4.6 Article

SEXUALLY DIMORPHIC PATTERNS OF NUTRITIONAL INTAKE AND EATING BEHAVIORS IN COMMUNITY-DWELLING OLDER ADULTS WITH NORMAL AND SLOW GAIT SPEED

Journal

JOURNAL OF NUTRITION HEALTH & AGING
Volume 18, Issue 3, Pages 228-233

Publisher

SPRINGER FRANCE
DOI: 10.1007/s12603-014-0004-8

Keywords

Gait speed; nutrition; eating habits; frailty

Funding

  1. NIH/NIA [AG02049, AG10149]
  2. University of New Mexico [GCRC DRR 5 MO1-00997-13,14]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: Assess sex-specific nutritional intake and dietary habits of independently living older adults with normal and slow gait speeds. Design: New Mexico Aging Process Study, cross-sectional, secondary data analysis. Setting: Albuquerque, New Mexico USA. Participants: Three-hundred fifteen adults 60 years and older (194 women and 121 men). Measurements: Gait speed test, 3-day diet records, Mini-Mental State Examination, and body mass index. Results: Slow gait speed was associated with lower total calories (-154 kcal/day) and zinc (1mg/day) (.05 < p < .1). Slower men consumed less protein (-4.1g/day), calcium (-140mg), fiber (-2.8g/day) and iron (-2.5mg/day) (p <=.05). Slower women consumed less, protein (-5.5g/day), carbohydrate (-19.1g/day), fiber (-2.7gm/day), vitamin C (-18.4mg/day) and higher fat intake (p=0.03). Slower women snacked less, had trouble chewing/biting, and lived alone (p= .04). Slower men were less likely to snack. Conclusions: We found sex-specific nutritional differences associated with gait speed. Those presenting with slow gait speed may need encouragement to increase meat and whole grain breads/cereal. Those with trouble eating should be advised on adapting diet to maintain adequate nutrition and encouraged on regular snacking to achieve higher nutrient intake. Prospective and randomized controlled studies are needed to confirm these findings and provide further evidence for putting these suggestions into practice.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available