Chad R Straight1, Anne O Brady, Ellen Evans. 1. From the 1Department of Kinesiology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA; and 2Department of Kinesiology, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, NC.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to determine the sex-specific relationships of physical activity, body composition, and muscle quality with lower-extremity physical function in older men and women. METHODS: Seventy-nine community-dwelling men (n = 39; mean [SD] age, 76.1 [6.2] y; mean [SD] body mass index, 27.3 [3.8] kg/m(2)) and women (n = 40; mean [SD] age, 75.8 [5.5] y; mean [SD] body mass index, 27.0 [3.8] kg/m(2)) were assessed for physical activity via questionnaire, body composition via dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scanning, leg extension power using the Nottingham power rig, and muscle quality (W/kg; the ratio of leg extension power [W] to lower-body mineral-free lean mass [kg]). A composite measure of physical function was obtained by summing Z scores from the 6-minute walk, 8-ft up-and-go test, and 30-second chair-stand test. RESULTS: As expected, men had significantly greater levels of physical activity, lower adiposity, greater lean mass, higher leg extension power, and greater muscle quality compared with women (all P < 0.05). In linear regression analyses, muscle quality and physical activity were the strongest predictors of lower-extremity physical function in men and independently explained 42% and 29% of the variance, respectively. In women, muscle quality (16%) and percent body fat (12%) were independent predictors after adjustment for covariates. CONCLUSIONS: Muscle quality is the strongest predictor of lower-extremity physical function in men and women, but sex impacts the importance of physical activity and adiposity. These findings suggest that older men and women may benefit from different intervention strategies for preventing physical disability and also highlight the importance of weight management for older women to preserve physical function.
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to determine the sex-specific relationships of physical activity, body composition, and muscle quality with lower-extremity physical function in older men and women. METHODS: Seventy-nine community-dwelling men (n = 39; mean [SD] age, 76.1 [6.2] y; mean [SD] body mass index, 27.3 [3.8] kg/m(2)) and women (n = 40; mean [SD] age, 75.8 [5.5] y; mean [SD] body mass index, 27.0 [3.8] kg/m(2)) were assessed for physical activity via questionnaire, body composition via dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scanning, leg extension power using the Nottingham power rig, and muscle quality (W/kg; the ratio of leg extension power [W] to lower-body mineral-free lean mass [kg]). A composite measure of physical function was obtained by summing Z scores from the 6-minute walk, 8-ft up-and-go test, and 30-second chair-stand test. RESULTS: As expected, men had significantly greater levels of physical activity, lower adiposity, greater lean mass, higher leg extension power, and greater muscle quality compared with women (all P < 0.05). In linear regression analyses, muscle quality and physical activity were the strongest predictors of lower-extremity physical function in men and independently explained 42% and 29% of the variance, respectively. In women, muscle quality (16%) and percent body fat (12%) were independent predictors after adjustment for covariates. CONCLUSIONS: Muscle quality is the strongest predictor of lower-extremity physical function in men and women, but sex impacts the importance of physical activity and adiposity. These findings suggest that older men and women may benefit from different intervention strategies for preventing physical disability and also highlight the importance of weight management for older women to preserve physical function.
Authors: Patrick J Knox; Corey B Simon; Ryan T Pohlig; Jenifer M Pugliese; Peter C Coyle; Jaclyn M Sions; Gregory E Hicks Journal: Clin J Pain Date: 2021-12-24 Impact factor: 3.442
Authors: Rosaly Correa-de-Araujo; Michael O Harris-Love; Iva Miljkovic; Maren S Fragala; Brian W Anthony; Todd M Manini Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2017-02-15 Impact factor: 4.566
Authors: Alexandra M L Kundert; Pantelis T Nikolaidis; Stefania Di Gangi; Thomas Rosemann; Beat Knechtle Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-04-03 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Milena Kostadinovic; Dejan Nikolic; Ivana Petronic; Dragana Cirovic; Mirko Grajic; Milena Santric Milicevic Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2018-12-24 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Daniel Jerez-Mayorga; Luis Javier Chirosa Ríos; Alvaro Reyes; Pedro Delgado-Floody; Ramon Machado Payer; Isabel María Guisado Requena Journal: PeerJ Date: 2019-08-07 Impact factor: 2.984
Authors: Kora Portilla-Cueto; Carlos Medina-Pérez; Ena Monserrat Romero-Pérez; Gabriel Núñez-Othón; Mario A Horta-Gim; José Antonio de Paz Journal: Medicina (Kaunas) Date: 2022-02-19 Impact factor: 2.430
Authors: Jared W Skinner; Dana M Otzel; Andrew Bowser; Daniel Nargi; Sanjay Agarwal; Mark D Peterson; Baiming Zou; Stephen E Borst; Joshua F Yarrow Journal: J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle Date: 2018-03-15 Impact factor: 12.910
Authors: Michael C Robertson; Tom Baranowski; Debbe Thompson; Karen M Basen-Engquist; Maria Chang Swartz; Elizabeth J Lyons Journal: JMIR Serious Games Date: 2021-12-03 Impact factor: 4.143