Leicester study links walking pace to mortality

University of Leicester researchers said a new analysis of more than 400,000 UK adults found that usual walking pace improved predictions of mortality risk and, in some groups, outperformed standard clinical measures such as blood pressure and cholesterol. The study was published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings, according to the university and the NIHR Leicester Biomedical Research Centre. The analysis drew on UK Biobank data and focused on measures that can be collected quickly, including walking pace, handgrip strength, resting heart rate, sleep duration and leisure-time physical activity. ### Which study are people referring to? The University of Leicester said on March 23, 2026, that its researchers had analyzed data from 407,569 UK Biobank participants to test whether simple physical measures could improve mortality-risk prediction. The university said the work was funded by the NIHR Leicester Biomedical Research Centre, the MRC iCASE programme and Reinsurance Group of America, and that it had been published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings. (le.ac.uk) The Leicester research archive describes the paper as a prognostic study on walking pace and all-cause and cardiovascular mortality risk prediction. The archive lists authors including Stavroula Argyridou, Francesco Zaccardi, Melanie J. Davies, Kamlesh Khunti and Thomas Yates. ### What exactly did the researchers compare? The Leicester team said it tested five simple physical measures against more established risk factors used in clinical models. (le.ac.uk) Those measures were walking pace, handgrip strength, resting heart rate, sleep duration and leisure-time physical activity, while the clinical comparators included blood pressure and cholesterol. (librarysearch.le.ac.uk) The Leicester archive said the study examined predictive discrimination after adjusting first for age and then for variables used in the European Society of Cardiology SCORE framework, including age, smoking status, systolic blood pressure, and total and HDL cholesterol. The sample in that archive entry comprised 298,829 adults free from cancer and cardiovascular disease at baseline, reflecting the paper’s analytical cohort for that part of the study. (le.ac.uk) ### Why did walking pace stand out? Professor Tom Yates of the University of Leicester said, “Of the physical measures studied, our analysis found that walking pace was the strongest single predictor of death.” The Leicester archive said walking pace was the only lifestyle variable that improved risk prediction for both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality when added to established risk factors. (librarysearch.le.ac.uk) The archive reported that over a median follow-up of 6.9 years, the study recorded 2,174 all-cause deaths in women and 3,522 in men, along with 286 cardiovascular deaths in women and 796 in men. It said gains in discrimination were seen when self-reported walking pace was added to models for both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. (le.ac.uk) ### Did the findings differ for people with existing health conditions? The University of Leicester said the association was especially strong among people already living with long-term health conditions. In that group, the university said, replacing blood pressure and cholesterol measurements with self-reported walking pace improved the model’s ability to predict mortality by moving people into more appropriate risk categories. (librarysearch.le.ac.uk) Richard Russell, vice president of biometric research at RGA, said the findings showed that “simple, accessible measures like walking pace and resting heart rate” could help insurers assess risk. The university also quoted Yates as saying the measures could offer a “quick and cost effective” way to identify people at higher risk of death. ### What should readers be careful not to overstate? (le.ac.uk) The study used self-reported walking pace rather than a stopwatch-based gait test, according to the Leicester materials and the research archive. The paper describes walking pace as a risk-prediction tool, not a stand-alone diagnosis, and the university framed the finding as a way to improve existing models rather than replace clinical judgment altogether. (le.ac.uk) Mayo Clinic Proceedings is the journal Leicester named for the publication, and the university’s March 23 release remains the main institutional summary of the findings. The paper can be located through the University of Leicester archive and UK Biobank publication listings. (le.ac.uk)