Advertisement

Measuring physical performance in highly active older adults: associations with age and gender?

  • Gro Gujord TangenEmail author
  • Hilde Stendal Robinson
Original Article
  • 28 Downloads

Abstract

Background

Higher age is associated with reduced physical capability in the general population. The role of age and gender for physical performance in older adults who exercises regularly is, however, not clear, and there is also a lack of recommendations for outcomes to address physical performance for this population.

Aims

To explore the associations between physical performance, age and gender, and to examine the suitability and feasibility of clinical field tests for physical performance in active older adults.

Methods

In this cross-sectional study we included 105 persons, 70–90 years of age, who had exercised regularly for ≥ 12 months. The field tests were Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB), Timed Up and Go and gait speed for mobility; One-leg standing (OLS) test and Mini-BESTest for balance; Stair test for endurance, 30 s sit-to-stand, and grip strength for muscle strength.

Results

We found associations between age and physical performance, and the associations were slightly stronger for women. Men performed better on tests of muscle strength, balance and endurance, while no gender differences were found in mobility. Grip strength was not associated with mobility tests for men. All tests were feasible, while SPPB and OLS had ceiling and floor effects that limit their suitability in this population.

Conclusions

Both age and gender were associated with physical performance. We recommend using the gait speed, Mini-BESTest, 30 s sit-to-stand, grip strength and stair tests to assess physical performance in physically active older adults.

Keywords

Aging Exercise Outcome measures Performance-based Feasibility 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all the participants for the time and effort they put into the participation in this study. We will also thank all the personnel at the inclusion sites who invited their clients into the study.

Funding

The Norwegian Fund for Post-Graduate Training in Physiotherapy supported this study through the FYSIOPRIM program.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

The study is approved by the Regional Committee for Medical and Health Research Ethics South East Norway (nr. 2013/2030).

Statement of human and animal rights

All procedures performed in this study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments.

Informed consent

Written consent is obtained from all participants.

Previous presentation

Parts of the results from this study have been presented as oral presentations on the Norwegian physiotherapy congress 2018, the Norwegian sports medicine congress 2017, and on the 24th Nordic Congress of Gerontology.

References

  1. 1.
    World Health Organization (2015) World report on ageing and health. World Health Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chatterji S, Byles J, Cutler D et al (2015) Health, functioning, and disability in older adults–present status and future implications. Lancet 385:563–575.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61462-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Langballe EM, Strand BH (2017) Will the elderly of the future be healthier? Scand J Public Health 45:175–177.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1403494816683874 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cooper R, Hardy R, Aihie Sayer A et al (2011) Age and gender differences in physical capability levels from mid-life onwards: the harmonisation and meta-analysis of data from eight UK cohort studies. PLoS One 6:e27899.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0027899 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lowsky DJ, Olshansky SJ, Bhattacharya J et al (2014) Heterogeneity in healthy aging. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 69:640–649.  https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/glt162 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Seino S, Shinkai S, Fujiwara Y et al (2014) Reference values and age and sex differences in physical performance measures for community-dwelling older Japanese: a pooled analysis of six cohort studies. PLoS One 9:e99487.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0099487 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Frimenko R, Goodyear C, Bruening D (2015) Interactions of sex and aging on spatiotemporal metrics in non-pathological gait: a descriptive meta-analysis. Physiotherapy 101:266–272.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physio.2015.01.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    World Health Organization (2010) Global recommendations on physical activity for health. World Health Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Aspvik NP, Viken H, Zisko N et al (2016) Are older adults physically active enough—a matter of assessment method? the generation 100 study. PLoS One 11:e0167012.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0167012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jefferis BJ, Sartini C, Lee IM et al (2014) Adherence to physical activity guidelines in older adults, using objectively measured physical activity in a population-based study. BMC Public Health 14:382.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-14-382 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Guralnik JM, Simonsick EM, Ferrucci L et al (1994) A short physical performance battery assessing lower extremity function: association with self-reported disability and prediction of mortality and nursing home admission. J Gerontol 49:M85–M94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vasunilashorn S, Coppin AK, Patel KV et al (2009) Use of the Short Physical Performance Battery Score to predict loss of ability to walk 400 meters: analysis from the InCHIANTI study. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 64:223–229.  https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/gln022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Franchignoni F, Horak F, Godi M et al (2010) Using psychometric techniques to improve the Balance Evaluation Systems Test: the mini-BESTest. J Rehabil Med 42:323–331.  https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-0537 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sibley KM, Beauchamp MK, Van Ooteghem K et al (2015) Using the systems framework for postural control to analyze the components of balance evaluated in standardized balance measures: a scoping review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 96:122–132.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2014.06.021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sibley KM, Howe T, Lamb SE et al (2015) Recommendations for a core outcome set for measuring standing balance in adult populations: a consensus-based approach. PLoS One 10:e0120568.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0120568 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Michikawa T, Nishiwaki Y, Takebayashi T et al (2009) One-leg standing test for elderly populations. J Orthop Sci 14:675–685.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00776-009-1371-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jones CJ, Rikli RE, Beam WC (1999) A 30-s chair-stand test as a measure of lower body strength in community-residing older adults. Res Q Exerc Sport 70:113–119.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.1999.10608028 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Podsiadlo D, Richardson S (1991) The timed “Up & Go”: a test of basic functional mobility for frail elderly persons. J Am Geriatr Soc 39:142–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cataneo DC, Cataneo AJ (2007) Accuracy of the stair climbing test using maximal oxygen uptake as the gold standard. J Bras Pneumol 33:128–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tveter AT, Dagfinrud H, Moseng T et al (2014) Health-related physical fitness measures: reference values and reference equations for use in clinical practice. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 95:1366–1373.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2014.02.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Roberts HC, Denison HJ, Martin HJ et al (2011) A review of the measurement of grip strength in clinical and epidemiological studies: towards a standardised approach. Age Ageing 40:423–429.  https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afr051 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kurtze N, Rangul V, Hustvedt BE et al (2007) Reliability and validity of self-reported physical activity in the Nord-Trondelag Health Study (HUNT 2). Eur J Epidemiol 22:379–387.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-007-9110-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hinkle DE, Wiersma W, Jurs SG (2003) Applied statistics for the behavioral sciences, 5th edn. Houghton Mifflin, BostonGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Blum L, Korner-Bitensky N (2008) Usefulness of the Berg Balance Scale in stroke rehabilitation: a systematic review. PhysTher 88:559–566Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sun F, Norman IJ, While AE (2013) Physical activity in older people: a systematic review. BMC Public Health 13:449.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-449 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rijk JM, Roos PR, Deckx L et al (2016) Prognostic value of handgrip strength in people aged 60 years and older: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Geriatr Gerontol Int 16:5–20.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ggi.12508 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dodds RM, Syddall HE, Cooper R et al (2014) Grip strength across the life course: normative data from twelve British studies. PLoS One 9:e113637.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0113637 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bergland A, Jorgensen L, Emaus N et al (2017) Mobility as a predictor of all-cause mortality in older men and women: 11.8 year follow-up in the Tromso study. BMC Health Serv Res 17:22.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-016-1950-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Freiberger E, de Vreede P, Schoene D et al (2012) Performance-based physical function in older community-dwelling persons: a systematic review of instruments. Age Ageing 41:712–721.  https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afs099 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bergquist R, Weber M, Schwenk M et al (2019) Performance-based clinical tests of balance and muscle strength used in young seniors: a systematic literature review. BMC Geriatr 19:9.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-018-1011-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    van Abellan KG, Rolland Y, Andrieu S et al (2009) Gait speed at usual pace as a predictor of adverse outcomes in community-dwelling older people an International Academy on Nutrition and Aging (IANA) Task Force. J Nutr Health Aging 13:881–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Middleton A, Fritz SL, Lusardi M (2015) Walking speed: the functional vital sign. J Aging Phys Act 23:314–322.  https://doi.org/10.1123/japa.2013-0236 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Calogiuri G, Patil GG, Aamodt G (2016) Is green exercise for all? A descriptive study of green exercise habits and promoting factors in adult Norwegians. Int J Environ Res Public Health 13:22.  https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13111165 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Interdisciplinary Health SciencesInstitute of Health and Society, University of OsloOsloNorway
  2. 2.Norwegian National Advisory Unit on Ageing and HealthVestfold Hospital TrustTonsbergNorway
  3. 3.Department of Geriatric MedicineOslo University HospitalOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations