Skip to main content
Download PDF
Download ePub

Leisure-time and occupational physical activity and risk of cardiovascular disease incidence: a systematic-review and dose-response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies

International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity volume 21, Article number: 45 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background and objective

Physical activity has benefits for the cardiovascular system, however, what levels and types of activity provide optimal cardiovascular health is unclear. We aimed to determine the level of physical activity that has the most benefits against cardiovascular diseases (CVD).

Methods

PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for prospective cohort studies on leisure-time (LTPA) or occupational physical activity (OPA) as the exposure and major types of CVD (total CVD, coronary heart disease [CHD], stroke, and atrial fibrillation [AF]) incidence as the outcome. Risk of bias of studies was evaluated using the ROBINS-I tool. Summary hazard ratios (HR) were calculated using random-effects pairwise model.

Results

A total of 103 studies were included in the analysis. The highest versus the lowest LTPA was associated with a lower risk of overall CVD (HR = 0.81; 95% CI: 0.77–0.86), CHD (HR = 0.83; 0.79–0.88), and stroke (HR = 0.83; 0.79–0.88), but not AF (HR = 0.98; 0.92–1.05). Linear dose-response analyses showed a 10%, 12%, 9%, and 8% risk reduction in CVD, CHD, stroke, and AF incidence, respectively, for every 20 MET-hours/week increase in LTPA. In nonlinear dose-response analyses, there were inverse associations up to 20 MET-hours/week with 19% and 20% reduction in CVD and CHD risk, and up to 25 MET-hours/week with 22% reduction in stroke, with no further risk reduction at higher LTPA levels. For AF, there was a U-shaped nonlinear association with the maximum 8% risk reduction at 10 MET-hours/week of LTPA. Higher levels of OPA were not associated with risk of CVD, CHD, stroke, or AF.

Conclusions

Overall, results showed an inverse dose-response relationship between LTPA and risk of CVD, CHD, stroke, and AF. Running was the most beneficial LTPA but the risk was similar among various LTPA intensities. OPA showed no benefits in total or any type of CVD.

Background

Cardiovascular diseases (CVD) are a spectrum of diseases related to the heart and circulation [1] and coronary heart disease (CHD) and stroke are still the leading causes of death worldwide [2]. The number of people living with CVD is rising, particularly in low and middle-income countries, while reductions in rates of CVDs have been observed in high income countries due to improvements in some cardiovascular risk factors and improved treatments. The number of prevalent CVD cases globally increased from 285 million in 1990 to 350 million in 2000, more than 430 million in 2010, and about 550 million in 2022 [1].

Lifestyle factors such as diet and physical activity play a major role in the development of CVD [3, 4]. Physical inactivity is estimated to be responsible for 7.6% of global CVD mortality [5]. In contrast, physical activity has shown benefits of reducing CVD morbidity and mortality in individuals with or without CVD [6]. This protection may be exerted through prevention of general and abdominal obesity, and improvement of cardiometabolic risk factors such as blood glucose, lipoproteins, and blood pressure [7].

Although the benefits of physical activity in cardiovascular system are well known, recent studies have found different effects by physical activity domains on CVD [8]. There are four main domains of physical activity: leisure, occupational, transport, and domestic or household [9]. The benefits of physical activity for improvement of health and prevention of diseases are mainly related to leisure-time physical activity (LTPA) [10]. However, for the occupational physical activity (OPA) the evidence is conflicting, and some studies have rejected the association of OPA and CVD or even found harmful effects [11].

A number of meta-analyses have examined the association of physical activity and CVD risk [12,13,14,15,16,17]. Most of these meta-analyses were published more than a decade ago. Recently, a dose-response meta-analysis of prospective studies examined the association between non-occupational physical activity and the risk of CVD mortality. However, it excluded studies that reported non-fatal CVD incidence and considered both leisure-time physical activity and domestic activities as non-occupational physical activity, while the current meta-analysis has a more distinct and specific look at LTPA. Additionally, none of the previous meta-analyses [12,13,14,15,16,17] performed a dose-response meta-analysis for the relationship between OPA and CVD incidence. Furthermore, it is unclear whether some types (such as walking, cycling, running, jogging, and stair climbing) or intensities of physical activity are more beneficial on CVD risk than others. To fill these gaps, we aimed to conduct a comprehensive meta-analysis on the association of each of LTPA and OPA and the incidence of major types of CVD (CHD, stroke, atrial fibrillation (AF), and overall CVD). In this meta-analysis, linear and nonlinear dose-response relationships were explored, the optimal volume of physical activity was estimated, and intensities and types of activity that provide the most prevention were determined.

Methods

We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) [18] and Meta-analyses Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) [19] for reporting meta-analyses. The protocol of this meta-analysis has been registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/index.asp; identifier CRD).

Search strategy

We systematically searched three databases of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science from inception up to August 30, 2023. Details of the search strategies are presented in Supplementary Table 1.

Eligibility criteria and study selection

Four authors (AK, ZM, EH, and ZH) reviewed the titles and abstracts of articles to select studies meeting the eligibility criteria. The eligible studies were all prospective cohort studies which had measured leisure-time/occupational physical activity as the exposure and any type of CVD incidence as the outcome (total CVD, CHD, stroke, and AF) in the general adult population aged ≥ 18 years. We excluded studies that reported on heart failure, since a recent meta-analysis was conducted on heart failure [20]. Studies that reported fatal events were also excluded, but they were included if both fatal and nonfatal events were reported in combination. Retrospective cohort and case-control studies, studies with a follow-up duration of ≤ two years, and studies conducted exclusively in populations with specific diseases or lifestyles (athletes) were also excluded. When more than one publication was published from the same cohort, only the most recent publication with the longest follow-up was included in high vs. low and linear dose-response meta-analyses. For the dose-response meta-analyses, the publications with the most complete information were used. If the risk was reported at two or more time points in a study, the data with the longest follow-up was used. If a study reported only total physical activity or did not clearly define the type of physical activity, we excluded it. Studies that reported having measured LTPA/recreational physical activity, or exercise/sports were included in the LTPA analysis. Studies reporting on LTPA combined with commuting physical activity were included but studies reporting on LTPA and activities during work at home were excluded. A list of studies that were excluded along with reasons of exclusion are provided in Supplementary Table 2.

Data extraction and risk of bias assessment

Three authors (SS, ZM, EH) extracted the data from eligible studies, and one author (AK) checked for completeness, accuracy, and consistency. The extracted data include study characteristics (name of first author, year of publication, country, cohort name), participants characteristics (age, sex), sample size, number of CVDs cases, method of CVD and physical activity assessment, follow-up duration, adjustment factors, type, level, and intensity of physical activity, frequency of physical activity assessment, multivariable-adjusted risk estimate [risk ratios (RRs), hazard ratios (HRs), or odds ratios (ORs) with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs)]. When studies did not report sufficient information for the study to be included in the analyses, we contacted the authors by email at least two times. Any disagreement was resolved by consensus between two of the reviewers (AK, DA).

Risk of bias of studies was evaluated using the Risk of Bias In Non-randomised Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) [21]. This tool assesses the risk of bias based on seven items including, bias due to confounding, bias in selection of participants, bias in classification of exposures, bias due to deviations from intended exposures, bias due to missing data, bias in measurement of the outcome, and bias due to selective reporting of the results.

Data synthesis and statistical analysis

For all analyses, HRs and 95% CIs were used as the effect sizes. The reported risk ratios and relative risks were considered as being equivalent to HRs. The random-effects model by DerSimonian and Laird was used to calculate summary HRs for the highest vs. lowest category of LTPA and OPA and per 20 metabolic equivalent (MET)-hours/week increase in LTPA in the dose-response analysis [22]. If the risk estimates were reported stratified by sex or other subgroups, but not overall, we pooled the subgroup-specific risk estimates using a fixed-effects model to generate an overall estimate before inclusion in the main analysis. To better control for residual confounding, we estimated the E value using the methodology proposed by Vanderweele and Ding [23]. We used the generalized least squares trend estimation method, by Greenland and colleagues for the linear dose-response analysis [24, 25]. For the non-linear dose response meta-analysis, we modelled the exposures by applying restricted cubic splines with three knots based on Harrell’s recommended percentiles (10%, 50%, and 90%) of the distribution. This method combines each study specific slope to obtain an overall average slope in a single stage [26]. The number of events and participants or person years, the levels of physical activity, and adjusted HRs with their 95% CIs in each category of exposure were requisite inputs when using this method. If the numbers of participants or person-years in each category were not presented in a study and the exposures were defined as quantiles, we divided the total number of participants or person years by the number of categories to estimate the missing distributions. If the exposures were not defined as quantiles, the numbers of cases and person-years in each category was estimated, using information on the total number of cases and the number of total participants plus the follow-up period as described previously [20]. The median MET-hours/week, kcal/week, and h/week per category was used to estimate the level of physical activity. We ascribed a dose of 45 min per session to studies that reported physical activity frequency per week or month [27]. For the moderate and vigorous exercise, we translated the data to MET-hours/week by multiplying the number of h/weeks by a factor of 4 and 8 [28]. For the open-ended categories, the width was considered equal to the adjacent category. When a study considered a category other than the lowest one as a reference, we recalculated the HRs and 95% CIs using the method by Hamling [29].

We conducted subgroup analyses according to potential important pre-specified factors, including sex, length of follow-up, geographical location, number of cases, and risk of bias (overall risk of bias and each component). We additionally conducted exploratory subgroup analyses by type of stroke and overall LTPA vs. sport. We explored publication bias using Egger’s asymmetry test and by inspection of the funnel plots. We conducted sensitivity analyses by excluding one study at a time and re-estimating the HRs to check whether a study with large sample size or a study with an extreme result impacted the summary estimates. Stata version 16 software was used to conduct all statistical analyses.

Certainty of evidence assessment

The certainty of evidence was evaluated using the updated Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach which integrates the application of ROBINS-I [30]. GRADE tool rates the certainty of evidence as high, moderate, low, or very low. Observational studies start at a high certainty of evidence level in the updated GRADE. The evidence was downgraded based on the following criteria, risk of bias as assessed by ROBINS-I tool, inconsistency (substantial unexplained between-study heterogeneity, as represented by I2 ≥ 50% and inconsistency between the size and direction of risk estimates of the studies), indirectness (existence of population factors that limit the generalizability of the findings), imprecision [if 95%CIs of risk difference (RD) failed to exclude important harm (RD > 1.0) and benefit (RD < -1.0)], and evidence of publication bias. The certainty of evidence was upgrading using the following criteria: existence of a dose-response gradient and large effect size. Large size was defined as RR > 2.0 or < 0.5, at any specific dose of the exposure in the non-linear dose-response meta-analyses [31].

Results

Study screening

A total of 30,319 papers (including 8,078 from PubMed, 13,624 from Scopus, and 8,617 from Web of Science) were originally retrieved. After removing duplicate records and screening titles and abstracts, full texts of 710 citations were evaluated and finally 103 studies were included in the analysis [32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128]. The flow diagram of the meta-analysis is shown in Fig. 1. The reasons for excluding studies other than those reported in the flowchart are provided in Supplementary Table 2. Of the included studies, 95 publications provided information on LTPA/recreational activity (n = 89) and sports (n = 8), and 24 citations reported OPA. Overall, 40 studies reported data on the association between LTPA and CVD risk (2,876,417 participants and 290,811 cases), 38 on CHD risk (2,567,921 participants and 115,389 cases), 30 on stroke risk (2,568,711 participants and 76,170 cases), and 12 on AF risk (764,640 participants and 24,642 cases). Regarding OPA, seven studies (733,300 participants and 46,543 cases) yielded findings on CVD risk; 12 studies on CHD (630,236 participants and 14,122 cases); six studies on stroke (625,347 participants and 37,342 cases), and two studies on AF (53,708 participants and 5,035 cases). Co-published articles from the same cohort studies are listed in Supplementary Table 3.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flow diagram of studies selection process

Full size image

For dose-response meta-analysis of LTPA, 38 studies did not report the required data (Supplementary Table 4). Among the remaining studies, 65 reported physical activity in MET-hours/week, five in kcal/week, and five in hours/week. Because the studies that reported on OPA did not report data in a format that could be used for dose-response analyses, we were unable to conduct dose-response analysis for OPA.

Study characteristics

All studies had a prospective cohort design. The mean age of cohort participants at baseline ranged from 28.8 to 85.9 years. The majority of studies (n = 63) came from Europe, 28 from the US, eight from Asia, three from Australia, and one international study from 17 high, medium, and low-income countries. Of the 103 studies, 24 included males, 17 included females, and 62 reported results for both sexes (13 articles described stratified analyses by sex). Two-thirds of the studies (n = 75) involved the general population; ten studies involved middle-aged subjects; nine studies involved elderly subjects; six studies involved workers; six studies involved physicians and nurses; two studies involved postmenopausal women; one study involved obese adults; and one study involved a twin population. The follow-up duration was more than 13 years in 44 studies. The outcomes of interest were determined in 80% of the studies (n = 82) by records of hospital discharge diagnosis, medical reports, and national patient registry linkages, while the outcomes were identified in five studies through actual assessment (physician diagnosis), in seven studies through self-report confirmed by physician diagnosis, seven studies based on self-reported data, one study did not mention the assessment method, and one used mixed methods. More than a half of the studies yielded information on physical activity through validated questionnaires (n = 59). A total of 74 studies measured physical activity only at baseline but others performed multiple assessments throughout the cohort course. All the studies adjusted for sex or were conducted only in males or females, all except three adjusted for age, approximately 70% adjusted for body mass index (BMI), 78% adjusted for cigarette smoking and alcohol, 52% adjusted for dyslipidemia or lipid-lowering medications, and more than two-thirds adjusted for blood pressure and anti-hypertensive drugs, and a quarter of the studies adjusted for dietary patterns or food items. Supplementary Tables 5–12 contain descriptive data for the included studies according to the outcomes. As most of the studies did not adjust for diet, in the subgroup analysis by risk of bias, the adjustment for diet was ignored if only one or two studies were in the moderate subgroup.

Risk of bias assessment

Seven studies had moderate, and the remaining had serious risk of bias. Only 16 studies adequately adjusted for confounding variables (age, sex, BMI, alcohol, smoking, and diet) and other studies did not fully adjust for potential confounders. Nearly 37% of studies were susceptible to selection bias because of conducted in specific population like elderly, workers, physicians, or twins. Thirty-nine studies had serious risk for exposure assessment bias because physical activity was measured by a questionnaire that had not been validated or a single question. Twenty-four studies had low risk of misclassification bias since physical activity was assessed repeatedly during the follow-up. 82% of the studies had low risk of missing data due to adequate descriptions of the loss to follow-up. The majority of studies (n = 90) obtained data through medical/hospital reports and national patient registries and thus had low risk of bias for measurement of outcomes. None of studies were biased by selective data reporting. A summary of the risk of bias assessment is provided in Supplementary Table 13.

Meta-analysis

LTPA and the risk of CVD

High vs. low analysis

Forty cohort studies (2,876,417 participants, 290,811 cases) investigated the association between LTPA and the risk of CVD [32, 34, 40, 41, 43,44,45, 50, 51, 53, 54, 57, 60,61,62, 64,65,66, 69, 70, 74, 75, 77, 80, 82, 83, 91, 96, 97, 100, 102, 105, 114, 116, 120, 121, 126, 127]. The summary HR for the highest vs. the lowest categories of LTPA was 0.81 (95% CI: 0.77 to 0.86, I2 = 91.9%; RD: 1.92 fewer CVD cases per 100 participants, 95% CI: 2.32 fewer, 1.41 fewer; GRADE = moderate) (Fig. 2). Sequential removal of studies did not change the direction or magnitude of the pooled HR (HR range = 0.80–0.82). The estimated E value for point estimate was 1.58 with a lower confidence CI of 1.51. There was no heterogeneity between subgroups, except for a stronger association among studies that reported on sports, running, and jogging than among studies reporting on other types of LTPA (Supplementary Table 14). Inspection of funnel plot (Supplementary Fig. 1) and Egger’s test for asymmetry (P < 0.001) showed an indication of small study effects. However, no study was included in trim and fill analysis.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Summary HR of cardiovascular disease (CVD), coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, and atrial fibrillation (AF) incidence for the highest compared with the lowest category of leisure time physical activity

Full size image

Dose-response analysis

Nineteen studies were included in the linear dose-response meta-analysis [44, 50, 53, 56, 61, 64, 70, 74, 97, 120, 121, 128]. The estimated risk reduction for CVD was 10% (HR = 0.90; 95% CI: 0.87 to 0.93; I2 = 88.6%, Pheterogeneity<0.001) per 20 MET-hours/week increment of LTPA (Supplementary Fig. 2).

Twenty-three studies were included in the non-linear dose-response analysis (17 reported physical activity in MET-hours/week [32, 40, 43, 44, 50, 53, 56, 57, 60, 61, 64, 70, 77, 97, 104, 121, 128], 2 in kcal/week [51, 114], and 4 in hours/week [41, 75, 91, 116]). In the non-linear dose-response analysis, a dose-dependent reduction in the risk of CVD incidence was observed up to 19% at 20 MET-hours/week, with little or no further decrease in risk at higher levels (Pnonlinearity<0.001) (Fig. 3). Excluding studies with two categories (n = 2) [40, 70] did not change the results (Supplementary Fig. 3). For kcal/week and h/week, the largest reductions in risk was 25% and 16% which were observed at LTPA of 1300 kcal/week and 3 h/week, respectively, with no further reduction in risk observed at higher levels (Supplementary Figs. 4 and 5).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Dose-response relationship between leisure time physical activity (LTPA) and cardiovascular disease (CVD), coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, and atrial fibrillation (AF). The solid line represents non-linear dose response and dotted lines represent 95% confidence interval. Circles represent HR point estimates for LTPA categories from each study with circle size proportional to inverse of standard error. Small grey circles represent baseline LTPA category for each separate study

Full size image

LTPA and the risk of CHD

High vs. low analysis

Thirty-nine cohort studies (2,594,495 participants, 120,048 cases) investigated the association between LTPA and risk of CHD [36, 37, 39,40,41, 49, 52, 53, 55,56,57, 61, 64, 65, 71, 74, 79, 82, 84, 85, 90, 92, 94, 97, 98, 103, 105,106,107,108,109, 111, 113, 117,118,119, 122, 123, 127]. Compared with the lowest LTPA, the highest LTPA was associated with a lower risk of CHD (HR = 0.83; 95% CI: 0.79 to 0.88, I2 = 76.2%; RD: 0.78 fewer per 100 participants, 95% CI: 0.97 fewer, 0.60 fewer; GRADE = moderate) (Fig. 2). The summary estimate remained unchanged after the sequential omission of each study from the main analysis (HR range = 0.82–0.84). The estimated E value for point estimate was 1.53 with a lower CI of 1.41. The association was stronger among studies reported running and walking than other types of physical activity. There was no heterogeneity between subgroups for other factors (Supplementary Table 15). There was no clear evidence of publication bias with the Egger’s test or by inspection of the funnel plot (P = 0.28) (Supplementary Fig. 6).

Dose-response analysis

Eighteen studies were included in the linear dose-response meta-analysis [40, 46, 52, 53, 56, 57, 61, 64, 82, 85, 94, 97, 105,106,107, 119, 122, 128]. For each 20 MET-hours/week increment of LTPA, the summary HR of CHD was 0.88 (95% CI: 0.84 to 0.92, I2 = 88.1%, P < 0.001 for heterogeneity) (Supplementary Fig. 7).

Twenty-one studies were included in the non-linear dose-response analysis [MET-hours/week (n = 15) [40, 52, 53, 56, 57, 61, 64, 82, 85, 94, 97, 105,106,107, 119], kcal/week (n = 3) [51, 71, 113], and hours/week (n = 3) [41, 92, 108]]. A dose-dependent reduction in risk was observed up to 20 MET-hours/week where a 20% reduction in risk was observed, and there was little or no further decrease in risk at higher levels (Pnonlinearity=0.001) (Fig. 3). Excluding the one study with two categories did not change the results (Supplementary Fig. 3) [40]. For the two other analyses of LTPA, the lowest risk was observed at LTPA of 1100 kcal/week and 2 h/week with 36% and 18% reductions in risk, respectively, and again there was no further reduction in risk at higher levels (Supplementary Figs. 8 and 9).

LTPA and the risk of stroke

High vs. low analysis

Thirty-one cohort studies (2,595,295 participants, 77,215 cases) investigated the association between LTPA and risk of stroke [33, 34, 40, 41, 44, 47, 51, 53, 56, 57, 61, 65, 68, 72,73,74, 78, 81, 82, 86, 88, 97, 99, 101, 105, 106, 110, 112, 124, 125, 127]. The highest compared to the lowest level of LTPA was associated with a lower stroke risk (summary HR = 0.83; 95% CI: 0.79 to 0.88; I2 = 67.2%; RD: 0.48 fewer per 100 participants, 95%CI: 0.63 fewer, 0.33 fewer; GRADE = moderate) (Fig. 2). The summary estimate remained unchanged after sequential omission of each study from the main analysis (HR range = 0.84–0.85). The estimated E value for point estimate was 1.53 with a lower CI of 1.41. The association was slightly stronger among studies that used self-reported outcome assessment compared to medical record or doctor diagnosed outcome assessment and among studies that did not adjust for diabetes (Supplementary Table 16). The risk reduction appeared to be more evident in transient ischemic attack (HR = 0.69; 95% CI: 0.56 to 0.84; I2 = 0.0%) vs. ischemic and hemorrhagic types of stroke. No publication bias was detected with Egger test or by inspection of the funnel plot (P = 0.59) (Supplementary Fig. 10).

Dose-response analysis

Thirteen studies were included in the linear dose-response analysis of LTPA and stroke [40, 53, 56, 57, 61, 81, 82, 86, 97, 105, 106]. For each 20 MET-hours/week increment of LTPA, the pooled risk was reduced by 9% (summary HR = 0.91; 95% CI: 0.88 to 0.94; I2 = 59.5%) (Supplementary Fig. 11).

Sixteen studies were included in the non-linear dose-response analyses [MET-hours/week (n = 12) [40, 44, 53, 56, 57, 61, 81, 82, 86, 97, 105, 106], kcal/week (n = 2) [51, 101], and h/week (n = 2) [41, 92]]. A dose-dependent reduction in risk was observed up to 25 MET-hours/week where a 22% reduction in risk was observed, and there was no further reduction in risk at higher levels (Pnonlinearity=0.06) (Fig. 3). Excluding one study with two categories did not change the results (Supplementary Fig. 3) [40]. For studies that reported kcal/week and hours/week, the lowest risk was observed at LTPA of 2500 kcal/week and 2 h/week and with a 34% and 22% reduction, respectively, and again there was no further reductions in risk at higher levels (Supplementary Figs. 12 and 13).

LTPA and the risk of AF

High vs. low analysis

Twelve cohort studies (764,640 participants, 24,642 cases) investigated the association between LTPA and risk of AF [35, 38, 42, 58, 63, 67, 87, 93, 104, 115]. Comparing the highest to the lowest categories of LTPA, no association between LTPA and risk of AF was found (summary HR = 0.98; 95% CI: 0.92 to 1.05; I2 = 42.7%; RD: 0.06 fewer per 100 participants, 95%CI: 0.26 fewer, 0.16 more; GRADE = moderate) (Supplementary Table 17, Fig. 2). The non-significant association persisted across all subgroups and there was no between subgroup heterogeneity in the subgroup analyses, except for a stronger association among females (Supplementary Table 17). The summary estimate did not materially change when one study was excluded at a time (HR range = 0.94-1.00). The estimated E value for point estimate was 1.13 with a lower CI of 1.00. No publication bias was observed with the Egger’s test and or by inspection of the funnel plot (P = 0.15) (Supplementary Fig. 14).

Dose-response analysis

Six studies were included in the linear dose-response analysis [38, 42, 63, 87, 104, 115]. For each 20 MET hours/week increment in LTPA, the risk of AF was reduced by 8% (summary HR = 0.92; 95% CI: 0.85 to 0.99; I2 = 37.5%; Pheterogeneity=0.16) (Supplementary Fig. 15). Nine studies were included in the non-linear dose-response analysis [MET-hours/week (n = 7) [38, 42, 63, 87, 104, 115] and h/week (n = 2) [35, 58]]. A U-shaped association with an 8% reduction in the risk of AF incidence was observed at 10 MET-hours/week, but the curve moved closer to the null at higher levels of activity (Pnonlinearity<0.001) (Fig. 3). Analysis of studies that reported hours/week indicated no evidence of a non-linear association (Supplementary Fig. 16).

Association of the OPA with the risk of CVD, CHD, AF, and stroke

Seven studies with 733,300 participants and 46,543 cases were included in high vs. low meta-analysis for CVD [43, 46, 64, 77, 80, 91, 96], 12 studies with 630,236 participants and 14,122 cases for CHD [39, 46, 55, 64, 76, 79, 89, 95, 103, 107, 117], six studies with 625,347 participants and 37,238 cases for stroke [46, 48, 72, 78, 81], and two studies with 53,708 participants and 5,035 cases for AF [58, 115]. Comparing the highest with the lowest categories of OPA, no association was observed between OPA and risk of CVD (HR = 1.01; 95% CI: 0.77 to 1.32; I2 = 88.4%, Pheterogeneity<0.001), CHD (HR = 0.90; 95% CI: 0.78 to 1.04; I2 = 87.5%, Pheterogeneity<0.001), stroke (HR = 0.91; 95% CI: 0.80 to 1.04; I2 = 80.2%, Pheterogeneity<0.001) and AF (HR = 1.17; 95% CI: 0.99 to 1.38; I2 = 37.8%, Pheterogeneity=0.20) (Supplementary Figs. 17–20). The summary estimates remained unchanged after sequentially excluding each study for all four outcomes. The results of the subgroup analyses for CVD, CHD, and stroke are presented in Supplementary Tables 18–20. There was no indication of publication bias in the analysis of CHD statistically or visually (P = 0.83) (Supplementary Fig. 21). The heterogeneity of the data did not allow for dose–response analyses.

Certainty of evidence

The overall certainty of evidence is presented in Supplementary Tables 21 and 22. The certainty of evidence for the association between LTPA and risk of AF was rated “high”, whereas the certainty of evidence for the association between LTPA and CVD, CHD, and stroke were rated as “moderate”. The evidence was graded as “very low” for the association between OPA and risk of CVD, CHD, stroke, and AF.

Discussion

Principal findings

The results of this meta-analysis showed the highest vs. the lowest LTPA was associated with a 19%, 17%, and 17% lower risk of overall CVD, CHD, and stroke, respectively. Linear dose-response analyses showed a 10%, 12%, 9%, and 8% risk reduction in CVD, CHD, stroke, and AF incidence per 20 MET-hours/week increase in LTPA. The estimated E value for point estimate was 1.58 (lower CI: 1.51), 1.53 (lower CI: 1.41), and 1.53 (lower CI: 1.41) for the incidence of CVD, CHD, and stroke, respectively. These E values suggest unmeasured confounders should have this size of the association with both the exposure and the outcome to completely explain away the observed association.

In nonlinear dose-response analyses, there were dose-dependent inverse associations up to 20 MET-hours/week with 19% and 20% reduction in CVD and CHD risk, respectively, and up to 25 MET-hours/week with a 22% reduction in the risk of stroke, with no further reduction at higher LTPA levels. For AF, there was a U-shaped nonlinear association and the maximum reduction in the risk was 8% at around 10 MET-hours/week of LTPA, with going toward null association at higher LTPA levels. For hours/week measurements, the largest risk reduction for CVD was 16% at 3 h/week LTPA, and for CHD and stroke was 18% and 22%, respectively, at 2 h/week LTPA. Higher levels of OPA were not associated with lower risk of total CVD, CHD, stroke and AF.

Subgroup analyses based on risk of bias, location, follow-up duration, adjustment variables, and number of CVD incidence were in general consistent with the main analyses in the direction and magnitude. However, subgroup analysis based on sex showed different results between males and females for AF, where only females demonstrated protective effect of physical activity.

Associations were relatively similar between different intensities of physical activity, suggesting that physical activity in any intensity could be beneficial. Running appeared to be associated with a stronger reduction in the risk compared to other types of physical activity, although considering the limited data available, further studies are needed.

Comparison with previous meta-analyses

This was an updated meta-analysis based on results of 103 prospective cohort studies with follow-up durations ranging from 3 to 44 years (74 studies > 10 years). The findings were in line with previous meta-analyses that found an inverse association between physical activity and CHD, stroke, and CVD morbidity/mortality [12,13,14,15,16,17] but were contrary to the positive association observed between OPA and CVD risk a decade ago based on reports of 23 prospective cohort studies [14]. The extent of risk reduction was almost comparable between results of this meta-analysis and a recent meta-analysis which found a curvilinear association between non-occupational physical activity levels and the incidence of CHD, heart failure and stroke [17].

Mechanisms for the benefits of physical activity on cardiovascular system

CHD, stroke, and AF are types of CVD [129]. Atherosclerotic plaques are the primary core of these diseases which are formed and triggered upon exposure to risk factors such as high blood pressure, high low-density lipoprotein, obesity, smoking, unhealthy diet, sedentary lifestyle, and physical inactivity. Many of these risk factors are controlled by prevention of obesity and correcting lifestyle especially that of physical activity. Adherence to the recommendations of the guidelines for physical activity prevents accumulation of excess fat mass particularly around the abdomen and visceral areas, thus preventing development of cardiometabolic risk factors [130, 131]. Besides obesity prevention, aerobic physical activity improves endothelial function and prevents arterial stiffness [132]. LTPA is also negatively associated with oxidative stress and inflammatory markers which are important underlying factors in the process of atherosclerosis [133, 134]. Also, blood coagulation is diminished with regular physical activity, likely due to lower levels of coagulation factors such as blood fibrinogen and tissue plasminogen activator [135]. Parts of these benefits are exerted independently of the effect of physical activity on weight control. This has been documented in previous investigations [136,137,138,139] and also in results of this meta-analysis where subgroup analyses based on adjustment for BMI did not reveal a difference in the results.

Physical activity and AF

The extent of LTPA benefits on AF was lower than that for other outcomes (i.e. CVD, CHD, and stroke): the risk reduction was 22.6% lower for linear and 60.7% lower for non-linear dose-response relationships. This low level of protection was only observed in females. This finding is in line with previous meta-analyses that found the inverse relationship between physical activity and AF risk only in females [140,141,142]. It has been known that the risk of AF in females may reduce with moderate to vigorous intensity physical activity, but in males, moderate intensity physical activity is beneficial while vigorous physical activity may increase AF risk [142, 143]. The reason of the opposite effect of physical activity on AF risk in males and females is not clear at this time. However, a study on athletes revealed that under identical training hours and race time, male athletes had more noticeable atrial remodeling, a concentric type of ventricular remodeling, blood pressure at rest and during exercise, and a sympathetic tone than female athletes [144]. Females also have lower amounts and intensity of physical activity, fewer heart comorbidities, and lower sympathetic tone, and lower blood pressure than males [145].

AF also showed a U-shaped nonlinear relationship with LTPA. Such a relationship has also been reported in previous meta-analyses [141, 146]. The high-intensity physical activity may increase volume load and promote atrial enlargement, remodeling, and fibrosis, increase vagal tone, and inflammation, while low/moderate and particularly regular physical activity may protect against AF through prevention of cardiometabolic risk factors, regulation of autonomic system, and improved cardiac structure and function.

Occupational physical activity

OPA did not show a relationship with CVD, CHD, stroke, and AF incidence in this meta-analysis. Previous meta-analyses have produced contradictory results for this kind of relationship: Li et al. in a meta-analysis performed on prospective cohort studies published in the time course between 2011 and 2013, found a significant positive association between high levels of OPA and CHD as well as overall CVD but not with stroke and unclassified CVD or between moderate intensity OPA and any of CHD, stroke, and unclassified CVD risk [14]. In contrast, Wendel et al. in a meta-analysis published in 2004 reported protection by moderate and especially high intensity OPA against stroke [147]. The reason of discrepancies is not clear. The present meta-analysis was performed on more recent longitudinal studies with probably better methodological design and more appropriate analysis compared to studies conducted 10–20 years ago. For instance, in recent works, the control of confounders has been performed with more scrutiny and precision than before. Although non-significant, OPA showed a trend for reverse association with CHD (n = 12) and stroke (n = 6), and a trend for positive association with AF (n = 2). Future longitudinal studies are required to determine these relationships with greater certainty.

Recommended levels of physical activity

According to the physical activity guidelines for Americans, adults should do at least 150 to 300 min a week (2.5 to 5 h/week) of moderate-intensity, or 75 to 150 min a week of vigorous-intensity aerobic physical activity [148]. These amounts are comparable to the 20 MET-hours/week found to be associated with 8–12% risk reduction in the outcomes of this study. Twenty MET-hours/week is roughly equivalent to 3.5 to 5 h/week moderate-intensity physical activity (3.5 h/week for activities such as brisk walking and slow jogging which have a MET value of 6, and 5 h/week for activities like moderate-intensity walking with a MET value of 4) [149]. Higher levels of physical activity may deliver additional benefits [16]. An individual participant meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies showed 60–75 min/day moderate-intensity physical activity might eliminate the increased risk of death associated with high sitting time [150].

Unfortunately, the cohort studies did not generally measure the intensity of physical activity. Measurement units of MET-hours/week, kcal/week, and hours/week are in fact indicative of either combined intensity and duration (MET-hours/week and kcal/week) or duration only (hours/week). According to the available evidence, it seems that the duration of physical activity has a quite important impact on the reduction of CVD risk [151] but the intensity of exercise should be adapted to the cardiorespiratory capacity and medical conditions of the individual [134]. A meta-analysis of 5 cohort studies that measured the intensity of physical activity by an accelerometer in older adults found that HR for CVD risk was lower in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity than light-intensity physical activity although HR for CVD death was almost equal in light- and moderate-to-vigorous intensity physical activity [152], suggesting that moderate-to-vigorous intensity physical activity may be more beneficial for CVD incidence than light-intensity activity.

Strengths and limitations

Some important limitations should be considered in interpreting the results. First, only a few studies adjusted for diet or other types of physical activity; therefore, potential confounding factors should be considered. However, studies that controlled for these confounders showed similar results to those that did not, suggesting this may be less of an issue. Moreover, estimated E values showed that little unmeasured confounding would be needed to explain away the observed associations. Secondly, in most of the studies the potential changes in the level and type of physical activity during the follow-up period were not considered in the analyses. Additionally, physical activity was self-reported, which is not an accurate measurement of physical activity, and none of the included studies corrected for measurement errors. Moreover, relatively few studies provided information on the intensities of LTPA. Lastly, due to differences in how LTPA was measured and reported, only around half of the studies that were included in the high vs. low analysis could be included in the linear and nonlinear dose-response analyses. However, given the general consistency of the results across different analyses, and the large number of studies included in the dose-response analyses this should be less of an issue. The strengths of our study included the prospective design of the included studies. Furthermore, the large sample size for LTPA analysis, which included up to 306,694 cases and ∼ 5.3 million participants, provided sufficient statistical power to detect even modest associations. Moreover, the certainty of evidence for LTPA was moderate to high. Finally, examining nonlinear relationships clarified the shape of the dose–response relationships, suggesting that most of the benefit is observed at up to 20–25 MET-hours/week of activity.

Conclusions and future implications

Overall, results of this meta-analysis showed an inverse dose-response relationship between LTPA and risk of CVD, CHD, stroke, and to a lesser extent AF. The dose-response relationship was most pronounced up to 20–25 MET-hours/week LTPA (equals to 3.5 to 5 h/week of moderate-intensity physical activity) for CVD, CHD, and stroke, and about half of that for AF, but no further reductions were observed with higher levels of LTPA. OPA showed no statistically significant association with total and type of CVD outcomes. Any further studies could benefit from more in-depth assessment of different types and intensities of physical activity as well as incorporating more objective measures of activity.

Data availability

The datasets used for the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

AF:

Atrial Fibrillation

BMI:

Body Mass Index

CHD:

Coronary Heart Disease

CI:

Confidence Interval

CVD:

Cardiovascular Disease

HR:

Hazard Ratio

IHD:

Ischemic Heart Disease

LTPA:

Leisure-Time Physical Activity

OPA:

Occupational Physical Activity

RD:

Risk Difference

RR:

Risk Ratio

References

  1. British Heart Foundation. Global heart & circulatory diseases factsheet. August 2022. https://www.bhf.org.uk/-/media/files/research/heart-statistics/bhf-cvd-statistics-global-factsheet.pdf.

  2. Lindstrom M, DeCleene N, Dorsey H, Fuster V, Johnson CO, LeGrand KE, Mensah GA, Razo C, Stark B, Varieur Turco J, Roth GA. Global Burden of Cardiovascular Diseases and risks collaboration, 1990–2021. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2022;80(25):2372–425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2022.11.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Slater K, Colyvas K, Taylor R, Collins CE, Hutchesson M. Primary and secondary cardiovascular disease prevention interventions targeting lifestyle risk factors in women: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2022;9:1010528. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2022.1010528.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. US Preventive Services Task Force, Mangione CM, Barry MJ, Nicholson WK, Cabana M, Coker TR, Davidson KW, Davis EM, Donahue KE, Jaén CR, Kubik M, Li L, Ogedegbe G, Pbert L, Ruiz JM, Stevermer J, Wong JB. Behavioral counseling interventions to promote a healthy Diet and Physical Activity for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in adults without Cardiovascular Disease Risk factors: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 2022;328(4):367–74. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2022.10951.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Katzmarzyk PT, Friedenreich C, Shiroma EJ, Lee IM. Physical inactivity and non-communicable disease burden in low-income, middle-income and high-income countries. Br J Sports Med. 2022;56(2):101–6. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2020-103640.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hannan M, Kringle E, Hwang CL, Laddu D. Behavioral medicine for sedentary behavior, Daily Physical Activity, and Exercise to Prevent Cardiovascular Disease: a review. Curr Atheroscler Rep. 2021;23(9):48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11883-021-00948-x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Wewege MA, Thom JM, Rye KA, Parmenter BJ. Aerobic, resistance or combined training: a systematic review and meta-analysis of exercise to reduce cardiovascular risk in adults with metabolic syndrome. Atherosclerosis. 2018;274:162–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2018.05.002.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. de Lucena Alves CP, Crochemore-Silva I, Lima NP, Coenen P, Horta BL. Prospective Association of Occupational and Leisure-Time Physical Activity with Cardiovascular Risk factors in early adulthood: findings from Pelotas (Brazil) 1982 Birth Cohort. J Phys Act Health. 2023;20(9):832–9. https://doi.org/10.1123/jpah.2022-0610.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Peeters G, van Gellecum YR, van Uffelen JG, Burton NW, Brown WJ. Contribution of house and garden work to the association between physical activity and well-being in young, mid-aged and older women. Br J Sports Med. 2014;48(12):996–1001. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2012-091103.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Cheng W, Zhang Z, Cheng W, Yang C, Diao L, Liu W. Associations of leisure-time physical activity with cardiovascular mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 44 prospective cohort studies. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2018;25(17):1864–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/2047487318795194.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Fontana D, Ceron R, d’Errico A. Occupational physical activity, all-cause mortality and incidence of cardiovascular diseases: results from three Italian cohorts. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2024;97(1):81–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-023-02028-w.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Oguma Y, Shinoda-Tagawa T. Physical activity decreases cardiovascular disease risk in women: review and meta-analysis. Am J Prev Med. 2004;26(5):407–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2004.02.007.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Sofi F, Capalbo A, Cesari F, Abbate R, Gensini GF. Physical activity during leisure time and primary prevention of coronary heart disease: an updated meta-analysis of cohort studies. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil. 2008;15(3):247–57. https://doi.org/10.1097/HJR.0b013e3282f232ac.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Li J, Loerbroks A, Angerer P. Physical activity and risk of cardiovascular disease: what does the new epidemiological evidence show? Curr Opin Cardiol. 2013;28(5):575–83. https://doi.org/10.1097/HCO.0b013e328364289c.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kyu HH, Bachman VF, Alexander LT, Mumford JE, Afshin A, Estep K, Veerman JL, Delwiche K, Iannarone ML, Moyer ML, Cercy K, Vos T, Murray CJ, Forouzanfar MH. Physical activity and risk of breast cancer, colon cancer, diabetes, ischemic heart disease, and ischemic stroke events: systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis for the global burden of Disease Study 2013. BMJ. 2016;354:i3857. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i3857.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Sattelmair J, Pertman J, Ding EL, Kohl HW 3rd, Haskell W, Lee IM. Dose response between physical activity and risk of coronary heart disease: a meta-analysis. Circulation. 2011;124(7):789–95. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.110.010710.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Garcia L, Pearce M, Abbas A, Mok A, Strain T, Ali S, Crippa A, Dempsey PC, Golubic R, Kelly P, Laird Y, McNamara E, Moore S, de Sa TH, Smith AD, Wijndaele K, Woodcock J, Brage S. Non-occupational physical activity and risk of cardiovascular disease, cancer and mortality outcomes: a dose-response meta-analysis of large prospective studies. Br J Sports Med. 2023 Feb 28:bjsports-2022-105669. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2022-105669.

  18. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group* P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(4):264–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, Moher D, Becker BJ, Sipe TA, Thacker SB. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. JAMA. 2000;283(15):2008–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Aune D, Schlesinger S, Leitzmann MF, Tonstad S, Norat T, Riboli E, Vatten LJ. Physical activity and the risk of heart failure: a systematic review and dose–response meta-analysis of prospective studies. Eur J Epidemiol. 2021;36(4):367–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, Savović J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M, Henry D, Altman DG, Ansari MT, Boutron I. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. bmj 2016;355.

  22. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7(3):177–88.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. VanderWeele TJ, Ding P. Sensitivity analysis in Observational Research: introducing the E-Value. Ann Intern Med. 2017;167(4):268–74. https://doi.org/10.7326/M16-2607.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Begg CB, Mazumdar M. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics 1994:1088–101.

  25. Orsini N, Bellocco R, Greenland S. Generalized least squares for trend estimation of summarized dose–response data. stata J. 2006;6(1):40–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Crippa A, Discacciati A, Bottai M, Spiegelman D, Orsini N. One-stage dose–response meta-analysis for aggregated data. Stat Methods Med Res. 2019;28(5):1579–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Aune D, Norat T, Leitzmann M, Tonstad S, Vatten LJ. Physical activity and the risk of type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and dose–response meta-analysis. Eur J Epidemiol. 2015;30(7):529–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Kyu HH, Bachman VF, Alexander LT, Mumford JE, Afshin A, Estep K, Veerman JL, Delwiche K, Iannarone ML, Moyer ML. Physical activity and risk of breast cancer, colon cancer, diabetes, ischemic heart disease, and ischemic stroke events: systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis for the global burden of Disease Study 2013. bmj 2016;354.

  29. Hamling J, Lee P, Weitkunat R, Ambühl M. Facilitating meta-analyses by deriving relative effect and precision estimates for alternative comparisons from a set of estimates presented by exposure level or disease category. Stat Med. 2008;27(7):954–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Schünemann HJ, Cuello C, Akl EA, Mustafa RA, Meerpohl JJ, Thayer K, Morgan RL, Gartlehner G, Kunz R, Katikireddi SV. GRADE guidelines: 18. How ROBINS-I and other tools to assess risk of bias in nonrandomized studies should be used to rate the certainty of a body of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;111:105–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Schünemann H, Brożek J, Guyatt G, Oxman A, editors. Handbook for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations using the GRADE approach. Updated October 2013;2013.

  32. Acosta S, Johansson A, Drake I. Diet and Lifestyle factors and risk of atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease-A prospective cohort study. Nutrients. 2021;13(11). https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13113822.

  33. Agnarsson U, Thorgeirsson G, Sigvaldason H, Sigfusson N. Effects of leisure-time physical activity and ventilatory function on risk for stroke in men: the Reykjavik Study. Ann Intern Med. 1999;130(12):987–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Ahmed A, Pinto Pereira SM, Lennon L, Papacosta O, Whincup P, Wannamethee G. Cardiovascular Health and Stroke in Older British Men: Prospective Findings From the British Regional Heart Study. Stroke. 2020;51(11):3286-94. https://doi.org/10.1161/strokeaha.120.030546.

  35. Aizer A, Gaziano JM, Cook NR, Manson JE, Buring JE, Albert CM. Relation of vigorous exercise to risk of atrial fibrillation. Am J Cardiol. 2009;103(11):1572–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Åkesson A, Larsson SC, Discacciati A, Wolk A. Low-risk diet and lifestyle habits in the primary prevention of myocardial infarction in men: a population-based prospective cohort study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64(13):1299–306.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Åkesson A, Weismayer C, Newby P, Wolk A. Combined effect of low-risk dietary and lifestyle behaviors in primary prevention of myocardial infarction in women. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(19):2122–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Albrecht M, Koolhaas CM, Schoufour JD, van Rooij FJ, Kavousi M, Ikram MA, Franco OH. Physical activity types and atrial fibrillation risk in the middle-aged and elderly: the Rotterdam Study. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2018;25(12):1316–23.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Allesøe K, Holtermann A, Aadahl M, Thomsen JF, Hundrup YA, Søgaard K. High occupational physical activity and risk of ischaemic heart disease in women: the interplay with physical activity during leisure time. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2015;22(12):1601–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/2047487314554866.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Amidei CB, Trevisan C, Dotto M, Ferroni E, Noale M, Maggi S, Corti MC, Baggio G, Fedeli U, Sergi G. Association of physical activity trajectories with major cardiovascular diseases in elderly people. Heart. 2022;108(5):360–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Armstrong ME, Green J, Reeves GK, Beral V, Cairns BJ. Frequent physical activity may not reduce vascular disease risk as much as moderate activity: large prospective study of women in the United Kingdom. Circulation. 2015;131(8):721–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Azarbal F, Stefanick ML, Salmoirago-Blotcher E, Manson JE, Albert CM, LaMonte MJ, Larson JC, Li W, Martin LW, Nassir R, et al. Obesity, physical activity, and their interaction in incident atrial fibrillation in postmenopausal women. J Am Heart Assoc. 2014;3(4). https://doi.org/10.1161/jaha.114.001127.

  43. Bakker EA, Lee DC, Hopman MTE, Oymans EJ, Watson PM, Thompson PD, Thijssen DHJ, Eijsvogels TMH. Dose-response association between moderate to vigorous physical activity and incident morbidity and mortality for individuals with a different cardiovascular health status: a cohort study among 142,493 adults from the Netherlands. PLoS Med. 2021;18(12):e1003845. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003845.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Barengo NC, Antikainen R, Borodulin K, Harald K, Jousilahti P. Leisure-time physical activity reduces total and cardiovascular mortality and cardiovascular disease incidence in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2017;65(3):504–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Bell EJ, Lutsey PL, Windham BG, Folsom AR. Physical activity and cardiovascular disease in African americans in ARIC. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2013;45(5):901.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Bennett DA, Du H, Clarke R, Guo Y, Yang L, Bian Z, Chen Y, Millwood I, Yu C, He P. Association of physical activity with risk of major cardiovascular diseases in Chinese men and women. JAMA Cardiol. 2017;2(12):1349–58.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Blomstrand A, Blomstrand C, Ariai N, Bengtsson C, Björkelund C. Stroke incidence and association with risk factors in women: a 32-year follow-up of the prospective Population Study of women in Gothenburg. BMJ Open. 2014;4(10):e005173. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005173.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Blomstrand A, Blomstrand C, Hakeberg M, Sundh V, Lissner L, Bjorkelund C. Forty-four-year longitudinal study of stroke incidence and risk factors - the prospective Population Study of women in Gothenburg. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2022;40(1):139–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/02813432.2022.2057040.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Calling S, Hedblad B, Engström G, Berglund G, Janzon L. Effects of body fatness and physical activity on cardiovascular risk: risk prediction using the bioelectrical impedance method. Scand J Public Health. 2006;34(6):568–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/14034940600595621.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Chomistek AK, Cook NR, Flint AJ, Rimm EB. Vigorous-intensity leisure-time physical activity and risk of major chronic disease in men. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2012;44(10):1898.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Chomistek AK, Cook NR, Rimm EB, Ridker PM, Buring JE, Lee IM. Physical activity and Incident Cardiovascular Disease in women: is the relation modified by Level of Global Cardiovascular Risk? J Am Heart Assoc. 2018;7(12). https://doi.org/10.1161/jaha.117.008234.

  52. Chomistek AK, Henschel B, Eliassen AH, Mukamal KJ, Rimm EB. Frequency, type, and volume of leisure-time physical activity and risk of Coronary Heart Disease in Young Women. Circulation. 2016;134(4):290–9. https://doi.org/10.1161/circulationaha.116.021516.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Chomistek AK, Manson JE, Stefanick ML, Lu B, Sands-Lincoln M, Going SB, Garcia L, Allison MA, Sims ST, LaMonte MJ, et al. Relationship of sedentary behavior and physical activity to incident cardiovascular disease: results from the women’s Health Initiative. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61(23):2346–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2013.03.031.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Clara A, Berenguer G, Pérez-Fernández S, Schröder H, Ramos R, Grau M, Degano IR, Fernandez-Sanles A, Marrugat J, Elosua R. Analysis of the dose-response relationship of leisure-time physical activity to cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality: the REGICOR study. Revista Española De Cardiología (English Edition). 2021;74(5):414–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Clays E, De Bacquer D, Janssens H, De Clercq B, Casini A, Braeckman L, Kittel F, De Backer G, Holtermann A. The association between leisure time physical activity and coronary heart disease among men with different physical work demands: a prospective cohort study. Eur J Epidemiol. 2013;28(3):241–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-013-9764-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Cuthbertson CC, Tan X, Heiss G, Kucharska-Newton A, Nichols HB, Kubota Y, Evenson KR. Associations of Leisure‐Time Physical activity and television viewing with Life Expectancy Free of Nonfatal Cardiovascular Disease: the ARIC Study. J Am Heart Association. 2019;8(18):e012657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Djousse L, Schubert P, Ho YL, Whitbourne SB, Cho K, Gaziano JM. Leisure time physical activity, sedentary behavior, and risk of cardiovascular disease and mortality among US veterans. J Nov Physiother Phys Rehabil. 2021;8(2):33–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Drca N, Wolk A, Jensen-Urstad M, Larsson SC. Atrial fibrillation is associated with different levels of physical activity levels at different ages in men. Heart. 2014;100(13):1037–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Drca N, Wolk A, Larsson SC. Occupational physical activity is associated with risk of atrial fibrillation in both men and women: a population-based cohort study. Acta Cardiol. 2021;76(7):712–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Ekblom-Bak E, Halldin M, Vikström M, Stenling A, Gigante B, de Faire U, Leander K, Hellénius M-L. Physical activity attenuates cardiovascular risk and mortality in men and women with and without the metabolic syndrome–a 20-year follow-up of a population-based cohort of 60-year-olds. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2021;28(12):1376–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Elliott EG, Laden F, James P, Rimm EB, Rexrode KM, Hart JE. Interaction between Long-Term exposure to fine particulate matter and physical activity, and risk of Cardiovascular Disease and overall mortality in U.S. women. Environ Health Perspect. 2020;128(12):127012. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp7402.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Elwood P, Galante J, Pickering J, Palmer S, Bayer A, Ben-Shlomo Y, Longley M, Gallacher J. Healthy lifestyles reduce the incidence of chronic diseases and dementia: evidence from the Caerphilly cohort study. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(12):e81877.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Everett BM, Conen D, Buring JE, Moorthy M, Lee I-M, Albert CM. Physical activity and the risk of incident atrial fibrillation in women. Circulation: Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2011;4(3):321–7.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Ferrario MM, Roncaioli M, Veronesi G, Holtermann A, Clays E, Borchini R, Cavicchiolo M, Grassi G, Cesana G. Differing associations for sport versus occupational physical activity and cardiovascular risk. Heart. 2018;104(14):1165–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Ford ES, Bergmann MM, Kröger J, Schienkiewitz A, Weikert C, Boeing H. Healthy living is the best revenge: findings from the European prospective investigation into Cancer and Nutrition-Potsdam study. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(15):1355–62. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2009.237.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Fu M, Rosengren A, Thunström E, Mandalenakis Z, Welin L, Caidahl K, Pivodic A, Zhong Y, Ergatoudes C, Morales D. Although coronary mortality has decreased, Rates of Cardiovascular Disease remain High: 21 years of Follow-Up comparing cohorts of Men Born in 1913 with men born in 1943. J Am Heart Association. 2018;7(9):e008769.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Garnvik LE, Malmo V, Janszky I, Wisløff U, Loennechen JP, Nes BM. Physical activity modifies the risk of atrial fibrillation in obese individuals: the HUNT3 study. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2018;25(15):1646–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Gillum RF, Mussolino ME, Ingram DD. Physical activity and stroke incidence in women and men: the NHANES I epidemiologic follow-up study. Am J Epidemiol. 1996;143(9):860–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Greenlee H, Strizich G, Lovasi GS, Kaplan RC, Biggs ML, Li CI, Richardson J, Burke GL, Fitzpatrick AL, Fretts AM. Concordance with prevention guidelines and subsequent cancer, cardiovascular disease, and mortality: a longitudinal study of older adults. Am J Epidemiol. 2017;186(10):1168–79.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Gunnell AS, Knuiman MW, Divitini ML, Cormie P. Leisure time physical activity and long-term cardiovascular and cancer outcomes: the Busselton Health Study. Eur J Epidemiol. 2014;29(11):851–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Haapanen N, Miilunpalo S, Vuori I, Oja P, Pasanen M. Association of leisure time physical activity with the risk of coronary heart disease, hypertension and diabetes in middle-aged men and women. Int J Epidemiol. 1997;26(4):739–47.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Hall C, Heck JE, Sandler DP, Ritz B, Chen H, Krause N. Occupational and leisure-time physical activity differentially predict 6-year incidence of stroke and transient ischemic attack in women. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2019;45(3):267.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Harmsen P, Lappas G, Rosengren A, Wilhelmsen L. Long-term risk factors for stroke: twenty-eight years of follow-up of 7457 middle-aged men in Goteborg. Swed Stroke. 2006;37(7):1663–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Hidalgo-Santamaria M, Bes-Rastrollo M, Martinez-Gonzalez MA, Moreno-Galarraga L, Ruiz-Canela M, dez-Montero A. Physical activity intensity and cardiovascular disease prevention—from the Seguimiento Universidad De Navarra study. Am J Cardiol. 2018;122(11):1871–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Hoevenaar-Blom MP, Wendel-Vos GW, Spijkerman AM, Kromhout D, Verschuren WM. Cycling and sports, but not walking, are associated with 10-year cardiovascular disease incidence: the MORGEN Study. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2011;18(1):41–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Holtermann A, Marott JL, Gyntelberg F, Søgaard K, Suadicani P, Mortensen OS, Prescott E, Schnohr P. Occupational and leisure time physical activity: risk of all-cause mortality and myocardial infarction in the Copenhagen City Heart Study. A prospective cohort study. BMJ open. 2012;2(1):e000556.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  77. Holtermann A, Schnohr P, Nordestgaard BG, Marott JL. The physical activity paradox in cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality: the contemporary Copenhagen General Population Study with 104 046 adults. Eur Heart J. 2021;42(15):1499–511.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  78. Hu G, Sarti C, Jousilahti P, Silventoinen K, Barengo NC, Tuomilehto J. Leisure time, occupational, and commuting physical activity and the risk of stroke. Stroke. 2005;36(9):1994–9. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.STR.0000177868.89946.0c.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Hu G, Tuomilehto J, Borodulin K, Jousilahti P. The joint associations of occupational, commuting, and leisure-time physical activity, and the Framingham risk score on the 10-year risk of coronary heart disease. Eur Heart J. 2007;28(4):492–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehl475.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Hu G-C, Chien K-L, Hsieh S-F, Chen C-Y, Tsai W-H, Su T-C. Occupational versus leisure-time physical activity in reducing cardiovascular risks and mortality among ethnic Chinese adults in Taiwan. Asia Pac J Public Health. 2014;26(6):604–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Huerta JM, Chirlaque M-D, Tormo M-J, Gavrila D, Arriola L, Moreno-Iribas C, Amiano P, Ardanaz E, Barricarte A, Dorronsoro M. Physical activity and risk of cerebrovascular disease in the European prospective investigation into Cancer and Nutrition-Spain study. Stroke. 2013;44(1):111–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Hummel M, Hantikainen E, Adami H-O, Ye W, Bellocco R, Bonn SE, Lagerros YT. Association between total and leisure time physical activity and risk of myocardial infarction and stroke–a Swedish cohort study. BMC Public Health. 2022;22(1):1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Jasiukaitienė V, Lukšienė D, Tamošiūnas A, Radišauskas R, Bobak M. The impact of metabolic syndrome and lifestyle habits on the risk of the first event of cardiovascular disease: results from a cohort study in Lithuanian urban population. Medicina. 2020;56(1):18.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  84. Jefferis BJ, Whincup PH, Lennon LT, Papacosta O, Goya Wannamethee S. Physical activity in older men: longitudinal associations with inflammatory and hemostatic biomarkers, N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide, and onset of coronary heart disease and mortality. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2014;62(4):599–606. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.12748.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Jensen MK, Chiuve SE, Rimm EB, Dethlefsen C, Tjønneland A, Joensen AM, Overvad K. Obesity, behavioral lifestyle factors, and risk of acute coronary events. Circulation. 2008;117(24):3062–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Jeong HG, Kim DY, Kang DW, Kim BJ, Kim CK, Kim Y, Yang W, Park ES, Lee SH. Physical activity frequency and the risk of stroke: a nationwide cohort study in Korea. J Am Heart Association. 2017;6(9):e005671.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Jin M-N, Yang P-S, Song C, Yu HT, Kim T-H, Uhm J-S, Sung J-H, Pak H-N, Lee M-H, Joung B. Physical activity and risk of atrial fibrillation: a nationwide cohort study in general population. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Johansson A, Drake I, Engstrom G, Acosta S. Modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors for atherothrombotic ischemic stroke among subjects in the Malmo Diet and Cancer Study. Nutrients. 2021;13(6). https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13061952.

  89. Johnsen AM, Alfredsson L, Knutsson A, Westerholm PJ, Fransson EI. Association between occupational physical activity and myocardial infarction: a prospective cohort study. BMJ open. 2016;6(10):e012692.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  90. Kaprio J, Kujala UM, Koskenvuo M, Sarna S. Physical activity and other risk factors in male twin-pairs discordant for coronary heart disease. Atherosclerosis. 2000;150(1):193–200.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Khaw KT, Jakes R, Bingham S, Welch A, Luben R, Day N, Wareham N. Work and leisure time physical activity assessed using a simple, pragmatic, validated questionnaire and incident cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality in men and women: the European prospective investigation into Cancer in Norfolk prospective population study. Int J Epidemiol. 2006;35(4):1034–43. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyl079.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Kim Y, Sharp S, Hwang S, Jee SH. Exercise and incidence of myocardial infarction, stroke, hypertension, type 2 diabetes and site-specific cancers: prospective cohort study of 257 854 adults in South Korea. BMJ open. 2019;9(3):e025590.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  93. Knuiman M, Briffa T, Divitini M, Chew D, Eikelboom J, McQuillan B, Hung J. A cohort study examination of established and emerging risk factors for atrial fibrillation: the Busselton Health Study. Eur J Epidemiol. 2014;29(3):181–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Koolhaas CM, Dhana K, Golubic R, Schoufour JD, Hofman A, van Rooij FJ, Franco OH. Physical activity types and coronary heart disease risk in middle-aged and elderly persons: the Rotterdam Study. Am J Epidemiol. 2016;183(8):729–38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Krause N, Brand RJ, Arah OA, Kauhanen J. Occupational physical activity and 20-year incidence of acute myocardial infarction: results from the Kuopio Ischemic Heart Disease risk factor study. Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health 2015:124– 39.

  96. Kuster RP, von Rosen P, Grooten WJ, Dohrn I-M, Hagströmer M. Self-reported and device-measured physical activity in Leisure Time and at Work and associations with Cardiovascular Events—A prospective study of the Physical Activity Paradox. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(22):12214.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  97. Lacey B, Golledge J, Yeap BB, Lewington S, Norman PE, Flicker L, Almeida OP, Hankey GJ. Physical activity and vascular disease in a prospective cohort study of older men: the Health in men Study (HIMS). BMC Geriatr. 2015;15:1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Lakka TA, Venalainen JM, Rauramaa R, Salonen R, Tuomilehto J, Salonen JT. Relation of leisure-time physical activity and cardiorespiratory fitness to the risk of acute myocardial infarction in men. N Engl J Med. 1994;330(22):1549–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Larsson SC, Akesson A, Wolk A. Healthy diet and lifestyle and risk of stroke in a prospective cohort of women. Neurology. 2014;83(19):1699–704. https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.0000000000000954.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  100. Lear SA, Hu W, Rangarajan S, Gasevic D, Leong D, Iqbal R, Casanova A, Swaminathan S, Anjana RM, Kumar R. The effect of physical activity on mortality and cardiovascular disease in 130 000 people from 17 high-income, middle-income, and low-income countries: the PURE study. Lancet. 2017;390(10113):2643–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Lee I-M, Paffenbarger RS Jr. Physical activity and stroke incidence: the Harvard Alumni Health Study. Stroke. 1998;29(10):2049–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Meneton P, Lemogne C, Herquelot E, Bonenfant S, Larson MG, Vasan RS, Ménard J, Goldberg M, Zins M. A global view of the relationships between the main behavioural and clinical cardiovascular risk factors in the GAZEL prospective cohort. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(9):e0162386.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  103. Merry AH, Boer JM, Schouten LJ, Feskens EJ, Verschuren WM, Gorgels AP, van den Brandt PA. Smoking, alcohol consumption, physical activity, and family history and the risks of acute myocardial infarction and unstable angina pectoris: a prospective cohort study. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2011;11:1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Mokhayeri Y, Hashemi-Nazari SS, Mansournia MA, Soori H, Khodakarim S. The association between physical activity and atrial fibrillation applying the Heaviside function in survival analysis: the multi-ethnic study of atherosclerosis. Epidemiol Health 2017;39.

  105. Mu X, Yu K, Long P, Niu R, Li W, Chen H, Gao H, Li X, Yuan Y, Yang H. Leisure-time physical activity and risk of incident cardiovascular disease in Chinese retired adults. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):24202.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  106. Patel K, Sui X, Zhang Y, Fonarow GC, Aban IB, Brown CJ, Bittner V, Kitzman DW, Allman RM, Banach M, et al. Prevention of heart failure in older adults may require higher levels of physical activity than needed for other cardiovascular events. Int J Cardiol. 2013;168(3):1905–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2012.12.053.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  107. Petersen CB, Eriksen L, Tolstrup JS, Søgaard K, Grønbæk M, Holtermann A. Occupational heavy lifting and risk of ischemic heart disease and all-cause mortality. BMC Public Health. 2012;12:1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. Raza W, Krachler B, Forsberg B, Sommar JN. Air pollution, physical activity and ischaemic heart disease: a prospective cohort study of interaction effects. BMJ Open. 2021;11(4):e040912. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-040912.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  109. Renninger M, Løchen M-L, Ekelund U, Hopstock LA, Jørgensen L, Mathiesen EB, Njølstad I, Schirmer H, Wilsgaard T, Morseth B. The independent and joint associations of physical activity and body mass index with myocardial infarction: the Tromsø Study. Prev Med. 2018;116:94–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Rist PM, Lee IM, Kase CS, Gaziano JM, Kurth T. Physical activity and functional outcomes from cerebral vascular events in men. Stroke. 2011;42(12):3352–6. https://doi.org/10.1161/strokeaha.111.619544.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  111. Rosolova H, Simon J, Sefrna F. Impact of cardiovascular risk factors on morbidity and mortality in Czech middle-aged men: Pilsen Longitudinal Study. Cardiology. 1994;85(1):61–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. Saevereid HA, Schnohr P, Prescott E. Speed and duration of walking and other leisure time physical activity and the risk of heart failure: a prospective cohort study from the Copenhagen City Heart Study. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(3). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0089909.

  113. Sesso HD, Paffenbarger RS Jr, Lee I-M. Physical activity and coronary heart disease in men: the Harvard alumni Health Study. Circulation. 2000;102(9):975–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  114. Sesso HD, Paffenbarger RS, Ha T, Lee I-M. Physical activity and cardiovascular disease risk in middle-aged and older women. Am J Epidemiol. 1999;150(4):408–16.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  115. Skielboe AK, Marott JL, Dixen U, Friberg JB, Jensen GB. Occupational physical activity, but not leisure-time physical activity increases the risk of atrial fibrillation: the Copenhagen City Heart Study. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2016;23(17):1883–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/2047487316655464.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  116. Stamatakis E, Hamer M, Lawlor DA. Physical activity, mortality, and cardiovascular disease: is domestic physical activity beneficial? Am J Epidemiol. 2009;169(10):1191–200. The Scottish Health Survey—1995, 1998, and 2003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  117. Strippoli E, Hughes A, Sebastiani G, Di Filippo P, d’Errico A. Occupational physical activity, mortality and CHD events in the Italian longitudinal study. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2021:1–13.

  118. Sundquist K, Qvist J, Johansson S-E, Sundquist J. The long-term effect of physical activity on incidence of coronary heart disease: a 12-year follow-up study. Prev Med. 2005;41(1):219–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  119. Tanasescu M, Leitzmann MF, Rimm EB, Willett WC, Stampfer MJ, Hu FB. Exercise type and intensity in relation to coronary heart disease in men. JAMA. 2002;288(16):1994–2000. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.288.16.1994.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  120. Thomas IC, Takemoto ML, Forbang NI, Larsen BA, Michos ED, McClelland RL, Allison MA, Budoff MJ, Criqui MH. Associations of recreational and non-recreational physical activity with coronary artery calcium density vs. volume and cardiovascular disease events: the multi-ethnic study of atherosclerosis. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2020;21(2):132–40. https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjci/jez271.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  121. van Sloten TT, Tafflet M, Périer M-C, Dugravot A, Climie RE, Singh-Manoux A, Empana J-P. Association of change in cardiovascular risk factors with incident cardiovascular events. JAMA. 2018;320(17):1793–804.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  122. Wagner A, Simon C, Evans A, Ferrières J, Montaye M, Ducimetière P, Arveiler D. Physical activity and coronary event incidence in Northern Ireland and France: the prospective epidemiological study of myocardial infarction (PRIME). Circulation. 2002;105(19):2247–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  123. Weinstein AR, Sesso HD, Lee I-M, Rexrode KM, Cook NR, Manson JE, Buring JE, Gaziano JM. The joint effects of physical activity and body mass index on coronary heart disease risk in women. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(8):884–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  124. Willey JZ, Moon YP, Sacco RL, Greenlee H, Diaz KM, Wright CB, Elkind MS, Cheung YK. Physical inactivity is a strong risk factor for stroke in the oldest old: findings from a multi-ethnic population (the Northern Manhattan Study). Int J Stroke. 2017;12(2):197–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747493016676614.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  125. Willey JZ, Voutsinas J, Sherzai A, Ma H, Bernstein L, Elkind MS, Cheung YK, Wang SS. Trajectories in leisure-time physical activity and risk of stroke in women in the California teachers study. Stroke. 2017;48(9):2346–52.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  126. Yang PS, Jang E, Yu HT, Kim TH, Pak HN, Lee MH, Joung B. Changes in cardiovascular risk factors and cardiovascular events in the elderly population. J Am Heart Association. 2021;10(11):e019482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  127. Zhao H, Zhang XN, Shi Z, Yin L, Zhang WL, He K, Xue HQ, Zhao XY, Shi SH. Association of level of leisure-time physical activity with risks of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular disease in an elderly Chinese population: a prospective cohort study. J Geriatr Cardiol. 2020;17(10):628–37. https://doi.org/10.11909/j.issn.1671-5411.2020.10.003.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  128. Florido R, Zhao D, Ndumele CE, Lutsey PL, McEvoy JW, Windham BG, Pankow JS, Guallar E, Michos ED. Physical activity, parental history of premature coronary heart disease, and incident atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in the atherosclerosis risk in communities (ARIC) study. J Am Heart Association. 2016;5(9):e003505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  129. Batta A, Hatwal J, Batta A, Verma S, Sharma YP. Atrial fibrillation and coronary artery disease: an integrative review focusing on therapeutic implications of this relationship. World J Cardiol. 2023;15(5):229–43. https://doi.org/10.4330/wjc.v15.i5.229.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  130. Alves AJ, Viana JL, Cavalcante SL, Oliveira NL, Duarte JA, Mota J, Oliveira J, Ribeiro F. Physical activity in primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease: overview updated. World J Cardiol. 2016;8(10):575–83. https://doi.org/10.4330/wjc.v8.i10.575.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  131. Spencer RM, Heidecker B, Ganz P. Behavioral Cardiovascular risk factors　- Effect of Physical Activity and Cardiorespiratory Fitness on Cardiovascular outcomes. Circ J. 2016;80(1):34–43. https://doi.org/10.1253/circj.CJ-15-1159.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  132. Fernström M, Heiland EG, Kjellenberg K, Ponten M, Tarassova O, Nyberg G, Helgadottir B, Ekblom MM, Ekblom Ö. Effects of prolonged sitting and physical activity breaks on measures of arterial stiffness and cortisol in adolescents. Acta Paediatr. 2023 Feb;5. https://doi.org/10.1111/apa.16702.

  133. Ding Y, Xu X. Dose- and Intensity-Response associations between leisure-time physical activity and markers of inflammation and oxidative stress in older adults. J Aging Phys Act. 2022;30(6):950–62. https://doi.org/10.1123/japa.2021-0219.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  134. Shakoor H, Platat C, Ali HI, Ismail LC, Al Dhaheri AS, Bosevski M, Apostolopoulos V, Stojanovska L. The benefits of physical activity in middle-aged individuals for cardiovascular disease outcomes. Maturitas. 2023;168:49–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2022.11.002.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  135. Sugawara J, Hayashi K, Kurachi S, Tanaka T, Yokoi T, Kurachi K. Age-related effects of regular physical activity on hemostatic factors in men. J Thromb Thrombolysis. 2008;26(3):203–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11239-007-0092-y.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  136. Durand G, Tsismenakis AJ, Jahnke SA, Baur DM, Christophi CA, Kales SN. Firefighters’ physical activity: relation to fitness and cardiovascular disease risk. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011;43(9):1752–9. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0b013e318215cf25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  137. Savela S, Koistinen P, Tilvis RS, Strandberg AY, Pitkälä KH, Salomaa VV, Miettinen TA, Strandberg TE. Leisure-time physical activity, cardiovascular risk factors and mortality during a 34-year follow-up in men. Eur J Epidemiol. 2010;25(9):619–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-010-9483-z.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  138. Mora S, Lee IM, Buring JE, Ridker PM. Association of physical activity and body mass index with novel and traditional cardiovascular biomarkers in women. JAMA. 2006;295(12):1412–9. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.295.12.1412.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  139. Imperatore G, Cheng YJ, Williams DE, Fulton J, Gregg EW. Physical activity, cardiovascular fitness, and insulin sensitivity among U.S. adolescents: the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1999–2002. Diabetes Care. 2006;29(7):1567–72. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc06-0426.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  140. Kunutsor SK, Seidu S, Mäkikallio TH, Dey RS, Laukkanen JA. Physical activity and risk of atrial fibrillation in the general population: meta-analysis of 23 cohort studies involving about 2 million participants. Eur J Epidemiol. 2021;36(3):259–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-020-00714-4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  141. Wan Q, Zhou Y, Zhu W, Liu X. Sex-specific exposure-effect relationship between physical activity and Incident Atrial Fibrillation in the General Population: a dose-response Meta-analysis of 16 prospective studies. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2021;8:710071. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2021.710071.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  142. Zhu WG, Wan R, Din Y, Xu Z, Yang X, Hong K. Sex differences in the Association between regular physical activity and Incident Atrial Fibrillation: a Meta-analysis of 13 prospective studies. Clin Cardiol. 2016;39(6):360–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/clc.22531.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  143. Elliott AD, Linz D, Mishima R, Kadhim K, Gallagher C, Middeldorp ME, Verdicchio CV, Hendriks JML, Lau DH, La Gerche A, Sanders P. Association between physical activity and risk of incident arrhythmias in 402 406 individuals: evidence from the UK Biobank cohort. Eur Heart J. 2020;41(15):1479–86. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehz897.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  144. Wilhelm M, Roten L, Tanner H, Wilhelm I, Schmid JP, Saner H. Gender differences of atrial and ventricular remodeling and autonomic tone in nonelite athletes. Am J Cardiol. 2011;108(10):1489–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2011.06.073.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  145. Myrstad M, Aarønæs M, Graff-Iversen S, Nystad W, Ranhoff AH. Does endurance exercise cause atrial fibrillation in women? Int J Cardiol. 2015;184:431–2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2015.03.018.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  146. Valenzuela PL, Morales JS, Santos-Lozano A, Saco-Ledo G, Diaz-Gonzalez L, Boraita A, Lavie CJ, Lucia A. What do we really know about the association between physical activity, sports, and atrial fibrillation? A systematic review and meta-analysis from unbiased studies. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2022;29(4):e143–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurjpc/zwab073.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  147. Wendel-Vos GC, Schuit AJ, Feskens EJ, Boshuizen HC, Verschuren WM, Saris WH, Kromhout D. Physical activity and stroke. A meta-analysis of observational data. Int J Epidemiol. 2004;33(4):787–98. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyh168.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  148. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans, 2nd edition. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2018. https://health.gov/sites/default/files/2019-09/Physical_Activity_Guidelines_2nd_edition.pdf.

  149. American College of Sports Medicine. The Compendium of Physical Activities. ACSM Resource Manual 5th Edition, 2006. https://media.hypersites.com/clients/1235/filemanager/MHC/METs.pdf.

  150. Ekelund U, Steene-Johannessen J, Brown WJ, Fagerland MW, Owen N, Powell KE, Bauman A, Lee IM, Lancet Physical Activity Series 2 Executive Committe; Lancet Sedentary Behaviour Working Group. Does physical activity attenuate, or even eliminate, the detrimental association of sitting time with mortality? A harmonised meta-analysis of data from more than 1 million men and women. Lancet. 2016;388(10051):1302-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30370-1. Epub 2016 Jul 28. Erratum in: Lancet. 2016;388(10051):e6.

  151. Curtis GL, Chughtai M, Khlopas A, Newman JM, Khan R, Shaffiy S, Nadhim A, Bhave A, Mont MA. Impact of physical activity in Cardiovascular and Musculoskeletal Health: can Motion be Medicine? J Clin Med Res. 2017;9(5):375–81. https://doi.org/10.14740/jocmr3001w.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  152. Xie B, Cai X, Zhu Y, Sun Z, Qiu S, Wu T. Accelerometer-measured light-intensity physical activity and the risk of cardiovascular disease or death in older adults: a meta-analysis. Kardiol Pol. 2022;80(7–8):774–81. https://doi.org/10.33963/KP.a2022.0120.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

The authors did not receive any funding for preparation of this meta-analysis.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Nutrition Research Center, School of Nutrition and Food Sciences, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran

    Asma Kazemi & Zahra Hassanzadeh

  2. Cardiovascular Research Center, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran

    Sepideh Soltani

  3. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK

    Dagfinn Aune

  4. Department of Nutrition, Oslo New University College, Oslo, Norway

    Dagfinn Aune

  5. Department of Endocrinology, Morbid Obesity and Preventive Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway

    Dagfinn Aune

  6. Nutrition and Food Security Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

    Elham Hosseini & Zeinab Mokhtari

  7. Social Determinants of Health Research Center, Semnan University of Medical Sciences, Semnan, Iran

    Ahmad Jayedi

  8. The Federal University of Bahia, Salvador, Bahia, Brazil

    Francisco Pitanga

  9. Department of Community Nutrition, School of Nutrition and Food Sciences, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Razi Blvd, 7153675541, Shiraz, Iran

    Masoumeh Akhlaghi

Authors
  1. Asma Kazemi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sepideh Soltani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dagfinn Aune
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Elham Hosseini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Zeinab Mokhtari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Zahra Hassanzadeh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Ahmad Jayedi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Francisco Pitanga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Masoumeh Akhlaghi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

AK designed the research, conducted the literature search. AK, ZM, EH, ZH, and FP conducted the literature screening. AK, SS, ZM, and EH extracted data. AK checked the data extractions for accuracy. AK and MA perfomred the analysis and wrote the first draft of the paper. AK, DA, and AJ interpreted the data, and revised the subsequent drafts for important intellectual content. AK, DA, AJ, EH, ZM, SS, ZH, MA, and FP read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Masoumeh Akhlaghi.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors have no competing interest to declare.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Supplementary Material 2

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kazemi, A., Soltani, S., Aune, D. et al. Leisure-time and occupational physical activity and risk of cardiovascular disease incidence: a systematic-review and dose-response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 21, 45 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-024-01593-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-024-01593-8

Keywords

International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity

ISSN: 1479-5868

Contact us