Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 Jul 3.
Published in final edited form as: Circ Res. 2015 Jul 3;117(2):207–219. doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.117.305205

Figure 6.

Figure 6

Categorical model. Cox proportional survival analyses of the risk of CVD-related mortality vs MET-h/d run or walked. Relative risk is calculated for 1.07 to 1.8, 1.8 to 3.6, 3.6 to 5.4, 5.4 to 7.2, and 7.2 MET-h/d or more relative to the inadequate exercisers (<1.07 MET-h/d). “All CVD-related” mortality includes both “CVD as an underlying cause” and “CVD as a contributing cause for some other underlying cause.” Significance levels are coded as follows: aP≤.05; bP≤.01; cP≤.001. The significance levels for 7.2 MET-h/d or more vs less than 1.07 MET-h/d were all nonsignificant, that is, P=.99 for all-cause mortality, P=.68 for all CVD-related mortality, and P=.46 for CVD as the underlying cause of death. CVD = cardiovascular disease; MET-h/d = metabolic equivalent of task-h/d (reproduced with permission from Williams P et al, Mayo Clin Proc).126