Increasing your walking cadence can improve mobility
That's when at least three of the following symptoms are true, according to Johns Hopkins Medicine: unintentional weight loss, reduced strength, exhaustion, low activity levels and a slow pace.
Frailty often makes it difficult for older adults to complete day-to-day tasks. But there may be something they can do about it.
Increasing a person's walking cadence by 14 steps per minute was associated with a 10% increase in functional capacity in prefrail and frail older adults, according to a study published Wednesday in the journal PLOS One. Prefrailty is the period before frailty, where older adults may experience higher risk of physical impairment, cognitive decline, nutritional deficiencies and socioeconomic disadvantages.
'What we ended up finding was that those who are able to walk faster, particularly at a cadence 14 steps per minute faster than their usual pace, were more likely to improve in their mobility or endurance or function,' said Dr. Daniel Rubin, the study's lead author.
'In particular, we were targeting to try to really improve (people's) mobility and their function, just because prefrail and frail older adults tend to be a little bit more limited, at least in the concept of physical frailty,' added Rubin, associate professor of anesthesia and critical care at the University of Chicago.
The study was a secondary data analysis of a primary trial that looked at walking intervention in retirement communities and took place over a span of 36 weeks.
Whether or not an older adult is frail, mobility is still an important part of healthy aging. By practicing easy strength-training moves, such as walking, you can improve your strength and combat frailty, experts say.
Individuals who regularly incorporate walking exercises in their routines also experience longevity, which is living longer and better lives. Active older adults were 28% less likely to become disabled and were able to perform day-to-day tasks with little to no assistance, according to a 2020 study.
Other benefits include maintenance of healthy weight, reduced high blood pressure, decreased risk for type 2 diabetes and a stronger musculoskeletal system.
'Walking has been associated with the same type of health outcomes as exercise activities (e.g., risk of mortality, cancer, cardiovascular diseases, improved cognitive ageing),' said Rayane Haddadj, a doctoral candidate in the department of public health and nursing at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, in an email. He was not associated with the study.
'Advantages of walking are that it is a simple, low cost, and accessible activity that can be promoted widely to reduce the burden of various diseases and conditions,' he added.
Increasing your walking pace can lower the risk of heart rhythm abnormalities, such as atrial fibrillation, and walking for longer periods of time can have health benefits, such as reducing back pain.
'Even small increases in daily activity can make a difference. Walking more could therefore be a simple yet powerful way to reduce risk of chronic low back pain and other diseases,' Haddadj said.
'I think one of the hardest parts when you're giving public health advice, when you're talking about walking, in particular, is what pace to walk at,' Rubin said.
Previous methods used to help older adults follow a moderate intensity walking pace, such as the talk test or tracking heart rate, can be subjective and difficult to track pace or cadence accurately.
'The easiest way is, actually, you can use a metronome on your phone,' Rubin said. 'It's called rhythmic auditory cueing.'
To do this, start by walking at your normal pace for 30 minutes and time it with the metronome. Once you've established a rhythm, you can gradually increase your pace by five or 10 steps per minute.
'Some people use music to do that. Music is actually a little harder, unless you have a trained ear to really be able to identify the beat,' Rubin said.
While keeping this pace, older adults could also benefit from practicing conscious breathing, such as breathing through their nose, said CNN fitness contributor Dana Santas, a certified strength and conditioning specialist and mind-body coach in professional sports.
Nasal breathing, which is when you inhale through your nose and exhale through your mouth, can help lower blood pressure and improve heart rate variability, according to a 2023 study. Doing so can help prevent development of hypertension.
It's also important that you maintain good form while walking, such as standing tall and swinging your arms. It will prevent backaches, make it easy to breathe and keep you balanced.
'Walking is a full body movement. It is not just about your lower body. It's not just one step in front of the one foot in front of the other,' Santas said. 'Your arm swing is a huge part involved in the mechanics of walking. So, you want to have an arm swing that's coordinated with your foot movement, so it's opposing.'
Sign up for CNN's Fitness, But Better newsletter series. Our seven-part guide will help you ease into a healthy routine, backed by experts.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
NC-based app uses AI to fight denied health insurance claims
A new app developed in North Carolina is using artificial intelligence to fight denied health insurance claims. The app, from Counterforce, lets residents upload their insurance coverage documents along with their denial letter. ALSO READ: The cost of AI: Who pays to power the future? It then combines them to create a medically based analysis that residents can print and send back to their insurance company. Counterforce is free for anyone to use online. VIDEO: The cost of AI: Who pays to power the future?
Los Angeles Times
25 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Criminalization or support? President Trump's executive order on homelessness gets mixed reaction
An executive order signed by President Trump purporting to protect Americans from 'endemic vagrancy, disorderly behavior, sudden confrontations, and violent attacks' attributed to homelessness has left local officials and homeless advocates outraged over its harsh tone while also grasping for a hopeful message in its fine print. The order Trump signed Thursday would require federal agencies to reverse precedents or consent decrees that impede U.S. policy 'encouraging civil commitment of individuals with mental illness who pose risks to themselves or the public or are living on the streets and cannot care for themselves.' It ordered those agencies to 'ensure the availability of funds to support encampment removal efforts.' Depending on how that edict is carried out, it could extend a lifeline for Mayor Karen Bass' Inside Safe program, which has eliminated dozens of the city's most notable encampments but faces budget challenges to maintain the hotel and motel beds that allow people to move indoors. Responding to the order Friday, Bass said she was troubled that it called for ending street homelessness and moving people into rehabilitation facilities at the same time as the administration's cuts to Medicaid have affected funding 'streams for facilities for people to stay in, especially people who are disabled.' 'Of course I'm concerned about any punitive measures,' Bass said. 'But first and foremost, if you want to end street homelessness, then you have got to have housing and services for people who are on the street.' Kevin Murray, president and chief executive of the Weingart Center homeless services and housing agency, saw ambiguity in the language. 'I couldn't tell whether he is offering money for people who want to do it his way or taking money away from people who don't do it his way,' Murray said. Others took their cue from the order's provocative tone set in a preamble declaring that the overwhelming majority of the 274,224 people reported living on the street in 2024 'are addicted to drugs, have a mental health condition, or both.' The order contradicted a growing body of research finding that substance use and mental illness, while significant, are not overriding factors in homelessness. 'Nearly two-thirds of homeless individuals report having regularly used hard drugs like methamphetamines, cocaine, or opioids in their lifetimes. An equally large share of homeless individuals reported suffering from mental health conditions.' A February study by the Benioff Homeless and Housing Initiative at UC San Francisco found that only about 37% of more than 3,000 homeless people surveyed in California were using illicit drugs regularly, but just over 65% reported having regularly used at some point in their lives. More than a third said their drug use had decreased after they became homeless and one in five interviewed in depth said they were seeking treatment but couldn't get it. 'As with most executive orders, it doesn't have much effect on its own,' said Steve Berg, chief policy officer for the National Alliance to End Homelessness. 'It tells the federal agencies to do different things. Depending on how the federal agencies do those things, that's what will have the impact.' In concrete terms, the order seeks to divert funding from two pillars of mainstream homelessness practice, 'housing first,' the prioritization of permanent housing over temporary shelter, and 'harm reduction,' the rejection of abstinence as a condition of receiving services and housing. According to the order, grants issued under the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration should 'not fund programs that fail to achieve adequate outcomes, including so-called 'harm reduction' or 'safe consumption' efforts that only facilitate illegal drug use and its attendant harm.' And the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development should, to the extent permitted by law, end support for 'housing first' policies that 'deprioritize accountability and fail to promote treatment, recovery, and self-sufficiency.' To some extent, those themes reflect shifts that have been underway in the state and local response to homelessness. Under pressure from Gov. Gavin Newsom, the California legislature established rules allowing relatives and service providers to refer people to court for treatment and expanded the definition of gravely disabled to include substance use. Locally, Bass' Inside Safe program and the county's counterpart, Pathway Home, have prioritized expanding interim housing to get people off the streets immediately. Trump's order goes farther, though, wading into the controversial issue of how much coercion is justified in eliminating encampments. The Attorney General and the other federal agencies, it said, should take steps to ensure that grants go to states and cities that enforce prohibitions on open illicit drug use, urban camping and loitering and squatting. Homeless advocacy organizations saw those edicts as a push for criminalization of homelessness and mental illness. 'We'll be back to the days of 'One Flew Over the Cuckcoo's Nest,' 'Berg said, referring to the 1962 novel and subsequent movie dramatizing oppressive conditions in mental health institutions. Defending Housing First as a proven strategy that is the most cost-effective way to get people off the street, Berg said the order encourages agencies to use the money in less cost-effective ways. 'What we want to do is reduce homelessness,' he said. 'I'm not sure that is the goal of the Trump administration.' The National Homelessness Law Center said in a statement saying, 'This Executive Order is rooted in outdated, racist myths about homelessness and will undoubtedly make homelessness worse.... Trump's actions will force more people into homelessness, divert taxpayer money away from people in need, and make it harder for local communities to solve homelessness.' Murray, who describes himself as not a fan of Housing First, noted that key policies pressed in the order—civil commitment, encampment removal and substance use treatment—are already gaining prominence in the state and local response to homelessness. 'We all think if it came from Trump it is horrible,' Murray said. 'It is certainly overbearing. It certainly misses some nuances of what real people with mental illness and substance use are like. But we've started down the path of most of this stuff.' His main concern was that the order might be interpreted to apply to Section 8, the primary federal financial tool for getting homeless people into housing. What would happen, he asked, if someone with a voucher refused treatment? 'It might encourage more people to stay on the streets,' he said. 'Getting people into treatment isn't easy.'
Medscape
25 minutes ago
- Medscape
Alternative Funders and Costly Meds: Are Patients Insured?
In the ever-evolving landscape of employer self-funded healthcare, cost-saving strategies emerge with promises of efficiency and reduced spending. Yet, for real patients — especially those battling chronic illnesses such as rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, and inflammatory bowel disease — these quick-fix schemes can have devastating, unintended consequences. Among the most disruptive of these strategies in employer-funded health plans is the involvement of alternative funders: third-party entities inserted between patients and their essential therapies. Real patient stories most powerfully illustrate the physical, emotional, and financial harm they experience. Self-Insured Employers and Alternative Funder Programs Rising healthcare costs have led many employers to seek new ways to manage the growing expenses of self-insured health plans. Strategies such as alternative funder programs (AFPs) have been touted as ways to keep costs down and preserve financial stability for businesses. While these methods might give some relief to employer balance sheets, they can cause medication access delays and disruption, as well as added complexity, confusion, and stress for the patient. Madelaine (Mattie) A. Feldman, MD Essentially, AFPs contract with the employer to stop all coverage of the cost of expensive medicines, which includes most, if not all, of the biologic drugs. The AFPs will then apply for patient assistance from manufacturers and other programs under the guise of the patient being 'uninsured.' If assistance is obtained (free drug or copay cards), they will charge the employer a percentage of the price of the drug or card. Most manufacturer assistance programs have put up guardrails to prevent what they consider to be abuse of programs meant to help the truly 'uninsured.' If AFPs are unable to obtain free drugs, then they may try to source the medicine from outside of the United States, which manufacturers say is illegal. All of this creates delays in processing with denials and disruption of care for those relying on these specialty drugs. Employees are told they need to sign up for these programs or they may be responsible for the entire price of their medication, which often scares them into signing up, potentially giving the AFP years of access to very personal data. The Patient's Ordeal: When Savings Come Before Care Janelle Zeihen was diagnosed with Crohn's disease on February 14, 2022. Her diagnosis was delayed because her symptoms were initially mistaken for complications from recent pelvic radiation for cancer. Once properly identified, her gastroenterologist started her on vedolizumab (Entyvio, Takeda) infusions every 8 weeks and daily prednisone. This stabilized her condition, allowing her to eventually taper off prednisone. In January 2024, Zeihen's employer, Bedrock Healthcare, changed health insurance plans. She was told that vedolizumab would be covered only if she switched to home infusions via CVS's Coram home infusion service. Her disease remained controlled, but by August of that year, complications began when she was told her treatments would no longer be covered. Additionally, her gastroenterologist told her that she had been billed over $80,000 per infusion by Coram for the three infusions she had so far received in 2024, totaling $250,000. (In comparison, Medicare rates are only about $6500 per infusion.) This is when Zeihen's bureaucratic nightmare began. A nurse at the gastrointestinal doctor's office had worked with a certain rheumatology office manager and patient advocate, Nilsa Cruz, on difficult approvals for her patients in the past. She contacted Cruz to see if she could help to unravel the situation and hopefully get coverage for Zeihen to resume infusions at the rheumatologist's office. Cruz had many questions. Why was Zeihen supposedly covered for home infusion and then not covered? Why was she billed for three infusions that had already taken place? Did she have insurance or didn't she? Cruz spent more than 60 hours over 3 weeks reviewing paperwork, contacting insurances and third-party administrators, and spending time with Zeihen on her employer's employee/patient portal. She discovered that while Zeihen's insurance card listed Anthem, the plan was actually managed by Leading Edge Administrators, with provider-administered drug coverage handed over to Payer Matrix, an alternative funder. Cruz said that is when her 'heart sank.' She knew AFPs disrupted patient care and 'abused' patient assistance programs, resulting in many patients losing total access to treatments. Cruz found out after speaking with Anthem that they had mistakenly approved the home infusions in January 2024, but they were not actually responsible for administering or covering any costs to the plan. The company that Anthem was using to manage Zeihen's insurance plan, Leading Edge, had itself hired the AFP Payer Matrix to manage provider-administered drug coverage. Payer Matrix instructed Zeihen's employer, Bedrock, to exclude expensive biologics like vedolizumab from coverage. A Payer Matrix representative asked Cruz to apply for assistance from vedolizumab's manufacturer, Takeda, but Cruz said that she was obligated to tell Takeda that Payer Matrix was involved. Takeda denied the patient assistance request, suspecting improper use of their program for insured patients. Payer Matrix's nurse suggested to Zeihen that she change her medication to one from a different manufacturer from whom they may be able to get free drug. Zeihen was shocked that this 'insurance nurse' was trying to treat her without input from her gastroenterologist and she refused to agree to that. Cruz then went to Zeihen's employer for help, but the employer never responded to appeals or letters of medical necessity. Federal and state legislators/regulators and the Department of Labor were all copied on the communication. By now, Zeihen was left with overdue bills and denied treatments and no clear path to continue her medically necessary care. After persistent advocacy from Cruz, including contacting all involved parties, Anthem — who was not responsible for the coverage — agreed to cover all the vedolizumab infusions that Zeihen had received thus far in 2024 through Coram home infusion, as well as the next two scheduled treatments at the rheumatologist's office until the end of the year. This intervention relieved Zeihen from the $250,000 debt and allowed her to complete her treatment for the year. Where is Zeihen now? She was forced to leave her employer-covered insurance because the AFP in the plan had left her uninsured for the treatment that had been covered previously. She signed up for an exchange insurance plan, but her employer refused to cover any of the new exchange policy premiums, which were higher than her previous cost share. Ultimately, this resulted in her having to leave the full-time position with her employer. She now works part time and even though she lost many of the benefits of full-time employment, her Crohn's disease treatments are covered and the flares of her disease have subsided. She's not sure if her disease is better controlled because she is now getting her treatments in a timely manner or the fact that the stress, fear, and confusion caused by the AFP in her employer's plan is now gone. Why Employers Should Beware While pitched as a quick fix, AFPs may actually undermine employer goals in the long run. The administrative chaos can result in delayed or denied care, higher absenteeism, lost productivity, and even legal challenges if employees are saddled with unexpected medical debt. In addition, employers have a fiduciary duty to employees to prevent these costly arrangements that can cause psychological harm to employees. Furthermore, these programs can expose employers to reputational risk as stories of harmed workers spread. Zeihen's journey is emblematic of a growing problem in employer health benefits. The lure of immediate savings from AFPs often comes at an unacceptable cost to both employees and the organizations that depend on them. This story also displays the need for advocates like Cruz. Her dedication to patients and their well-being is exemplified in her perseverance and tenacity in finding a way to help Zeihen get the care she needed. I wish there were more 'Nilsa Cruzs' in this world. At the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations, we are fortunate to have the actual Nilsa Cruz in this story as part of our Payer Issue Response Team (PIRT). PIRT reviews 'payer' problems that are sent to us by rheumatologists around the country, and we do what we can to help solve them. While we can't solve every payer problem there is, we are grateful to be able to help those patients whose problems we can solve.
