OBJECTIVES: To examine the relationship between number of lifestyle risk factors (out of low physical activity, poor diet, obesity, smoking) and physical function in older community-dwelling men and women. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom. PARTICIPANTS: Men (n = 1,682) and women (n = 1,540) aged 59 to 73. MEASUREMENTS: Physical activity was assessed using an administered questionnaire with a score from 0 to 100; low activity was defined as a score of 50 or less. Diet was assessed using a food frequency questionnaire; diet quality was assessed according to a score for a principal component analysis-defined "healthy" dietary pattern. Poor diet was categorized as a dietary pattern score in the lowest quarter of the distribution. Obesity was defined as a body mass index of 30.0 kg/m(2) or more. Physical function was assessed according to self-report (SF-36); poor function was defined as a score in lowest quarter of the distribution. A subgroup of participants had objective assessments of physical function (Timed Up-and-Go Test, timed 3-m walk, chair rises, one-legged standing balance). RESULTS: There was a graded increase in prevalence of poor self-reported physical function in men and women with increasing number of risk factors (men, adjusted odds ratio (AOR) for 3 or 4 risk factors vs none = 3.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.31-6.21; women, AOR = 5.37, 95% CI = 2.66-10.84). With the exception of balance, the objective assessments also showed graded relationships with number of risk factors, such that more risk factors was associated with poorer physical function. CONCLUSION: These modifiable lifestyle risk factors are linked to marked differences in risk of poorer physical function in older adults. Efforts to encourage healthy lifestyles have the potential to improve physical function and to promote healthier ageing.
OBJECTIVES: To examine the relationship between number of lifestyle risk factors (out of low physical activity, poor diet, obesity, smoking) and physical function in older community-dwelling men and women. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom. PARTICIPANTS: Men (n = 1,682) and women (n = 1,540) aged 59 to 73. MEASUREMENTS: Physical activity was assessed using an administered questionnaire with a score from 0 to 100; low activity was defined as a score of 50 or less. Diet was assessed using a food frequency questionnaire; diet quality was assessed according to a score for a principal component analysis-defined "healthy" dietary pattern. Poor diet was categorized as a dietary pattern score in the lowest quarter of the distribution. Obesity was defined as a body mass index of 30.0 kg/m(2) or more. Physical function was assessed according to self-report (SF-36); poor function was defined as a score in lowest quarter of the distribution. A subgroup of participants had objective assessments of physical function (Timed Up-and-Go Test, timed 3-m walk, chair rises, one-legged standing balance). RESULTS: There was a graded increase in prevalence of poor self-reported physical function in men and women with increasing number of risk factors (men, adjusted odds ratio (AOR) for 3 or 4 risk factors vs none = 3.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.31-6.21; women, AOR = 5.37, 95% CI = 2.66-10.84). With the exception of balance, the objective assessments also showed graded relationships with number of risk factors, such that more risk factors was associated with poorer physical function. CONCLUSION: These modifiable lifestyle risk factors are linked to marked differences in risk of poorer physical function in older adults. Efforts to encourage healthy lifestyles have the potential to improve physical function and to promote healthier ageing.
Authors: M Inzitari; E Doets; B Bartali; V Benetou; M Di Bari; M Visser; S Volpato; G Gambassi; E Topinkova; L De Groot; A Salva Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2011-08 Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: F B Hu; E Rimm; S A Smith-Warner; D Feskanich; M J Stampfer; A Ascherio; L Sampson; W C Willett Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 1999-02 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Phyo K Myint; Ailsa A Welch; Robert N Luben; Nicholas W J Wainwright; Paul G Surtees; Sheila A Bingham; Nicholas J Wareham; Richard D Smith; Ian M Harvey; Kay-Tee Khaw Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 5.002
Authors: Kay-Tee Khaw; Nicholas Wareham; Sheila Bingham; Ailsa Welch; Robert Luben; Nicholas Day Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2008-01-08 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: B Gwen Windham; Kimystian L Harrison; Seth T Lirette; Pamela L Lutsey; Lisa A Pompeii; Kelley Pettee Gabriel; Silvia Koton; Lyn M Steffen; Michael E Griswold; Thomas H Mosley Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2017-02-06 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Holly E Syddall; Leo D Westbury; Shirley J Simmonds; Sian Robinson; Cyrus Cooper; Avan Aihie Sayer Journal: J Epidemiol Community Health Date: 2015-10-19 Impact factor: 3.710
Authors: S M Robinson; J Y Reginster; R Rizzoli; S C Shaw; J A Kanis; I Bautmans; H Bischoff-Ferrari; O Bruyère; M Cesari; B Dawson-Hughes; R A Fielding; J M Kaufman; F Landi; V Malafarina; Y Rolland; L J van Loon; B Vellas; M Visser; C Cooper Journal: Clin Nutr Date: 2017-08-24 Impact factor: 7.324