Search alternatives:
step decrease » sizes decrease (Expand Search), teer decrease (Expand Search)
we decrease » _ decrease (Expand Search), nn decrease (Expand Search), teer decrease (Expand Search)
a decrease » _ decrease (Expand Search), _ decreased (Expand Search), _ decreases (Expand Search)
a step » _ step (Expand Search)
step decrease » sizes decrease (Expand Search), teer decrease (Expand Search)
we decrease » _ decrease (Expand Search), nn decrease (Expand Search), teer decrease (Expand Search)
a decrease » _ decrease (Expand Search), _ decreased (Expand Search), _ decreases (Expand Search)
a step » _ step (Expand Search)
-
1981
-
1982
-
1983
-
1984
-
1985
-
1986
-
1987
-
1988
-
1989
-
1990
-
1991
-
1992
Results of Multiple Linear Regression.
Published 2025“…Walk ratio was decreased in the sloped gravel conditions. Cadence and step length changes explained 95–99% of the variance in gait speed changes across conditions with step length being more heavily weighted across conditions. …”
-
1993
Spatiotemporal Gait Parameters Across Terrains.
Published 2025“…Walk ratio was decreased in the sloped gravel conditions. Cadence and step length changes explained 95–99% of the variance in gait speed changes across conditions with step length being more heavily weighted across conditions. …”
-
1994
Participant Demographic Information.
Published 2025“…Walk ratio was decreased in the sloped gravel conditions. Cadence and step length changes explained 95–99% of the variance in gait speed changes across conditions with step length being more heavily weighted across conditions. …”
-
1995
-
1996
-
1997
-
1998
Table_1_The relationship between intake of fruits, vegetables and dairy products with overweight and obesity in a large sample in Iran: Findings of STEPS 2016.docx
Published 2023“…</p>Results<p>In the adjusted model, we observed 41% [odd ratio (OR) = 0.59; 95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.50, 0.68, P < 0.001], 27% (OR = 0.73; 95% CI: 0.62, 0.84, P < 0.001), and 26% (OR = 0.74; 95% CI: 0.63, 0.87, P < 0.001) lower odds of being overweight, and 46% (OR = 0.54; 95% CI: 0.46, 0.64, P < 0.001), 29% (OR = 0.71; 95% CI: 0.60, 0.84, P < 0.001), and 21% (OR = 0.79; 95% CI: 0.65, 0.95, P = 0.014) decrease in obesity odds among the participants who consumed 1, 2, and more than 2 servings of fruits per day in comparison to less than one serving, respectively. …”
-
1999
-
2000