Is the goal of 12,000 steps per day sufficient for improving body composition and metabolic syndrome? The necessity of combining exercise intensity: a randomized controlled trial

Abstract

Background To investigate the differences in body composition and metabolic syndrome (MS) under a daily 12,000-step strategy with or without moderate-intensity walking exercise in college students with obesity. Methods Thirty-two adults with obesity (mean (s.d.) age: 19.72 (0.80) years; height: 165.38 (3.99) cm; wt: 83.31 (4.66) kg; body mass index: 30.38 (0.83) kg m − 2 ) were recruited and randomly assigned to the walking step goal group (WSG; achieving 12,000 steps per day), walking exercise group (WEG; achieving 12,000 steps per day, including 3 days per week on which walking at a step rate of over 103 steps min − 1 was required), or control group (CG; maintaining a free-living life style). Each participant’s accumulated daily steps from daily activities and walking exercises were monitored using a smartwatch for 8 weeks. The variables of body composition and MS were measured before and after intervention. Results Average daily steps over 8 weeks did not significantly differ between the WSG and WEG (11,677.67 (480.24) vs. 12,131.90 (527.14) steps per day, respectively, P > .05). Although the CG and WSG showed no improvement in body composition, the WEG exhibited significant improvements in terms of hip circumference and visceral fat area (VFA) (∆ − 2.28 (3.27) cm and ∆ − 13.11 (9.83) cm 2 , respectively, P < .05); high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), fasting glucose (FG), and triglycerides (TG) (∆ 16.36 (8.39), ∆ − 2.53 (3.73), and ∆ − 10.52 (36.26) mg dL − 1 , respectively, P < .05). The WSG exhibited improvements only in HDL-C (∆ 14.24 (16.13) mg dL − 1 , P < .05). Conclusion The combination of walking exercise program and daily step goal is a more time efficient strategy in improving body composition and MS than simply establishing a daily step goal. Furthermore, this strategy may also include a potential reduction effect on the risk factors of cardiovascular diseases. Trial registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTR N12618001237279 (Retrospectively registered).

Which behaviour change techniques within interventions to prevent weight gain and/or initiate weight loss improve adiposity outcomes in young adults? A systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials

“…Table summarizes study characteristics, while Table S2 tabulates detailed study characteristics. Of the 51 included studies, 20 studies were eligible for meta‐analysis of BMI, 19 studies were eligible for meta‐analysis of weight, and 10 studies were eligible for meta‐analysis of waist circumference …”

“…Of the 51 included studies, a total of 43 measured change in weight, with 41 of these having an objective measure of weight and two using a self‐report measure for weight . This includes 19 studies from the meta‐analysis and a further 24 studies that reported weight as an outcome with results in a format that was not compatible for inclusion in the meta‐analysis.…”

“…A total of 36 studies measured changed in BMI, with 32 of these using an objective measure for BMI, while four studies used self‐report measures for BMI . This includes the 20 studies from the meta‐analysis and a further 16 studies that reported BMI as an outcome, but results were not comparable and therefore not included in the meta‐analysis.…”

“…Of these 36 studies, statistically significant between‐group reductions in BMI were reported in 11 studies, as shown in Table S2. Of the 36 studies, 11 were weight loss interventions and 25 were weight‐gain prevention interventions . Specifically, for the weight loss interventions, 3 of the 11 (27%) demonstrated a significant reduction in BMI when compared with control .…”

“…Meta‐analysis of BMI in 20 studies with a total of 26 intervention arms for interventions to prevent weight gain and/or initiate weight loss examined two moderator effects. There was no significant time effect (LRT χ2(4) = 0.78, P =.678) with a nonsignificant mean decrease in BMI relative to baseline −0.05 kg/m 2 up to 3 months (95% CI: −0.39, 0.27) and −0.14 kg/m 2 for >3 months (95% CI: −0.44, 0.16) (Figure ).…”