Observational analysis found self-reported walking pace impacts cancer incidence in postmenopausal women, suggesting health implications.
Background : While the health benefits of walking are well-established, it is not clear if walking pace is associated with cancer-related outcomes. Purpose : To investigate associations of self-reported walking pace with cancer incidence and mortality among women 62–99 years of age in the Women’s Health Accelerometry Collaboration. Methods : Women self-reported walking pace, classified as brisk (≥3 mph), average (2–2.9 mph), casual (<2 mph), or does not walk regularly, and were followed for cancer outcomes. Multivariable stratified Cox proportional hazards models estimated hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals. Results : There were 22,358 women in the analytic sample. During a mean 8.0 years of follow-up, 1891 women developed cancer (n = 615 cancer deaths). Self-reported walking paces were not associated with all site cancer incidence (compared with a brisk walking pace: average walking pace hazard ratio, 1.08 (95% confidence interval, 0.95–1.23); casual walking pace, 1.15 (0.97–1.33), and does not walk regularly 1.14 (0.97–1.34) nor cancer mortality (average walking pace, 0.97 [0.76–1.25], casual walking pace, 0.98 [0.74–1.30], and does not walk regularly 1.20 [0.90–1.60]). Findings were similar when colon, endometrial, and lung cancer were examined, separately. However, casual walking pace was associated with a higher risk of a composite of inactivity-related cancers (1.21 [1.00–1.47]), and breast cancer (1.40 [1.09–1.80]) compared with a brisk walking pace. Conclusions : Slower, compared with faster, self-reported walking paces may be related to a higher risk of some cancers in postmenopausal women. Future research is needed to confirm these findings and investigate mechanisms underlying the associations of walking pace with these cancers.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Christopher et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: