On attaining and estimating steady walking speed

preprint OA: closed
Full text JSON View at publisher
Full text 1,716 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · click to expand
Abstract Gait speed is widely used to quantify mobility and functional status, compare how interventions work, and predict health outcomes. Yet despite its ubiquity, the common assumption that short walking tests capture a person’s “steady” speed has rarely been verified. A lack of standardization also makes it difficult to compare gait test results across protocols. Here we show that most gait test distances, typically 10 m or less, are too short for young healthy adults (N = 10) to attain steadiness. Using gait measurements for a range of ten short distances, we found that peak speed increases systematically with total walking distance and only gradually approaches the individual’s preferred speed at about 10 m. How the individual accelerates is characterized by a “distance constant”, also identified from data and only loosely correlated with preferred speed (ρ = 0.55). The speed trajectories also show how most conventional gait tests systematically underestimate steady speed by about 30%, while dynamic start and stop conditions partially but not fully corrected the bias. Gait speed is not a single fixed property but a dynamic process that depends on the distance available for acceleration and deceleration. Although conventional gait tests remain valuable, most characterize transient rather than steady walking performance. We further show that measurements at three to five distances are sufficient to predict steady-state speed in young adults with zero average bias. This correction requires only a stopwatch and modest additional testing time, making it readily adoptable in both clinical and research settings. Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest.

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2026) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00