Mehtap Ozdirenç1, Sevinç Biberoğlu, Ayşe Ozcan. 1. School of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation, Dokuz Eylül University, 35340 Inciralti-Izmir, Turkey. mehtapz@yahoo.com
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare functional capacity in 30 Type 2 Diabetic patients with 30 healthy non-diabetic control subjects. METHODS: Physical fitness was evaluated using the "EUROFIT Physical Fitness Test Battery". This battery estimates body composition, cardiopulmonary, musculoskeletal and motor fitness. RESULTS: Percentage of body fat (PBF) was higher in the diabetic compared with control groups (P<0.05) although body mass index (BMI) was similar. Biceps and suprailiac skinfold thickness were also greater in the diabetic group (P<0.05). The 6-min walking distance and VO(2max) were significantly lower in the diabetic group (P<0.05). The diabetic patients had lower values of the single leg balance test with eyes opened and closed. Jump-stretch, handgrip and side-bending of trunk tests were also lower in the diabetic patients. CONCLUSION: Physical functional capacity is lower in Type 2 diabetic patients than in age-matched control subjects.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare functional capacity in 30 Type 2 Diabeticpatients with 30 healthy non-diabetic control subjects. METHODS: Physical fitness was evaluated using the "EUROFIT Physical Fitness Test Battery". This battery estimates body composition, cardiopulmonary, musculoskeletal and motor fitness. RESULTS: Percentage of body fat (PBF) was higher in the diabetic compared with control groups (P<0.05) although body mass index (BMI) was similar. Biceps and suprailiac skinfold thickness were also greater in the diabetic group (P<0.05). The 6-min walking distance and VO(2max) were significantly lower in the diabetic group (P<0.05). The diabeticpatients had lower values of the single leg balance test with eyes opened and closed. Jump-stretch, handgrip and side-bending of trunk tests were also lower in the diabeticpatients. CONCLUSION: Physical functional capacity is lower in Type 2 diabeticpatients than in age-matched control subjects.
Authors: Mitchell K Freedman; Alan S Hilibrand; Emily A Blood; Wenyan Zhao; Todd J Albert; Alexander R Vaccaro; Christina V Oleson; Tamara S Morgan; James N Weinstein Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2011-02-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Tim H A Schreuder; Martijn F H Maessen; Cees J Tack; Dick H J Thijssen; Maria T E Hopman Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2013-12-20 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: R M Alfonso-Rosa; B Del Pozo-Cruz; J Del Pozo-Cruz; J T Del Pozo-Cruz; B Sañudo Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: Brittney S Lange-Maia; Anne B Newman; Jane A Cauley; Robert M Boudreau; John M Jakicic; Paolo Caserotti; Nancy W Glynn; Tamara B Harris; Stephen B Kritchevsky; Ann V Schwartz; Suzanne Satterfield; Eleanor M Simonsick; Aaron I Vinik; Sasa Zivkovic; Elsa S Strotmeyer Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2015-09-04 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Taofeek O Awotidebe; Rita N Ativie; Kayode I Oke; Mukadas O Akindele; Rufus A Adedoyin; Mathew O B Olaogun; Temitope E Olubayode; Babatope A Kolawole Journal: J Exerc Rehabil Date: 2016-12-31
Authors: Itamar Levinger; Steve Selig; George Jerums; Andrew Stewart; Cadeyrn J Gaskin; David L Hare Journal: Diabetol Metab Syndr Date: 2012-11-21 Impact factor: 3.320