Faster or longer steps: Maintaining fast walking in older adults at risk for mobility disability.
Sidney T Baudendistel, Abigail C Schmitt, Amanda E Stone and 3 others
PMID 34256264WHAT IT FOUND
Older adults who used shorter steps to walk fast had slower chair stands and more preferred-walk propulsion.
Their fast step length was shorter than the longer-step group, but knee and ankle strength tests did not separate the groups.
Key findings
01During fast walking, the length group took 0.60 ± 0.06 m steps and the time group took 0.56 ± 0.06 m steps, while step time did not differ significantly (0.46 ± 0.05 s and 0.47 ± 0.04 s).
02None of the isokinetic knee and ankle strength measures differed between groups, and after multiple-comparison correction the only significant functional difference was faster SPPB chair stand time in the length group.
03During preferred walking, after multiple-comparison correction the only significant difference was propulsive impulse, which was reduced in the length group compared with the time group.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
This was a baseline cross-sectional analysis, not a randomized trial or intervention study, so it cannot show that changing step length or timing would improve mobility or reduce falls. The sample was small and narrow: sedentary adults aged 65 to 80 with limited preferred walking speed and SPPB scores that were neither below 6 nor 12, so it may not apply to more active healthy older adults or people with more severe disability. One participant was removed as an outlier, and missing data were handled by removing participants from the affected analyses, which can reduce the number of participants available for some comparisons. The clinical measures did not explain significant variability in the strategy score after correction. The authors could not determine whether the time-dominant strategy is an intrinsic limitation or a choice.
Declared interests
The authors declared no conflicts of interest. The article is listed as supported by NIH extramural funding.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the time-dominant strategy as a proven cause of falls or future mobility disability. The study compared groups at one time, did not test an intervention, and the clinical measures did not explain significant variability in the strategy score after correction.