Skip Navigation


Age and Ageing Advance Access originally published online on July 29, 2008
Age and Ageing 2008 37(5):589-593; doi:10.1093/ageing/afn148
This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Supplementary Data
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
37/5/589    most recent
afn148v1
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Martin, H. J.
Right arrow Articles by Sayer, A. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Martin, H. J.
Right arrow Articles by Sayer, A. A.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Copyright © The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Geriatrics Society.

Relationship between customary physical activity, muscle strength and physical performance in older men and women: findings from the Hertfordshire Cohort Study

Sir—Maintenance of muscle strength and physical performance in later life is an important component of healthy ageing [1–4]. Reported influences include age, gender, size and physical activity [5–7]. Older age has been linked to lower strength [8, 9], but these studies have not considered how age-related decline in activity levels may contribute to these changes. A study of grip strength in older people found that it declined by 20% per decade but only 11% of this decline could be attributed to age alone [10].

Older people are encouraged to maintain levels of physical activity, but most evidence considers the benefits of exercise and strength training intervention programmes [11–13]. It is important to quantify activity levels corresponding to levels of benefit in general, as well as defining specific outcomes related to particular activities in both men and women. Epidemiological studies suggest that increased customary physical activity is associated with improved muscle strength and physical performance, but it is unclear whether men and women derive similar benefit [14–17]. For example Bassey et al. found a positive association between usual physical activity and muscle strength in both men and women [18], whereas Rantanen's study of everyday physical activity in older people showed the importance of activities such as housework, walking and gardening in maintaining independence for women [19].

The objective of this study was to investigate the relationship between customary physical activity, muscle strength and physical performance in older men and women.

Methods

This study was based on the previously described Hertfordshire Cohort Study [20]. We received general practitioner permission to contact 647 women and 792 men resident in West Hertfordshire. A total of 321 (50%) women and 396 (50%) men agreed to a home interview, and 280 (87%) women and 349 (88%) men subsequently attended a clinic for investigations including anthropometry [21], hand grip strength using a Jamar dynamometer (Promedics, Blackburn, UK) [22] and a short physical performance battery [23] (comprising tests of 3 m customary walking pace, 5 sit-stand chair rises time and timed one-legged balance). In addition, 275 women and 229 men completed a 69-item validated self-administered questionnaire [Hertfordshire Physical Activity Questionnaire (HPAQ)] based on the Minnesota instrument which assessed activity over the previous 12 months [24, 25]. Respondents indicated whether they participated in each activity (yes/no), and if yes, ticked the months during which they did it and gave the typical duration of time spent doing it (in hours and minutes). Intra- and interobserver variability studies were carried out for all physical performance measures at regular intervals during the fieldwork to ensure comparability of measurements within and between observers. In all cases, the fieldwork team measured similarly to one another and repeatably within themselves. The study had ethical approval from the Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire Local Research Ethics Committee, and participants gave written informed consent.

Statistical Methods

Physical activity was characterised by organising the 69 items of the questionnaire into 12 activity groups, including gardening which was used as representative of customary activity in subsequent analyses owing to its high overall level of participation in combination with a wide range of levels of energy expenditure (the other 11 groups were: walking, cycling, conditioning exercises, water activity, winter activity, sport, golf, home activities, DIY/repair, fishing/hunting or other). Rather than simply dichotomising men and women as participants in gardening (yes or no), and to reflect the wide range of frequencies with which this activity was reported, first the energy expended on gardening was calculated by multiplying time spent on gardening by its metabolic cost (MET.h/mth) obtained from an activity compendium [26], and secondly, this was converted into an ordinal variable [27].

In addition to the novel ‘representative activity’ approach, cluster analysis was used to summarise activity participation. This classified men into three types reflecting ‘keep fit’, ‘indoors’ and ‘less active’ men. Among women, two groups were identified reflecting ‘keep fit’ and ‘indoors’ types of women. The ‘keep fit’ men and women participated in more sports, water activities, and golf; the ‘indoors’ groups did more home-based activities, e.g. housework, DIY; and the ‘inactive’ group of men did generally less of everything [25] (see Appendix 1 at Age and Ageing online for a full description of the clusters, and see Appendix 2 at Age and Ageing online for technical details).

For statistical coding of the physical performance variables see Appendix 2 at Age and Ageing online. Relationships between muscle strength and physical performance, and the physical activity clusters were explored using analysis of variance (ANOVA) or Fisher's exact test. Relationships with the ordinal gardening variable were explored using linear or logistic regression.

Results

The characteristics of the study participants are described in Appendix 3 at Age and Ageing online. Median-estimated total energy expenditure per month was 665.3 MET.h/mth for women and 482.7 for men. Eighty-six point nine per cent of women and 96.1% of men participated in gardening.

The relationships between muscle strength, physical performance and energy expended on gardening are shown in Figure 1. In women, increasing gardening activity was associated with stronger grip strength, quicker 3-m walk, and chair rises test times and better balance. There were no significant associations in men (Figure 1).


Figure 1
View larger version (41K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PowerPoint slide]
  		Figure 1. Relationships between muscle strength and physical performance and gardening activity by gender. a Men: very low < 15.1 to 45.6; medium 45.7–106.9 and high 3107.0 MET.h/mth. Women: very low <5.0; low 5.1–24.0; medium 24.1–66.5 and high 366.6 MET.h/mth. b Geometric mean and SD (standard deviation). c Poor balance defined as people who lost balance in first 5 seconds.

P values generated from regression analysis (or logistic regression for balance time) testing for a statistically significant difference in muscle strength or physical performance for each increasing band of gardening activity. Results were as follows: Average change (95% confidence interval [CI] in grip per increased band of gardening activity: 0.59 kg (–0.28, 1.47) P = 0.18 for men; 1.02 kg (0.43, 1.61) P = 0.001 for women. Average change (95% CI) in 3 m walk time per increased band of gardening activity: –0.04 sec (–0.10, 0.02) P = 0.24 for men; –0.10 (–0.17, –0.03) P = 0.006 for women. Average change (95% CI) in chair rises time per increased band of gardening activity: –0.00 SD units (–0.12, 0.12) P = 0.96 for men; –0.11 SD units (–0.22, 0.00) P = 0.05 for women. Odds ratio (95% CI) for poor balance per increased band of gardening activity: 0.97 (0.69, 1.37) P = 0.86 for men; 0.74 (0.57, 0.95) P = 0.02 for women)

 
Table 1 shows the relationships between muscle strength and physical performance and the physical activity clusters. Women in the ‘keep fit’ cluster had significantly stronger grip strength than those in the ‘indoors’ cluster, and were quicker at the 3-m walk and chair rises tests, and a lower proportion had poor balance. There were no significant differences among men.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 1. Relationships between patterns of physical activity, muscle strength and physical performance

 
Discussion

Higher levels of customary physical activity were associated with significantly higher muscle strength and better physical performance among women but not men. Other studies have also noted these gender differences. Bassey et al. reported that muscle strength was significantly associated with leisure activity in women but not men [18]. Brach et al. noted that moderately intensive activities on most week days in men and women equated to better physical performance in comparison with those who were less active. However, among less active people, higher proportions of women had poorer physical performance than men [28]. Findings from studies considering exercise may differ from those considering customary physical activity. For example, the Jerusalem Longitudinal Study found that regular exercise at the age of 70 was significantly associated with ease of performance of daily living tasks in women (odds ratio 8.5, 95% CI 2.0, 36.2) and men (odds ratio 4.3, 95% CI 1.1, 17.1) [29].

The gender differences in this study could arise from differences in reporting of physical activity. Unexpectedly, women had significantly higher median total energy expenditure than men (665.3 versus 482.7 MET.h/mth) with walking and home activity driving this difference. Difficulties with reporting of everyday activities have been noted previously [18, 27, 30]. Wareham et al. have suggested that questionnaires should be used to quantify levels of specific categories of activity rather than deriving overall energy expenditure [27, 30].

To allow for possible over-reporting of physical activities in women, analyses focussed on a single activity, i.e. gardening, which did not appear to be affected by this bias with the benefit of its high overall level of participation (87% women and 96% men) and wide range of energy expenditure (thereby allowing creation of a discriminating ordinal variable). We suggest this a novel approach for characterisation of an individual's customary level of physical activity and that the selected activity is particularly appropriate for studies of older people. Cluster analysis also addressed this possible bias by focussing on binary outcomes of whether people did a particular activity; these variables should suffer less from reporting bias than reports of amount or intensity of activity. The associations between lower physical activity participation and poorer physical performance were only seen in women irrespective of analysis approach, suggesting that gender differences were not explained by over-reporting of physical activity in women.

Other explanations for the gender difference are possible. First, gender differences in body composition may provide an explanation with average percentage body fat in this sample being 28% in men and 39% in women. Women have a higher fat-to-muscle ratio and may gain more benefit from physical activity with regard to strength and physical performance. Secondly, a threshold effect may have influenced our results. Men have greater muscle bulk than women; to show differences in physical activity relative to physical performance among men, a wider range and greater intensity of physical activity may be needed. Physical activity questionnaires are limited in their ability to reflect activity at the higher end of the spectrum, which is differentially likely to affect men. The threshold for observing the association between levels of customary activity and physical performance may have been reached in women but not men. Finally, our physical performance assessments involved fairly low-intensity exercise; the same argument for differential threshold effects applies.

In conclusion, higher levels of customary physical activity are associated with better muscle strength and physical performance in older women but not men. Maintenance of muscle strength and physical performance in later life is an important component of healthy ageing and is an important area for future research.

Key points

  • Maintenance of muscle strength and physical performance in later life is an important component of healthy ageing.
  • Higher levels of customary physical activity are associated with better muscle strength and physical performance in older women but not men.
  • The reason for the observed gender difference is not known, but women, with a higher fat-to-muscle ratio, may gain more with regard to strength and physical performance from the beneficial effects of physical activity.
  • This is an important area for future research.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Medical Research Council and the University of Southampton.

Conflicts of interest

None.

Supplementary data

Supplementary data for this article are available online at http://ageing.oxfordjournals.org.

H. J. Martin1,*, H. E. Syddall1, E. M. Dennison1, C. Cooper1 and A. Aihie Sayer1,2

1 MRC Epidemiology Resource Centre, (University of Southampton),Southampton General Hospital, Tremona Rd, Southampton, Hampshire, SO16 6YD, UK
2 University Geriatric Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton General Hospital, Tremona Rd, Southampton, Hampshire, SO16 6YD, UK

* E-mail: hes{at}mrc.soton.ac.uk

References

  1. Guralnik JM, Ferrucci L, Pieper CF, et al. Lower extremity function and subsequent disability: consistency across studies, predictive models, and value of gait speed alone compared with the short physical performance battery. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci (2000) 55:M221–31.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. Rantanen T, Volpato S, Ferrucci L, et al. Handgrip strength and cause-specific and total mortality in older disabled women: exploring the mechanism. J Am Geriatr Soc (2003) 51:636–41.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  3. Rantanen T. Muscle strength, disability and mortality. Scand J Med Sci Sports (2003) 13:3–8.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  4. Aihie Sayer A, Cooper C. Ageing, sarcopenia, and the life course. Rev Clin Gerontol (2007) 16:265–74.
  5. Samson MM, Meeuwsen IB, Crowe A, et al. Relationships between physical performance measures, age, height and body weight in healthy adults. Age Ageing (2000) 29:235–42.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  6. Kuh D, Bassey EJ, Butterworth S, et al. Grip strength, postural control, and functional leg power in a representative cohort of British men and women: associations with physical activity, health status, and socioeconomic conditions. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci (2005) 60:224–31.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  7. Sayer AA, Syddall HE, Dennison EM, et al. Birth weight, weight at 1 y of age, and body composition in older men: findings from the Hertfordshire Cohort Study. Am J Clin Nutr (2004) 80:199–203.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  8. Asmussen E, Fruensgaard K, Norgaard S. A follow-up longitudinal study of selected physiologic functions in former physical education students-after forty years. J Am Geriatr Soc (1975) 23:442–50.[Web of Science][Medline]
  9. Bijnen FC, Feskens EJ, Caspersen CJ, et al. Age, period, and cohort effects on physical activity among elderly men during 10 years of follow-up: the Zutphen Elderly Study. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci (1998) 53:M235–41.[Abstract]
  10. MacLennan WJ, Hall MR, Timothy JI, et al. Is weakness in old age due to muscle wasting? Age Ageing (1980) 9:188–92.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  11. Cress ME, Buchner DM, Questad KA, et al. Exercise: effects on physical functional performance in independent older adults. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci (1999) 54:M242–8.[Abstract]
  12. Puggaard L. Effects of training on functional performance in 65, 75 and 85 year-old women: experiences deriving from community based studies in Odense, Denmark. Scand J Med Sci Sports (2003) 13:70–6.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  13. Sipila S, Multanen J, Kallinen M, et al. Effects of strength and endurance training on isometric muscle strength and walking speed in elderly women. Acta Physiol Scand (1996) 156:457–64.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  14. Tager IB, Haight T, Sternfeld B, et al. Effects of physical activity and body composition on functional limitation in the elderly: application of the marginal structural model. Epidemiology (2004) 15:479–93.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  15. Seghers J, Spaepen A, Delecluse C, et al. Habitual level of physical activity and muscle fatigue of the elbow flexor muscles in older men. Eur J Appl Physiol (2003) 89:427–34.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  16. McDermott MM, Greenland P, Ferrucci L, et al. Lower extremity performance is associated with daily life physical activity in individuals with and without peripheral arterial disease. J Am Geriatr Soc (2002) 50:247–55.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  17. Caspersen CJ, Kriska AM, Dearwater SR. Physical activity epidemiology as applied to elderly populations. Baillieres Clin Rheumatol (1994) 8:7–27.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  18. Bassey EJ, Bendall MJ, Pearson M. Muscle strength in the triceps surae and objectively measured customary walking activity in men and women over 65 years of age. Clin Sci (Lond) (1988) 74:85–9.[Medline]
  19. Rantanen T, Era P, Heikkinen E. Physical activity and the changes in maximal isometric strength in men and women from the age of 75 to 80 years. J Am Geriatr Soc (1997) 45:1439–45.[Web of Science][Medline]
  20. Syddall HE, Aihie Sayer A, Dennison EM, et al. Cohort profile: the Hertfordshire cohort study. Int J Epidemiol (2005) 34:1234–42.[Free Full Text]
  21. Fidanza F, Keller W, Heymsfield SB, et al. Nutritional Status Assessment, 1991. Fidanza F, ed. London: Chapman Hall. 1–62. Anthropometric methodology.
  22. Mathiowetz V, Weber K, Volland G, et al. Reliability and validity of grip and pinch strength evaluations. J Hand Surg [Am] (1984) 9:222–6.[Medline]
  23. Guralnik JM, Simonsick EM, Ferrucci L, et al. A short physical performance battery assessing lower extremity function: association with self-reported disability and prediction of mortality and nursing home admission. J Gerontol (1994) 49:M85–94.[Abstract]
  24. Martin H, Syddall H, Cox V, et al. Development of the Hertfordshire Physical Activity Questionnaire (HPAQ) for older people: feasibility study. Age Ageing (2006) 35:i33.[Free Full Text]
  25. Martin H, Syddall H, Cox V, et al. The relationship between patterns of physical activity and physical performance in older people. Age Ageing (2008) 37:i1.[Free Full Text]
  26. Ainsworth BE, Haskell WL, Whitt MC, et al. Compendium of physical activities: an update of activity codes and MET intensities. Med Sci Sports Exerc (2000) 32:S498–504.[Web of Science][Medline]
  27. Wareham NJ, Jakes RW, Rennie KL, et al. Validity and repeatability of the EPIC-Norfolk Physical Activity Questionnaire. Int J Epidemiol (2002) 31:168–74.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  28. Brach JS, Simonsick EM, Kritchevsky S, et al. The association between physical function and lifestyle activity and exercise in the health, aging and body composition study. J Am Geriatr Soc (2004) 52:502–9.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  29. Stessman J, Hammerman-Rozenberg R, Maaravi Y, et al. Effect of exercise on ease in performing activities of daily living and instrumental activities of daily living from age 70 to 77: the Jerusalem longitudinal study. J Am Geriatr Soc (2002) 50:1934–8.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  30. Wareham NJ, Jakes RW, Rennie KL, et al. Validity and repeatability of a simple index derived from the short physical activity questionnaire used in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) study. Public Health Nutr (2003) 6:407–13.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?



This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Supplementary Data
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
37/5/589    most recent
afn148v1
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Martin, H. J.
Right arrow Articles by Sayer, A. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Martin, H. J.
Right arrow Articles by Sayer, A. A.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?