4.6 Article

Determinants of vitamin D status in healthy men and women aged 40-80 years

期刊

MATURITAS
卷 74, 期 1, 页码 79-83

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.maturitas.2012.10.008

关键词

Vitamin D; Elderly; Health and life style determinants

资金

  1. ZON-MW [2100.0011]
  2. International Health Foundation, Geneva, Switzerland
  3. Roche Diagnostics Nederland b.v.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To determine the contribution of life style and health related factors on vitamin D status in middle-aged and older men and women. Study design: A cross-sectional single-center study in 400 male subjects (40-80 years) and 402 postmenopausal female subjects (56-73 years), conducted in a University Medical Center in the central part of the Netherlands (52 degrees northern latitude). Main outcome measures: Medical history, vitamin D, calcium and alcohol intake, physical activity, Body Mass Index, Blood pressure, smoking, total fat body mass and total lean body mass were measured using DEXA. Laboratory analysis included 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25OHD) and sex hormones. Results: Thirty-six percent of men and 51% of women had 25OHD less than 50 nmol/L. In summertime men had significant higher 25OHD as compared to women (81.5 vs 53.3 nmol/L, P=.000) but this difference disappeared come winter. In a saturated model, male gender (B=.16, P=.008), and season (summer vs winter B=.30, P=.000) remained statistically significant. In men, physical activity and season explained 21% of the variance. In women, household physical activity (B=.13, P=.03), sport physical activity (B=.02, P=.02) and estradiol (B=-.003, P=.048) remained in the model, Conclusion: In healthy middle-aged and older men and postmenopausal women, male gender and season were important predictors of vitamin D status. In men, physically activity and season, explained 21% of the variance in vitamin D status. In women, physical activity and estradiol explained 93% of the variance in vitamin D. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据