CMAJ • March 14, 2006; 174 (6). doi:10.1503/cmaj.051351.
© 2006 CMA Media Inc. or its licensors
All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association.
This Article
Right arrow Abstract
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Online Appendix
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow View responses
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Warburton, D. E.R.
Right arrow Articles by Bredin, S. S.D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Warburton, D. E.R.
Right arrow Articles by Bredin, S. S.D.
Related Collections
Right arrow Obesity
Right arrow Exercise, physical activity
Right arrow Sports & Exercise medicine

Health benefits of physical activity: the evidence

Darren E.R. Warburton, Crystal Whitney Nicol and Shannon S.D. Bredin

From the School of Human Kinetics, University of British Columbia (Warburton, Nicol, Bredin), and the Healthy Heart Program, St. Paul's Hospital (Warburton, Nicol), Vancouver, BC


Figure 123
View larger version (27K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 1: Relative risks of death from any cause among participants with various risk factors (e.g., history of hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD], diabetes, smoking, elevated body mass index [BMI ≥ 30] and high total cholesterol level [TC ≥ 5.70 mmol/L) who achieved an exercise capacity of less than 5 METs (metabolic equivalents) or 5–8 METs, as compared with participants whose exercise capacity was more than 8 METs. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals. Adapted, with permission, from Myers et al38 (N Engl J Med 2002;346:793-801). Copyright © 2002 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.

 

Figure 223
View larger version (39K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 2: Relation between changes in physical fitness and changes in mortality over time. Participants were evaluated at baseline (PF1) and again 13 years later (PF2). The ratio of PF2/PF1 x 100 was calculated to evaluate changes in physical fitness over the study period compared with fitness level at baseline. For this figure, participants were grouped according to fitness quartiles (Q1 = least fit, Q4 = most fit) for the baseline evaluation and to quartiles for change in fitness from baseline to 13-year follow-up (Q1 PF2/PF1 = least change, Q4 PF2/PF1 = most change). Adapted, with permission, from Erikssen et al35 (Lancet 1998;352:759-62).

 

Figure 323
View larger version (22K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 3: Theoretical relation between musculoskeletal fitness and independent living across a person's lifespan. As a person ages, his or her musculoskeletal fitness (i.e., muscular strength, muscular endurance, muscular power or flexibility) declines, such that a small impairment may result in disability. Many elderly people currently live near or below the functional threshold for dependence. High levels of (or improvements in) musculoskeletal fitness will enhance the capacity to meet the demands of everyday life and allow a person to maintain functional independence for a greater period.9,10

 

View this table:

[in a new window]
  		Appendix 1.