Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Walking football (WF) is an adapted low‐impact form of traditional football designed to promote physical activity and social interaction among older adults. However, evidence on its physiological demands—particularly energy expenditure expressed in metabolic equivalents (METs)—remains limited. This cross‐sectional experimental study aimed to estimate the energy expenditure of WF in older adults and to examine whether field dimensions influence the exercise intensity of the game. Twenty recreational male WF players (mean age = 66.8 ± 6.5 years) participated in 6‐a‐side matches on two official field sizes. Physical activity and accelerometry‐derived estimates of energy expenditure and METs were monitored using wrist‐worn triaxial accelerometers (Axivity AX3). Subjective enjoyment was assessed using the feeling scale (FS). Mean energy expenditure was 6.79 ± 1.30 kcal·min −1 (4.81 ± 0.91 METs) on the large field and 6.58 ± 1.36 kcal·min −1 (4.66 ± 0.91 METs) on the small field, with no significant differences between conditions. Participants spent a greater proportion of time in motion on the larger field (ES: 0.340; p < 0.05), whereas enjoyment (FS) was significantly higher on the smaller field (ES: 0.708; p < 0.05). Walking speed averaged 0.8 m·s −1 across both formats. Strong correlations were found between steps, cadence, and METs (rho > 0.70, p < 0.01). WF elicits a moderate‐intensity physical activity response (≈4.5 METs) in older adults, independent of field size. These findings primarily support the feasibility of WF as a moderate‐intensity community‐based intervention, while suggesting that field‐size manipulation within normative ranges has limited physiological impact.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Varela et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: