To step or not to step?

image source Dipp

I recently read an article that caught my attention about the methods that Governments employ to reduce current coronary heart disease (CHD) rates in the western world. The most striking point of the article is regarding the factors that are attributed to the rate of CHD. The authors cite the U.S. Department of Health and Services when they say that a sedentary lifestyle poses a greater risk to CHD than smoking, cholesterol levels and, hypertension.

Their research attributes the increased mechanisation of labour and the long sedentary office hours of many workers as the main reasons for a sedentary lifestyle. Therefore, they postulate that if people were to reduce their inactive nature CHD levels be reduced and that the workplace is the ideal place to activate their working day.

Previous research they cite discusses that ideally the exercise programme should not interfere with the working day, take a minimal amount of time, incur no financial costs, involve no special equipment, and have clear benefits to health. Their research led them down the path of stair climbing. Mainly because many offices have a stairwell, people are familiar with the actions involved and, it has been shown to be related to life longevity.

image source bbc.co.uk

This brings me back to the point I made at the start. Why do Governments insist on spending a mountain of money trying to stop people smoking? I know that cigarettes contain an incredible amount of carcinogens and that smoking related diseases are high, but, I’m discussing health related issues in the context of CHD and not diseases such as lung cancer.

A review of a study cites that in the year 2000, the 7 top causes of death in the USA were:

• Heart disease (710,760 deaths)
• Cancer (553,091)
• Stroke (167,561)
• Lung disease (122,009)
• Injuries from accidents (97,900)
• Diabetes (69,301)
• Flu and pneumonia (65,313)

As the list shows CHD killed more people than lung disease therefore it seems logical that Governments should focus their efforts on increasing physical activity not necessarily more than anti smoking campaigns but at least to the same degree. I will point out that smoking is a major contributor to CHD and this is why I wont say that Governments should withdraw their funds but, I do believe that awareness of the risks of a sedentary lifestyle need to be addressed.

That’s my little rant over as I become increasingly aware that I’m going way off topic.

In terms of the stair climbing study, 29 sedentary men and women were assigned an 8 week stair climbing exercise programme and their results were compared to 16 sedentary people who did not stair climb.

The exercise programme
Week 1 and 2 consisted of 1 bout of 145 steps = to 23.9 m
Ween 3 and 4 consisted of 2 bouts of 145 steps = to 47.8 m
Week 5 and 6 consisted of 3 bouts of 145 steps = to 71.7 m

This programme averaged 6 minutes exercise per day.

The results
The study showed that the experimental group improved their predicted aerobic (cardio) ability by 9.4%, a result that was consistent with other similar studies. No differences were observed for other variables including: cholesterol, BMI, body fat, and blood pressure.

What does this mean?
Firstly, the results mean that a 6 minute stair climbing programme can lead to improvement of aerobic fitness, but not to improvements of metabolic and physiological fitness.

The main point discussion point revolves around the duration and intensity of the exercise. The fact that an average of 6 minutes per day of moderate intensity exercise induces similar results to that of walking for 45 minutes at a low intensity is an eye opening finding. Many people feel that they need to go out jogging for 30 minutes 3 times per week when in reality they don’t. Further research to this study has discovered that continuing the stair climbing programme for an additional 4 week elicited 25% improvements for aerobic ability.

My advice
If you are a sedentary person with a low aerobic capacity then consider an exercise strategy that fits in well with the working day. I’m not saying that at lunchtime you should slip into your gym kit and dash for the nearest stairwell, unless you’re willing, but, at least take the stairs instead of the elevator. Park the car a little further from work and walk the remainder of the journey. Walk the dog on a regular basis. Play football in the park with the children. Search the web for a programme that you can follow at home, i recently posted about calisthenics a way to exercise using body weight as resistance in the comfort of your own home.

Do anything that elevates the heart rate because low cardio fitness is a strong predictor of mortality. Keep the exercise durations low and the intensity high as to save time away from the office and all other aspects of life.

If you are a person with moderate to high cardio fitness then keep doing what you are doing. If you train for long durations at a low intensity, then integrate a day of high intensity low duration exercise into your programme. I personally run for 8 miles on Wednesday evening. The first 3 miles are at a steady pace then i switch to lamp post training for 2 miles, and finish off with a steady 3 mile run home. The lamp post training involves sprint intervals when i reach a lamp post i will sprint to the next, here i jog until the next lamp post. Then i sprint for 2 posts and match it with 2 jogging. I continue this for 6 posts and then return to 1 post until the 2 miles are covered. This is a great way of opening up the lungs, sucking in the fresh air and training the heart to work efficiently.

So how hands up who shirks the stairs for the escalator or elevator? I’ve been caught on a few occasions but i try to make a habit of the taking the most challenging route when I’m navigating the shops or work places. What do you think of the study? 6 minutes sound like a reasonable amount of time? Let me know your thoughts.

Article reference
Evaluating the effects of a low volume stairclimbing programme on measures of
health-related fitness in sedentary office workers. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine (2007) 6, 448-454.