The physical activity patterns of cardiac rehabilitation program participants

J Cardiopulm Rehabil. 2004 Mar-Apr;24(2):80-6. doi: 10.1097/00008483-200403000-00003.

Abstract

Purpose: This investigation aimed to examine the physical activity patterns of cardiac rehabilitation program (CRP) participants.

Methods: The investigation enrolled 53 male and 24 female CRP participants between 46 and 88 years of age. By means of a uniaxial accelerometer (Life-Corder), the amount of physical activity (in kilocalories) and the time spent in physical activity at light (<3 metabolic equivalents [METs]), moderate (3 to 6 METs), and vigorous (>6 METs) intensity were evaluated. In addition to these variables, the MET levels for the CRP and non-CRP periods were calculated.

Results: The weekly amount of physical activity energy expenditure averaged 1597 +/- 846 kcal/week, and the time spent in light, moderate, and vigorous physical activity averaged, respectively, 375.5 +/- 124.5 minutes, 125.2 +/- 109.4 minutes, and 5.7 +/- 12.8 minutes per week. These levels were significantly lower on non-CRP days than on CRP days: 177 +/- 113 versus 299 +/- 161 kcal/day and, respectively, 49.3 +/- 19.3 versus 59.7 +/- 19.8 minutes, 10.5 +/- 14.6 versus 26.4 +/- 20.4 minutes, and 0.4 +/- 1.7 versus 1.4 +/- 3.0 minutes per day.

Conclusions: These results indicate that the amount of physical activity was generally adequate on CRP days, but failed to reach target levels on non-CRP days. Thus CRP participants, when it is medically appropriate, should be encouraged to incorporate lifestyle physical activity, additional exercise, or both on non-CRP days to supplement their caloric expenditure from CRP exercise sessions.

Publication types

  • Comparative Study
  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Acceleration
  • Aged
  • Aged, 80 and over
  • Coronary Disease / metabolism
  • Coronary Disease / rehabilitation*
  • Energy Metabolism / physiology
  • Female
  • Humans
  • Male
  • Middle Aged
  • Motor Activity / physiology*
  • Program Evaluation*
  • Sex Factors