OBJECTIVES: To examine the association between metabolic syndrome (MetS) and objective measures of physical performance. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of the cohort study, the Osteoporotic Fractures in Men Study. SETTING: Six clinical sites in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: Five thousand four hundred fifty-seven ambulatory men (mean age 73.6 ± 5.9). MEASUREMENTS: Physical performance assessed according to grip strength, narrow walk speed, walking speed, and time to complete five repeated chair stands. Individual scores were converted to quintiles (worst=1 to best=5; unable to complete=0) and summed for an overall score (mean 11.6 ± 4.3, range, 1-20). MetS was defined according to World Health Organization criteria that include evidence of glucose dysregulation (insulin resistance, diabetes mellitus, or hyperinsulinemia) and at least two additional characteristics: high blood pressure, low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, high triglycerides, obesity. RESULTS: More than one-quarter (26.3%) of participants met criteria for MetS. In separate linear regression models, four of five MetS components were related to performance (P<.001); only high blood pressure was unrelated. Men with MetS had a 1.1-point lower performance score (mean 10.8, 95% confidence interval (CI)=10.6-11.0) than men without MetS (mean 11.9, 95% CI=11.8-12.0) (P<.001), adjusting for age, race, education, and site. With further covariate adjustment, this difference was reduced but remained significant (β=-0.78, P<.001). A graded association was observed between number of MetS components (0, 1, 2, or ≥3) and performance (P for trend <.001). Findings were similar excluding men with diabetes mellitus or obese men. CONCLUSION: Metabolic dysregulation is related to objectively assessed poorer physical performance in relatively healthy older men.
OBJECTIVES: To examine the association between metabolic syndrome (MetS) and objective measures of physical performance. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of the cohort study, the Osteoporotic Fractures in Men Study. SETTING: Six clinical sites in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: Five thousand four hundred fifty-seven ambulatory men (mean age 73.6 ± 5.9). MEASUREMENTS: Physical performance assessed according to grip strength, narrow walk speed, walking speed, and time to complete five repeated chair stands. Individual scores were converted to quintiles (worst=1 to best=5; unable to complete=0) and summed for an overall score (mean 11.6 ± 4.3, range, 1-20). MetS was defined according to World Health Organization criteria that include evidence of glucose dysregulation (insulin resistance, diabetes mellitus, or hyperinsulinemia) and at least two additional characteristics: high blood pressure, low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, high triglycerides, obesity. RESULTS: More than one-quarter (26.3%) of participants met criteria for MetS. In separate linear regression models, four of five MetS components were related to performance (P<.001); only high blood pressure was unrelated. Men with MetS had a 1.1-point lower performance score (mean 10.8, 95% confidence interval (CI)=10.6-11.0) than men without MetS (mean 11.9, 95% CI=11.8-12.0) (P<.001), adjusting for age, race, education, and site. With further covariate adjustment, this difference was reduced but remained significant (β=-0.78, P<.001). A graded association was observed between number of MetS components (0, 1, 2, or ≥3) and performance (P for trend <.001). Findings were similar excluding men with diabetes mellitus or obesemen. CONCLUSION: Metabolic dysregulation is related to objectively assessed poorer physical performance in relatively healthy older men.
Authors: Annabelle Rodriguez; Denis C Muller; E Jeffrey Metter; Marcello Maggio; S Mitchell Harman; Marc R Blackman; Reubin Andres Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2007-06-26 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Y Rolland; S Czerwinski; G Abellan Van Kan; J E Morley; M Cesari; G Onder; J Woo; R Baumgartner; F Pillard; Y Boirie; W M C Chumlea; B Vellas Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2008 Aug-Sep Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: Sudhir Kurl; Jari A Laukkanen; Leo Niskanen; David Laaksonen; Juhani Sivenius; Kristiina Nyyssönen; Jukka T Salonen Journal: Stroke Date: 2006-02-09 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Elsa S Strotmeyer; Nathalie de Rekeneire; Ann V Schwartz; Kimberly A Faulkner; Helaine E Resnick; Bret H Goodpaster; Ronald I Shorr; Aaron I Vinik; Tamara B Harris; Anne B Newman Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2008-06-05 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Anda Botoseneanu; Walter T Ambrosius; Daniel P Beavers; Nathalie de Rekeneire; Stephen Anton; Timothy Church; Sara C Folta; Bret H Goodpaster; Abby C King; Barbara J Nicklas; Bonnie Spring; Xuewen Wang; Thomas M Gill Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2015-01-30 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Erin E Krebs; Misti Paudel; Brent C Taylor; Douglas C Bauer; Howard A Fink; Nancy E Lane; Kristine E Ensrud Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2016-01-11 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Kristen M Beavers; Fang-Chi Hsu; Denise K Houston; Daniel P Beavers; Tamara B Harris; Trisha F Hue; Lauren J Kim; Annemarie Koster; Brenda W Penninx; Eleanor M Simonsick; Elsa S Strotmeyer; Stephen B Kritchevsky; Barbara J Nicklas Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2012-10-29 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Elisa F Ogawa; Elizabeth Leritz; Regina McGlinchey; William Milberg; Jonathan F Bean Journal: J Int Neuropsychol Soc Date: 2020-08-10 Impact factor: 2.892
Authors: Mark H Edwards; Celia L Gregson; Harnish P Patel; Karen A Jameson; Nicholas C Harvey; Avan Aihie Sayer; Elaine M Dennison; Cyrus Cooper Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2013-11 Impact factor: 6.741