| Literature DB >> 31998411 |
Tiina Savikangas1, Anna Tirkkonen1, Markku Alen2, Taina Rantanen1, Roger A Fielding3, Timo Rantalainen1, Sarianna Sipilä1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Physical activity is crucial to maintain older adults' health and functioning, but the health benefits of particular activity intensities remain unclear. The aim of this cross-sectional study was to peruse the distribution of physical activity, and to investigate the associations of particular physical activity intensities with body composition and physical function among older adults.Entities:
Keywords: Accelerometer; Community-dwelling; Fat percent; Physical performance; Walking speed
Year: 2020 PMID: 31998411 PMCID: PMC6982388 DOI: 10.1186/s11556-020-0237-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur Rev Aging Phys Act ISSN: 1813-7253 Impact factor: 3.878
Fig. 1Flow chart of the study
Descriptive statistics in full sample and according to sex (mean ± standard deviation or frequency (%))
| All ( | Men ( | Women ( | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age, years | 74.44 ± 3.78 | 74.35 ± 3.90 | 74.50 ± 3.69 |
| Anthropometrics | |||
| Height, m | 1.66 ± 0.09 | 1.73 ± 0.06 | 1.61 ± 0.06 |
| Weight, kg | 76.84 ± 14.35 | 84.07 ± 12.45 | 71.68 ± 13.39 |
| Body mass index, kg/m2 | 27.88 ± 4.77 | 27.88 ± 3.60 | 27.87 ± 5.46 |
| Waist circumference, cm | 95.69 ± 12.47 | 102.11 ± 9.73 | 91.11 ± 12.20 |
| Basic education, n (%) | |||
| Low | 43 (15) | 25 (21) | 18 (11) |
| Medium | 186 (64) | 77 (63) | 109 (64) |
| High | 64 (22) | 20 (16) | 44 (26) |
| Current self-rated health, n (%) | |||
| very good/good | 135 (46) | 55 (45) | 80 (47) |
| average/poor | 158 (54) | 67 (55) | 91 (53) |
| Current self-rated mobility, n (%) | |||
| very good/good | 269 (92) | 113 (93) | 155 (91) |
| poor/very poor | 25 (9) | 9 (7) | 16 (9) |
| Body compositiona | |||
| Fat percent | 35.94 ± 8.23a | 30.15 ± 6.01a | 40.04 ± 7.04 |
| Appendicular lean mass, kg | 19.40 ± 4.37a | 23.69 ± 2.95a | 16.36 ± 2.05 |
| Physical function | |||
| 6-min walk, m | 477.55 ± 82.56 | 502.60 ± 90.68 | 459.68 ± 71.30 |
| 10-m walk, m/s | 1.98 ± 0.38 | 2.11 ± 0.45 | 1.88 ± 0.29 |
| SPPB, total score | 10.19 ± 1.54 | 10.64 ± 1.45 | 9.87 ± 1.53 |
| Accelerometer-measured physical activity | |||
| Valid days | 6.7 ± 0.8 | 6.7 ± 0.7 | 6.6 ± 0.8 |
| Wear time, h/d | 14.1 ± 1.3 | 14.3 ± 1.3 | 13.9 ± 1.2 |
| Sedentary activity, min/d | 602.3 ± 82.9 | 627.1 ± 81.0 | 584.6 ± 79.9 |
| Light activity, min/d | 210.3 ± 66.3 | 196.9 ± 60.8 | 219.8 ± 68.6 |
| Moderate-to-vigorous activity, min/d | 32.5 ± 20.1 | 33.1 ± 21.0 | 32.1 ± 19.5 |
Note
Abbreviations: 6-min walk = distance walked in 6 mins; 10-m walk = maximal walking speed over 10 m; SPPB Short Physical Performance Battery
aMissing n = 1
Fig. 2Distribution of physical activity in detailed intensity range. a for mean daily minutes (y-axis) at each of the logarithmically equidistant intervals along the whole intensity range (x-axis) from sedentary to vigorous intensity activity (0.00188 g to 0.62305 g), and within moderate-to-vigorous-intensity activity range (a, imputed small figure). b for number of participants (y-axis) having some activity at each interval (x-axis). The verticals mark the cut-points of light (0.0167 g), moderate (0.091 g) and vigorous-intensity activity (0.414 g)
Partial correlations of physical activity in intensity categories with body composition and physical function
| Sedentary activity | Light activity | Moderate-to-vigorous activity | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 1 | Model 3 | |
| Fat percenta | 0.251*** | −0.360*** | −0.281*** | −0.384*** | − 0.312*** |
| Appendicular lean massa | 0.006 | −0.014 | −0.018 | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| 6-min walk | −0.170** | 0.279*** | 0.168** | 0.465*** | 0.418*** |
| 10-m walk | −0.101 | 0.203** | 0.122* | 0.315*** | 0.273*** |
| SPPB | −0.028 | 0.145** | 0.086 | 0.220*** | 0.188** |
Note
Abbreviations: 6-min walk = distance walked in 6 mins; 10-m walk = maximal walking speed over 10 m; SPPB Short Physical Performance Battery
Model 1: Controlled for sex and age
Model 2: Controlled for sex, age and moderate-to-vigorous activity
Model 3: Controlled for sex, age, and light activity
aMissing n = 1
*p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001
Fig. 3Associations of physical activity intensities from 0.00188 to 0.31 g with body composition. Associations of mean daily minutes at each physical activity intensity bin with fat percent (a) and appendicular lean mass (b) are expressed as mean correlation coefficient r (y-axis, black line) and 95% confidence interval (CI, shaded area). Physical activity intensities are shown in the x-axis. Associations are statistically significant, if the 95% CI area does not cross the 0-line. Verticals mark the cut-points for light-intensity activity (0.0167 g) and moderate-intensity activity (0.091 g). Correlations are adjusted by sex and age
Fig. 4Associations of physical activity intensities from 0.00188 to 0.31 g with physical function. Associations of mean daily minutes at each physical activity intensity bin with 6-min walking distance (a), maximal walking speed uver 10 m (b) and the SPPB (c) are expressed as mean correlation coefficient r (y-axis, black line) and 95% confidence interval (CI, shaded area). Physical activity intensities are shown in the x-axis. Associations are statistically significant, if the 95% CI area does not cross the 0-line. Verticals mark the cut-points for light-intensity activity (0.0167 g) and moderate-intensity activity (0.091 g). Correlations are adjusted by sex and age