-factorial ANOVAs and follow-up t-tests. RESULTS: A significant main effect of time (p < 0.001) was found for step-counts attributable to significant increases in steps/day between: pre-intervention (M = 6941, SD = 3047) and 12 weeks (M = 9327, SD = 4136), t(78) = - 6.52, p < 0.001, d = 0.66; pre-intervention and 24 weeks (M = 8804, SD = 4145), t(78) = - 4.82, p < 0.001, d = 0.52; and pre-intervention and 48 weeks (M = 8450, SD = 3855), t(78) = - 4.15, p < 0.001, d = 0.44. Significant effects were found for several variables of self-reported physical activity, mood and quality of life and are discussed. No other significant effects in health related outcomes were found. CONCLUSION: Both interventions successfully increased and maintained step counts over 12 months. Physical activity consultations may encourage individuals to be active in other ways beyond walking and to reduce sitting time. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Current Controlled Trials Ltd ISRCTN88907382.

The effect of a 12 week walking intervention on markers of insulin resistance and systemic inflammation.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the present study was to determine whether a community-based walking intervention, using pedometers, is effective in reducing systemic inflammatory markers. METHODS: Participants (age=49(8.9)) were recruited in Glasgow, United Kingdom, from August to December 2006 and were randomly assigned to a control (n=24; 6 males, no change in walking) and intervention group (n=24; 5 males gradually increasing walking by 3000 steps/day on 5 days of the week). Blood samples were collected at baseline, and after 12 weeks, and analysed for glucose, insulin, high sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), interleukin-6 (IL-6), soluble IL-6 receptor (sIL-6R), tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha) and soluble TNF receptors I and II (sTNFR1 and sTNFRII). RESULTS: In the control group baseline step counts were 6356 (2953) steps/day and did not change (P>0.05) after 12 weeks, 6709 (2918) steps/day. The intervention group increased (P<0.001) step count from 6682 (3761) steps/day at baseline to 10182 (4081) steps/day at 12 weeks. Over the 12 week period there was no change in any other variables measured, in either control or intervention group. CONCLUSION: We conclude that the current community-based intervention did not affect systemic markers of inflammation or insulin sensitivity.

The 'Walking for Wellbeing in the West' randomised controlled trial of a pedometer-based walking programme in combination with physical activity consultation with 12 month follow-up: rationale and study design.

BACKGROUND: Scotland has a policy aimed at increasing physical activity levels in the population, but evidence on how to achieve this is still developing. Studies that focus on encouraging real world participants to start physical activity in their settings are needed. The Walking for Well-being in the West study was designed to assess the effectiveness of a pedometer-based walking programme in combination with physical activity consultation. The study was multi-disciplinary and based in the community. Walking for Well-being in the West investigated whether Scottish men and women, who were not achieving the current physical activity recommendation, increased and maintained walking behaviour over a 12 month period. This paper outlines the rationale and design of this innovative and pragmatic study. METHODS: Participants were randomised into two groups: Group 1: Intervention (pedometer-based walking programme combined with a series of physical activity consultations); Group 2: Waiting list control for 12 weeks (followed by minimal pedometer-based intervention). Physical activity (primary outcome) was measured using pedometer step counts (7 day) and the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (long version). Psychological processes were measured using questionnaires relating to the Transtheoretical Model of Behaviour Change, mood (Positive and Negative Affect Schedule) and quality of life (Euroqol EQ-5D instrument). Physiological measures included anthropometric and metabolic outcomes. Environmental influences were assessed subjectively (Neighbourhood Quality of Life Survey) and objectively (neighbourhood audit tool and GIS mapping). The qualitative evaluation employed observation, semi-structured interviews and focus groups. A supplementary study undertook an economic evaluation. DISCUSSION: Data analysis is on-going. Walking for Well-being in the West will demonstrate if a pedometer based walking programme, in combination with physical activity consultation results in a sustainable increase in walking behaviour in this sample of Scottish adults over a 12 month period. The study will examine the complex relationships between behavioural change, health consequences and the role of the environment, in conjunction with the cost effectiveness of this approach and a detailed insight into the participants' experiences of the intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN88907382.

Interventions to promote walking: systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of interventions to promote walking in individuals and populations. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: Published and unpublished reports in any language identified by searching 25 electronic databases, by searching websites, reference lists, and existing systematic reviews, and by contacting experts. REVIEW METHODS: Systematic search for and appraisal of controlled before and after studies of the effects of any type of intervention on how much people walk, the distribution of effects on walking between social groups, and any associated effects on overall physical activity, fitness, risk factors for disease, health, and wellbeing. RESULTS: We included 19 randomised controlled trials and 29 non-randomised controlled studies. Interventions tailored to people's needs, targeted at the most sedentary or at those most motivated to change, and delivered either at the level of the individual (brief advice, supported use of pedometers, telecommunications) or household (individualised marketing) or through groups, can encourage people to walk more, although the sustainability, generalisability, and clinical benefits of many of these approaches are uncertain. Evidence for the effectiveness of interventions applied to workplaces, schools, communities, or areas typically depends on isolated studies or subgroup analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The most successful interventions could increase walking among targeted participants by up to 30-60 minutes a week on average, at least in the short term. From a perspective of improving population health, much of the research currently provides evidence of efficacy rather than effectiveness. Nevertheless, interventions to promote walking could contribute substantially towards increasing the activity levels of the most sedentary.

Responses to walking-speed instructions: implications for health promotion for older adults.

This study examined the effect of age on descriptive walking-speed instructions commonly used in health promotion. Participants were 9 young (20-23 years) and 9 older (75-83 years) women. Oxygen uptake and walking speed were measured in response to descriptive walking instructions ("slow," "comfortable," "brisk," and "fast"). Although the older women walked approximately 20% slower in response to all walking instructions and with significantly lower oxygen costs for brisk and fast, the intensity of the exercise represented a much greater percentage of VO2max and showed greater interindividual variation. When asked to walk at a brisk pace, the older women averaged 67% VO2max (SD 20.6), whereas the young women averaged only 45% VO2max (SD 4.5). With older people, brisk might elicit an exercise intensity unnecessarily high for physiological benefit and that might compromise safety and adherence, which emphasizes the need for validation of carefully worded exercise and training guidance for older adults.