Abstract
Aims/hypothesis To examine the dose-response associations between device-measured physical activity types and posture (sitting and standing time) with cardiometabolic health.
Methods An individual participant harmonised meta-analysis of 12,095 adults (mean age±SD= 54.5±9.6 years; Female=54.8%) from 6 cohorts with thigh-worn accelerometry. Associations of average daily duration of walking, stair climbing, running, standing and sitting with composite cardiometabolic health score (based on standardised z-scores) and individual cardiometabolic markers (body mass index, waist circumference, triglycerides, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, glycated haemoglobin, and total cholesterol) were examined cross-sectionally using generalised linear modelling and cubic splines.
Results We observed more favourable composite cardiometabolic health (i.e. z-score <0) at approximately 64 minutes/day walking (z-score [95%CI] = -0.14 [-0.25, - 0.02]) and 5 minutes/day stair climbing (-0.14 [-0.24, -0.03]). We observed an equivalent magnitude of association at 2.6 hours/day standing. Any amount of running was associated with better composite cardiometabolic health. We did not observe an upper limit to the magnitude of the dose-response associations for any activity type or standing. There was an inverse dose-response association between sitting time and composite cardiometabolic health that became markedly less favourable when daily durations exceeded 12.1 hours/day. Associations for sitting time were no longer significant after excluding participants with prevalent cardiovascular disease or medication use. The dose-response pattern was generally consistent between activity and posture types and individual cardiometabolic health markers.
Conclusions/interpretation In the first activity-type specific analysis of device-based physical activity, ∼64 minutes/day of walking and ∼5.0 minutes/day of stair climbing, was associated with a favourable cardiometabolic risk profile. The deleterious associations of sitting time were fully attenuated after exclusion of participants with prevalent cardiovascular disease and medication use. Our findings on cardiometabolic health and durations in different activity-types and posture may inform clinicians and future interventions to provide personalised prescription options.
Introduction
Cardiometabolic risk factors tend to cluster through abnormal metabolic, lipid, and non-lipid profiles leading to increased risk of the development and progression of cardiovascular disease (CVD). It is estimated that more than a quarter of the world population will have impaired glucose tolerance by 2045 with 10.9% diagnosed with diabetes1. Currently, more than a third of the population is living with hypertension2, approximately one quarter are classified as overweight, and an additional 13% as obese3,4. Low physical activity and high sedentary time are leading behavioural risk factors5,6 for cardiometabolic diseases, but there is a dearth of information on the dose-response relationships of daily time spent in different physical activity types and posture (sitting, standing) with key cardiometabolic outcomes. The latest American Heart Association6 and European Society for Cardiology5 reports have identified the need to improve physical activity prescription through accessible forms of daily physical activity. Likewise, the 2020 World Health Organisation Guidelines Development Group highlighted the paucity of evidence on the dose-response relationship of physical activity types with health outcomes and emphasised the value of device-based measurement7 captured in everyday life in real-world environments.
Research on the health effects of physical activity has predominantly focused on amounts of intensity-specific physical activity, usually measured through questionnaires. Self-reported physical activity measures are limited due to measuring only continuous physical activity blocks lasting a minimum of 10-15 minutes, the inability to accurately measure posture (e.g., standing time), and susceptibility to recall and social desirability bias8. Previous device-based methods relied on acceleration magnitude cut-points to classify activity by intensity, but these cannot determine activity type or posture (e.g. sitting versus standing). Studies using advanced device data curation techniques, which were able to quantify movement and posture at a very high resolution, have identified “micropatterns” of physical activity associated with lower mortality9,10 and disease incidence11,12 risk. Although these wrist-device based outcomes are a significant advance over previous evidence, these studies are limited in assessing associations of posture and physical activity types, including activities of daily living such as stair climbing and running, with health outcomes. Thigh-worn accelerometry, in addition to measuring ambulatory activity type, can differentiate between sitting and standing postures using the tilt angle of the thigh with a high degree of accuracy and consistency13,14. Interventions, using thigh-worn accelerometers, have shown that increased standing and reductions in sitting time can improve cardiometabolic health outcomes under structured and controlled conditions15–17. However, the translatability of these interventions to real-world environments and comparability to ambulatory activity types remains largely unknown.
Using data from the largest pooled thigh-worn accelerometry resource to date, we conducted a harmonised individual participant meta-analysis of six cohorts to examine the cross-sectional, dose-response associations of device-measured physical activity types (walking, stair climbing, running) and posture (sitting, standing) with cardiometabolic health markers.
Methods
Studies
The Prospective Physical Activity, Sitting, and Sleep (ProPASS) Consortium is a data resource and research methods development platform that brings together existing and future observational studies of device-measured movement behaviours18,19. The current analyses included pooled individual participant data from six ProPASS cohorts: the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women’s Health20,21, 1970 British Cohort Study (BCS70)22, Danish Physical Activity Cohort (DPhacto)23, Finnish Retirement and Aging Study (FIREA)24, Nijmegen Exercise Study25, and The Maastricht Study26. In total, 15,168 participants had ≥1 day of valid accelerometer data27 (≥20 hours of wear time and ≥3 hours of sleep). We excluded participants with missing covariate data, or missing outcomes (Supplemental Figure 1).
Harmonisation of physical activity type and posture
Participants in each cohort were instructed to wear a tri-axial accelerometer capturing raw signal data on their thigh for 24 hours a day for 7 days. All accelerometry data cleaning, processing and harmonisation was done at the University of Sydney. To ensure consistency in data cleaning and standardisation in processing of accelerometer data, we used a specialised and validated software (ActiPASS v1.32)28. ActiPASS auto-corrects for device orientation and uses standard procedures for device calibration and identification of non-wear time29,30. Physical activity and posture were classified in 2-second windows with a 50% overlap (resolution of 1 second windows) using a Decision Tree31. The Australian Longitudinal Study on Women’s Health, BCS70, Nijmegen Exercise Study and The Maastricht Study used ActivPAL monitors (sampling frequency= 20Hz); the Finnish Retirement and Aging Study used Axivity monitors (sampling frequency= 100Hz); and the Danish Physical Activity Cohort used ActiGraph monitors (sampling frequency= 30Hz).The Decision Tree model has been shown to have good to excellent accuracy (>90% for sitting, walking, and running) in activity type and posture predictions between different monitors13,14. A complete description of the Decision Tree physical activity type and posture classifier and independent validation is provided in Supplemental Text 1. The signal standard deviation and tilt angle were used to classify fundamental activities and postures such as walking, stair climbing, running, sitting, and standing 31. Sleep was classified using a second decision tree32
Cardiometabolic health
During clinic or home visits, staff from each cohort recorded participants’ height, weight, and waist circumference using standard procedures. Participants from all cohorts, except for the DPhacto cohort provided blood samples for measurements of high density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, total cholesterol, triglycerides, and glycated haemoglobin (HbA1C). Blood biomarker data assessment procedures and assay coefficients of variations by cohort are provided in Supplemental Table 1.
Standardised values (z-scores based on composite sample distribution) for normalised cardiometabolic markers were calculated33. A composite cardiometabolic health score was calculated as the mean of the normally distributed six standardised scores. For HDL cholesterol, values were inverted since higher HDL cholesterol is protective for CVD34. Sex-specific waist circumference scores were generated to align with sex-specific guidelines35. A z-score of 1 indicates a score of 1 standard deviation above the mean of the sample, and lower composite scores represent better cardiometabolic health.
Covariates
For each participating cohort, covariates were measured during clinic or home visits, and chosen a priori based on previous literature indicating that they were likely confounders 27,36,37 These were: age (years), sex (male/female), smoking status (non-smoker/current smoker), alcohol consumption (cohort-specific tertiles based on weekly consumption), self-rated health (five-point Likert scale), self-reported medication use (blood pressure, glucose, and lipid-lowering),self-reported history of CVD and cohort. Fasting status was included as a covariate for analyses that included blood biomarker outcomes. Accelerometer measured sleep duration (hours/day) was also included as a covariate. Daily duration of physical activity types, standing, and sitting time were mutually adjusted for each other using the residual method38, consistent with prior studies assessing physical activity over a fixed time interval. For example, in analyses with walking as the exposure, total duration of physical activity was regressed on walking time with the residuals of total physical activity duration used as covariates in our model. A subset of cohorts provided information for education (n=4 cohorts; high school, high school, further education, ≥university/college), occupational class (n=5 cohorts; not working, low occupational class, intermediate occupational class, high occupational class), and functional mobility (n=4 cohorts; 10-item questionnaire scores ranging from 0 [lowest] to 100 [highest]). Covariate harmonisation procedures are described in Supplemental Table 2.
Analyses
We conducted a one-stage individual participant data meta-analysis39 using generalised linear regression to estimate the association of the exposures with compositive cardiometabolic health, body mass index, waist circumference, HDL cholesterol, triglycerides, HbA1C, and total cholesterol. Data are presented as beta coefficients with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI). Assumptions for regression analyses were checked using residuals and leverage-versus-residual-squared plots. To account for potential non-linearity between physical activity types (walking, running, stairs) and posture (sitting, standing) with each outcome, we used restricted cubic spline modelling with knots at the 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles. Departure from linearity was assessed by a Wald test examining the null hypothesis that the coefficient of the second spline was equal to zero.
In sensitivity analyses of composite cardiometabolic health, for participants with available data (e.g. Australian Longitudinal Study on Women’s Health, BCS70, and The Maastricht Study), we included adjustments for socioeconomic status (education and occupational class) and functional mobility. We also repeated our analyses after excluding participants with prevalent CVD (n=1,162) or medication use (blood pressure, glucose, lipid-lowering medication; n=3,360). We tested for interactions (ANOVA) between each exposure and sex. If an interaction was significant, we performed additional analyses for effect modification. To account for associations that might be due to differences in the absolute time spent in different physical activity types and postures, we performed an analysis for composite cardiometabolic health with time standardised (z-score) for each exposure.
We performed all analyses using R statistical software with the rms package. We report this study as per the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines (Supplemental STROBE Statement).
Results
Our analytic sample included 12,095 participants. Descriptions of the individual cardiometabolic markers and participant characteristics by cohort are provided in Table 1. Mean age was 54.5 years (SD 9.6), 54.8% were female, and 43.5% had very good to excellent self-rated health. Participants in the Nijmegen Exercise Study cohort had the highest observed stair climbing time (Median [IQR]= 9.5 [6.3, 14.9] mins/day) and participants in DPhacto had the highest walking time (98.1 [79.8, 121.8] mins/day). Collectively, participants from the FIREA, Nijmegen Exercise Study, and The Maastricht Study cohorts had the highest sitting time with a median >10 hours/day. Characteristics of excluded participants are shown in Supplemental Table 3.
Multivariable adjusted dose-response associations of activity type and posture with composite cardiometabolic health score
Running and stair climbing had the strongest relationship with cardiometabolic health, in terms of activity duration and association magnitude (Figure 1). For example, any duration of running and ∼5 minutes/day of stair climbing was associated with more favourable cardiometabolic health (i.e. z-score <0; ∼5 minutes/day of stair climbing z-score [95%CI]= -0.14 [-0.24, -0.03]). When stair climbing exceeded 5.0 minutes/day, every additional minute up to 12 minutes/day was associated with an average z-score change of -0.09 [-0.08, -0.10]. For the same time interval, every additional minute of running was associated with a z-score change of -0.11 [-0.09, -0.13]. Walking 64 minutes/day was associated with more favourable cardiometabolic health and a z-score of -0.14 [-0.25, -0.02]. The dose-response association gradient of walking and cardiometabolic health became less steep after 113 minutes/day (e.g., z-score change of <0.01 for every additional minute of walking). In comparison, a minimum of 2.6 hours/day (156 minutes/day) of standing (-0.14 [-0.25, -0.03]) was required to observe more favourable cardiometabolic health. For sitting time, the dose-response association became more pronounced at greater than 10 hours/day with more than 12.1 hours/day associated with an unfavourable cardiometabolic profile (i.e., z-score >0).
Adjusted for age, sex, smoking, alcohol consumption, sleep duration, self-rated health, medication use, prevalent CVD, and mutual adjustment for physical activity types and posture using the residual method. N=9,001. Horizontal dotted line indicates a z-score of 0.
Multivariable adjusted dose-response associations of activity type and posture with individual cardiometabolic health markers
Adiposity markers
We observed an inverse dose-response association of standing, walking, stair climbing, and running with BMI, although the magnitude of association differed across time in these physical activity types and posture (Figure 2A). For example, a BMI of 27.0 kg/m2 (sample mean) was associated with 2.9 [2.7, 3.1] standing hours/day, 72.4 [67.8, 78.2] walking minutes/day, 6.1 [5.7, 6.6] stair climbing minutes/day, and 1.2 [0.8, 2.0] running minutes/day. The dose-response association for standing, walking, and stair climbing began to level off at approximately 3.5 hours/day, 90 minutes/day and 10 minutes/day, respectively. Higher sitting time was associated with higher BMI, with changes in the magnitude of association becoming pronounced between 9.5 to 10.5 hours/day. These association patterns were similar for waist circumference stratified by sex (Figures 2B and 2C). For both males and females, the dose-response association for standing, walking, and stair climbing levelled off at approximately 3.2 hours/day, 90 minutes/day and 10 minutes/day, respectively.
Adjusted for age, sex, smoking, alcohol consumption, sleep duration, self-rated health, medication use, prevalent CVD, and mutual adjustment for physical activity types and posture using the residual method. N= 12,095 (body mass index); 11,897 (waist circumference)
Biomarkers
We observed an inverse association for total cholesterol with time each activity type and standing (Figure 3A). At any given total cholesterol level, we observed a stronger magnitude of association with stair climbing and running. For example, a total cholesterol level of 3.9 mmol/L (indicative of low CVD risk40,41) was associated with 3.5 [3.1, 3.9] standing hours/day, 105.4 [91.2, 121.6] walking minutes/day, 11.3 [8.3, 14.9] stair climbing minutes/day, and 1.4 [0.6, 3.8] running minutes/day. The magnitude of associations for stair climbing and running were nearly parallel between 2 minutes/day and 12 minutes/day with about a 0.17 mmol/L difference (eg: 4% difference). We observed a linear association between total cholesterol and sitting time up to 10.4 [10.1, 10.7] hours/day.
Adjusted for age, sex, smoking, alcohol consumption, sleep duration, self-rated health, medication use, prevalent CVD, and mutual adjustment for physical activity types and posture using the residual method. N= 10,728 (total cholesterol); 9,417 (triglyceride); 10,729 (high density lipoprotein); 10,346 (glycated hemoglobin)
For every additional minute of stair climbing or running, triglyceride levels were lower by an average of -0.04 [-0.03, -0.05] mmol/L between the two exposures, but with a stronger association magnitude for running at a given time duration (Figure 3B). In comparison, every additional 5 minutes of walking and 10 minutes of standing was associated with an average -0.03 [-0.02, -0.04] mmol/L lower triglyceride levels. This association pattern between standing, walking, stair climbing, and running was consistent for HDL cholesterol (Figure 3C). Throughout the sitting time duration, we did not observe significant variations in triglyceride levels, but there was an inverse-linear association for HDL cholesterol.
We observed an inverse near linear association between HbA1C and running (Figure 3D). For stair climbing and walking, the nadir of the dose-response curve was at approximately 10.3 minutes/day (associated with 35.6 [35.2, 35.9] mmol/mol) and 91.4 minutes/day (associated with 35.5 [35.2, 35.8] mmol/mol), after which there was diminishing protective association. A similar association pattern was observed for standing time with the nadir at 4.1 hours/day (associated with 35.9 [35.6, 36.3] mmol/mol). We observed a J-shaped association between HbA1C and sitting time, with incrementally higher levels when daily sitting time exceeded 10.7 hours/day.
Additional and sensitivity analyses
We observed sex interactions for stair climbing, running, and sitting time with composite cardiometabolic health score (Supplemental Figures 2-4). There was a more apparent protective association at any given time duration for females after approximately 3.9 minutes/day stair climbing and 12 seconds/day running. For sitting time, we observed the interaction at 10 hours/day after which point there was lower composite cardiometabolic health (e.g., steeper z-score curve) for females from higher sitting time. Association patterns across activity types and posture with composite cardiometabolic health did not change after adjustment for: 1) socioeconomic status (occupation and highest attained education level) and 2) functional mobility (Supplemental Figure 5). Composite cardiometabolic health results were consistent after standardising the distributions for time spent in each activity type and posture (Supplemental Figure 6). Exclusion of participants with prevalent CVD or medication use showed an inverse linear associations between each activity type and standing with composite cardiometabolic health (Supplemental Figure 7), although associations for sitting time were fully attenuated.
Discussion
To our knowledge, this is the first large-scale analysis of type-specific physical activity and posture time, which utilises the first pooled harmonised resource of thigh-worn accelerometry. The thigh accelerometry placement allowed us to accurately derive a range of activity types and postures using novel classification methods to examine their association with cardiometabolic health markers. Time spent in physical activity types, such as walking, stair climbing, and running were associated with composite and individual cardiometabolic health markers, following adjustment for sitting time and other relevant confounding factors. Accumulating at least 5 minutes/day of stair climbing, 64 minutes/day of walking, or any duration of running was associated with more favourable composite cardiometabolic health whereas 2.6 hours/day of standing showed associations of comparable magnitude. In contrast, the deleterious association of sitting time with adverse cardiometabolic health became pronounced when daily durations exceeded 10 hours/day, although the association was no longer significant after exclusion of participants with prevalent CVD and medication use.
We found a similar association rate of change across various cardiometabolic health markers between stair climbing and running when daily durations were <12 minutes. The dose response associations we observed are plausible. Prior randomised control trials have found submaximal activities such as stair climbing that elicit low vigorous intensity (e.g., 6.0 to 8.8 METs42) led to significant improvements in postprandial insulin, high-density lipoprotein, and cardiorespiratory fitness 43–45. These changes are likely induced primarily by skeletal muscle responses that contribute to improved mitochondrial volume and capillarisation (higher density) that leads to improved perfusion and better peripheral oxygen extraction46. This promotes enhanced capacity for substrate oxidation, greater utilisation of lipid and reduced carbohydrate catabolism. In addition, the intensity range of stair climbing may also elicit improvements to the cardiovascular system. Specifically, a stair-climbing intervention47 among patients with coronary artery disease found approximately 7 minute/sessions (1.5 to 3 sessions/week; equivalent to 10.5 to 21 minutes/week) improved VO2 peak by 1 MET, which has been reported to be associated with a clinically-significant 15% reduction in mortality risk48. The associations and daily durations we observed provide evidence that is consistent with large-scale prospective studies examining hard clinical endpoints such as CVD mortality and incidence9,10,49. We also found between 60 to 115 minutes/day of walking had the strongest positive association with each cardiometabolic outcome. Notably, this time duration is broadly consistent with the accumulated time duration of a prior meta-analysis of walking interventions and cardiometabolic health indicators50,51. Using device-based measures and pooled individual participant data meta-analysis, we were able to translate findings from controlled intervention settings to real-world environments. Collectively, our walking, stair climbing, and running findings are important from a public health and clinical perspective. Promotion of increasing activities that are typically done during daily living and do not require dedicated time commitments may enhance adherence, as has been previously reported in rehabilitation programs52–55.
Our walking results showed an approximate 13:1 minute(s)/day ratio with stair climbing to observe an equivalent favourable composite cardiometabolic health association. Relative to the opportunities most people have, walking 64 minutes/day may be more feasible than 5 minutes/day of stair climbing. Five minutes of stair-climbing would approximately equate to 350 steps, assuming an average climbing pace of 70 steps/min56. Walking may be more feasible and potentially safer for certain population sub-groups, such as older adults, and people who do not have regular access to multiple flights of stairs. Prior prospective studies using self-report data have reported the health-enhancing benefits of walking57,58. Our pooled individual participant meta-analysis, leveraging objective device-based measurements extends these studies to derive direct comparisons of walking to other activities and provides more precise habitual-activity dose-response estimates. At a population level, considering walking to be moderate intensity, our results are broadly consistent with smaller interventions comparing prolonged and continuous moderate-intensity exercise to short duration high-intensity exercise59–61. Prior interventions have found moderate-intensity continuous training has similar effects on cardiometabolic markers as high-intensity interval training at a 7-15 to 1 time ratio (e.g., 60 minutes of moderate-intensity to 4 minutes of high-intensity), possibly linked to the intermittent exposure to changes in metabolism and blood flow increases62. Although not directly measured in our current study, it is likely that the majority of stair climbing was in bouts lasting short durations, and the health-enhancing benefits we observed from walking were due to continuous walking that elicit cardiorespiratory adaptations.
We observed more time spent standing was associated with favourable composite and individual cardiometabolic markers. These results are consistent with intervention trials that reported positive cardiometabolic effects from standing16,63,64. However, in our study, standing was also the least time efficient of all the activities. We observed an approximate 2.6 hours/day was required to be significantly associated with more favourable composite cardiometabolic health. While standing stimulates musculoskeletal responses that may elicit positive changes in cardiometabolic markers, a prior meta-analysis has shown standing 2-4 hours/day may also increase the risk of musculoskeletal disorders by 31%-34%65. We observed adverse composite cardiometabolic health when sitting time was higher than 12.1 hours/day. In our study, it is probable that the deleterious association of high sitting time is an effect of lower cardiorespiratory fitness66–69. Analyses have shown cardiorespiratory fitness is a mediator of sitting (e.g., sedentary) time/physical activity and explains about 78% of the relationship with cardiometabolic health70,71. Notably, after exclusion of participants with prevalent CVD or medication use, the deleterious associations of sitting time were no longer significant, although there was still a linear trend for worse cardiometabolic health. This suggests physical activity may have a more dominant role in the relationship with cardiometabolic health than sitting time.
Strengths and limitations
To our knowledge, this is the first large-scale pooled analysis that compares the health associations of time spent in type-specific physical activity and posture using device-based data. Device-based measurements are less susceptible to the inherent limitations of self-reported measures of physical activity such as recall and social desirability bias and are able to capture incidental physical activity across the day that cannot be measured with self-report data. This allowed us to examine the potential health value of short durations in different types of activities more accurately. This is also the first individual participant data meta-analysis using a device placement (thigh) that has more than a 95% accuracy in detecting sitting time. Prior studies using hip or wrist placement and only acceleration magnitude cut-points have higher false positive rates due to an inability to differentiate sitting and standing 72. The harmonised individual participant data meta-analyses involve original data as a single study allowing us to maintain physical activity type and posture in their continuous form providing more robust estimates of the observed associations39,73 compared to traditional meta-analyses restricted to study level aggregated data. Our observational cross-sectional design limits inferences of causality. We did not adjust biomarker analyses for adiposity markers, to avoid the potential for overadjustment due to the causal link between the two markers74. Our analyses included a range of confounding variables, however residual and unmeasured confounding is still possible which may introduce bias.
Conclusion
Using the largest individual participant data meta-analysis of thigh-worn accelerometry we found approximately 64 minutes/day of walking and 5 minutes/day of stair climbing were associated with more favourable composite cardiometabolic health. Every additional minute of stair climbing up to 12 minutes/day was associated with a similar rate of change as running for the same time interval. Our device-based findings provide real-world estimates of physical activity types and posture with cardiometabolic health that may inform future interventions to guide clinicians for personalised prescription options.
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
Funding
British Heart Foundation (SP/F/20/150002). The establishment of the ProPASS consortium was supported by an unrestricted 2018-20 grant by PAL Technologies (Glasgow, UK). MH supported through NIHR University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre (NIHR203328). ES is funded by a National Health and Medical Research Council Investigator Grant (APP1194510). BdPC is supported by the Government of Andalusia, Research Talent Recruitment Programme (EMERGIA 2020/00158). FIREA is supported by the Academy of Finland (286294, 294154, 319246, 332030), Ministry of Education and Culture, Juho Vainio Foundation and Finnish State Grants for Clinical Research. ActiPASS development was partly funded by FORTE, Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare (2021–01561) GIM is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Investigator Grant (APP2008702). GDM is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Principal Research Fellowship (APP1121844). The ALSWH is funded by the Australian Government Department of Health and Aged Care and its substudy, from which accelerometry and clinical data were obtained, was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council Project Grant (APP1129592).
Acknowledgements
The data on which this research is based were drawn from six observational studies. The research included data from the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women’s Health (ALSWH), the University of Newcastle, Australia, and the University of Queensland, Australia. We are grateful to the Australian Government Department of Health for funding and to the women who provided the survey data. We thank the following ProPASS collaborators for their contributions to the manuscript: Coen Stehouwer (Department of Internal Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Centre, the Netherlands), Hans Savelberg (Department of Internal Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Centre, the Netherlands), Bastiaan de Galan (Department of Internal Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Centre, the Netherlands), Carla van de Kallen (Department of Internal Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Centre, the Netherlands), and Thijs M.H. Eijsvogels (Department of Medical BioSciences, Cardiovascular Physiology research group, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands; Research Institute for Sport and Exercise Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University, United Kingdom)
Footnotes
↵* Joint senior authors
References
