Lucas B R Orssatto1, Ewertton S Bezerra2, Brad J Schoenfeld3, Fernando Diefenthaeler4. 1. School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia; Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, 149 Victoria Park Rd, Kelvin Grove Brisbane, Brisbane, Queensland 4059, Australia. 2. Laboratório de Estudos do Desempenho Humano, Faculdade de Educação Física e Fisioterapia, Universidade Federal do Amazonas, General Rodrigo Octavio Jordão Ramos, 1200 - Coroado I, Manaus, Amazonas 69067-005, Brazil. 3. Department of Health Sciences, City University of New York City - Lehman College, Lehman College - Continuing Education Carman Hall 128, New York 10468, United States. 4. Laboratório de Biomecânica, Departamento de Educação Física, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Campus Reitor João David Ferreira Lima, Trindade, Florianópolis, Santa Catarina 88040-900, Brazil. Electronic address: fernando.diefenthaeler@ufsc.br.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The current literature indicates that functional capacity is associated with physical performance and body composition measurements in older adults. However, it is not clear which tests can best explain the functional capacity in this population. This study aimed to investigate the physical performance and body composition determinants of functional capacity in older adults. METHOD: Twenty-four older adults (66.4 ± 4.7y) undertook body composition (body fat and muscle), rate of torque development (0-50 and 0-200 ms); countermovement jump (height, power and impulse); leg-press and seated-leg-curl 5-repetition maximum; and functional-performance tests (Timed-up-and-go, stair ascent and stair descent). FINDINGS: Timed-up-and-go correlated with countermovement jump (height, R2 = 0.303; power, R2 = 0.198; and impulse, R2 = 0.224) and 5-repetition maximum (seated-leg-curl, R2 = 0.172). Stair ascent correlated with body fat (R2 = 0.213), rate of torque development (0-50 ms/body fat, R2 = 0.301; 0-200 ms, R2 = 0.197; 0-200 ms/body fat, R2 = 0.340), countermovement jump (height, R2 = 0.325; power/body fat, R2 = 0.413; impulse/body fat, R2 = 0.422) and 5-repetiton maximum (leg-press/body fat, R2 = 0.384; seated-leg-curl/body fat, R2 = 0.341). Stair descent correlated with rate of torque development (0-50 ms/body fat, R2 = 0.164; 0-200 ms, R2 = 0.203; 0-200 ms/body fat, R2 = 0.213), countermovement jump (height, R2 = 0.458; power, R2 = 0.212; power/body fat, R2 = 0.358; impulse, R2 = 0.218; impulse/body fat, R2 = 0.369) and 5-repetition maximum (leg-press/body fat, R2 = -0.227; seated-leg-curl/body fat, R2 = 0.209; seated-leg-curl, R2 = 0.181). INTERPRETATION: Higher body fat is associated with weaker stair ascent performance. An increase in the correlation coefficient was observed for the countermovement jump, rate of torque development, and 5-repetition maximum tests when normalized by body fat compared to the absolute values. Countermovement jump height presented the highest correlation to timed-up-and-go and stair descent, while impulse/body fat for stair ascent.
BACKGROUND: The current literature indicates that functional capacity is associated with physical performance and body composition measurements in older adults. However, it is not clear which tests can best explain the functional capacity in this population. This study aimed to investigate the physical performance and body composition determinants of functional capacity in older adults. METHOD: Twenty-four older adults (66.4 ± 4.7y) undertook body composition (body fat and muscle), rate of torque development (0-50 and 0-200 ms); countermovement jump (height, power and impulse); leg-press and seated-leg-curl 5-repetition maximum; and functional-performance tests (Timed-up-and-go, stair ascent and stair descent). FINDINGS: Timed-up-and-go correlated with countermovement jump (height, R2 = 0.303; power, R2 = 0.198; and impulse, R2 = 0.224) and 5-repetition maximum (seated-leg-curl, R2 = 0.172). Stair ascent correlated with body fat (R2 = 0.213), rate of torque development (0-50 ms/body fat, R2 = 0.301; 0-200 ms, R2 = 0.197; 0-200 ms/body fat, R2 = 0.340), countermovement jump (height, R2 = 0.325; power/body fat, R2 = 0.413; impulse/body fat, R2 = 0.422) and 5-repetiton maximum (leg-press/body fat, R2 = 0.384; seated-leg-curl/body fat, R2 = 0.341). Stair descent correlated with rate of torque development (0-50 ms/body fat, R2 = 0.164; 0-200 ms, R2 = 0.203; 0-200 ms/body fat, R2 = 0.213), countermovement jump (height, R2 = 0.458; power, R2 = 0.212; power/body fat, R2 = 0.358; impulse, R2 = 0.218; impulse/body fat, R2 = 0.369) and 5-repetition maximum (leg-press/body fat, R2 = -0.227; seated-leg-curl/body fat, R2 = 0.209; seated-leg-curl, R2 = 0.181). INTERPRETATION: Higher body fat is associated with weaker stair ascent performance. An increase in the correlation coefficient was observed for the countermovement jump, rate of torque development, and 5-repetition maximum tests when normalized by body fat compared to the absolute values. Countermovement jump height presented the highest correlation to timed-up-and-go and stair descent, while impulse/body fat for stair ascent.