A comparison of leg power and leg strength within the inCHIANTI study: Which influences mobility more?

Jonathan F. Bean, Suzanne G. Leveille, Dan K. Kiely, Stephania Bandinelli, Jack M. Guralnik, Luigi Ferrucci

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background. In a clinical study evaluating the functioning of mobility-limited elders, muscle power accounted for more of the variation in function than strength did. There was also evidence that the power-function relationship may be described as curvilinear. However, these findings have never been confirmed in a representative population. Methods. An analysis was conducted using data from the InCHIANTI study, a population-based cohort of 1032 adults living in Italy. To assess the relationships between impairments in power and strength and mobility performance, we created separate multivariate linear and log-transformed regression models as well as separate logistic regression models. Results. Subjects were age ≥65 years, predominately female (54%), with a mean age of 74.2 years, and most had mild-moderate mobility limitations (Short Physical Performance Battery score 10.5 ± 2.1). Though leg extension power and isometric hip extension strength were closely associated, in several separate multivariate linear regression models, leg power consistently explained more of the variance than strength did in several measures of physical performance. Differences were even larger when observed in curvilinear models of power and strength. Using separate multivariate logistic regression models to examine the odds ratios for mobility limitations in persons with low muscle power versus high muscle power, and in persons with low muscle strength versus high muscle strength, we found that both factors influenced risk for mobility limitations, but low power was associated with a 2-3-fold greater likelihood than low strength. Conclusion. These findings identified muscle power to be a more influential proximal determinant of physical performance than impairments in strength and emphasized muscle power as an important determinant of mobility skills in older adults.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)728-733
Number of pages6
JournalJournals of Gerontology - Series A Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences
Volume58
Issue number8
StatePublished - Aug 1 2003
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Mobility Limitation
Leg
Muscle Strength
Logistic Models
Muscles
Linear Models
Italy
Population
Hip
Odds Ratio

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Aging

Cite this

Bean, J. F., Leveille, S. G., Kiely, D. K., Bandinelli, S., Guralnik, J. M., & Ferrucci, L. (2003). A comparison of leg power and leg strength within the inCHIANTI study: Which influences mobility more? Journals of Gerontology - Series A Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences, 58(8), 728-733.

A comparison of leg power and leg strength within the inCHIANTI study : Which influences mobility more? / Bean, Jonathan F.; Leveille, Suzanne G.; Kiely, Dan K.; Bandinelli, Stephania; Guralnik, Jack M.; Ferrucci, Luigi.

In: Journals of Gerontology - Series A Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences, Vol. 58, No. 8, 01.08.2003, p. 728-733.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Bean, Jonathan F. ; Leveille, Suzanne G. ; Kiely, Dan K. ; Bandinelli, Stephania ; Guralnik, Jack M. ; Ferrucci, Luigi. / A comparison of leg power and leg strength within the inCHIANTI study : Which influences mobility more?. In: Journals of Gerontology - Series A Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences. 2003 ; Vol. 58, No. 8. pp. 728-733.
@article{e6f8669cdbb24cdf9fb7d1d64b2b6915,
title = "A comparison of leg power and leg strength within the inCHIANTI study: Which influences mobility more?",
abstract = "Background. In a clinical study evaluating the functioning of mobility-limited elders, muscle power accounted for more of the variation in function than strength did. There was also evidence that the power-function relationship may be described as curvilinear. However, these findings have never been confirmed in a representative population. Methods. An analysis was conducted using data from the InCHIANTI study, a population-based cohort of 1032 adults living in Italy. To assess the relationships between impairments in power and strength and mobility performance, we created separate multivariate linear and log-transformed regression models as well as separate logistic regression models. Results. Subjects were age ≥65 years, predominately female (54{\%}), with a mean age of 74.2 years, and most had mild-moderate mobility limitations (Short Physical Performance Battery score 10.5 ± 2.1). Though leg extension power and isometric hip extension strength were closely associated, in several separate multivariate linear regression models, leg power consistently explained more of the variance than strength did in several measures of physical performance. Differences were even larger when observed in curvilinear models of power and strength. Using separate multivariate logistic regression models to examine the odds ratios for mobility limitations in persons with low muscle power versus high muscle power, and in persons with low muscle strength versus high muscle strength, we found that both factors influenced risk for mobility limitations, but low power was associated with a 2-3-fold greater likelihood than low strength. Conclusion. These findings identified muscle power to be a more influential proximal determinant of physical performance than impairments in strength and emphasized muscle power as an important determinant of mobility skills in older adults.",
author = "Bean, {Jonathan F.} and Leveille, {Suzanne G.} and Kiely, {Dan K.} and Stephania Bandinelli and Guralnik, {Jack M.} and Luigi Ferrucci",
year = "2003",
month = "8",
day = "1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "58",
pages = "728--733",
journal = "Journals of Gerontology - Series A Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences",
issn = "1079-5006",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A comparison of leg power and leg strength within the inCHIANTI study

T2 - Which influences mobility more?

AU - Bean, Jonathan F.

AU - Leveille, Suzanne G.

AU - Kiely, Dan K.

AU - Bandinelli, Stephania

AU - Guralnik, Jack M.

AU - Ferrucci, Luigi

PY - 2003/8/1

Y1 - 2003/8/1

N2 - Background. In a clinical study evaluating the functioning of mobility-limited elders, muscle power accounted for more of the variation in function than strength did. There was also evidence that the power-function relationship may be described as curvilinear. However, these findings have never been confirmed in a representative population. Methods. An analysis was conducted using data from the InCHIANTI study, a population-based cohort of 1032 adults living in Italy. To assess the relationships between impairments in power and strength and mobility performance, we created separate multivariate linear and log-transformed regression models as well as separate logistic regression models. Results. Subjects were age ≥65 years, predominately female (54%), with a mean age of 74.2 years, and most had mild-moderate mobility limitations (Short Physical Performance Battery score 10.5 ± 2.1). Though leg extension power and isometric hip extension strength were closely associated, in several separate multivariate linear regression models, leg power consistently explained more of the variance than strength did in several measures of physical performance. Differences were even larger when observed in curvilinear models of power and strength. Using separate multivariate logistic regression models to examine the odds ratios for mobility limitations in persons with low muscle power versus high muscle power, and in persons with low muscle strength versus high muscle strength, we found that both factors influenced risk for mobility limitations, but low power was associated with a 2-3-fold greater likelihood than low strength. Conclusion. These findings identified muscle power to be a more influential proximal determinant of physical performance than impairments in strength and emphasized muscle power as an important determinant of mobility skills in older adults.

AB - Background. In a clinical study evaluating the functioning of mobility-limited elders, muscle power accounted for more of the variation in function than strength did. There was also evidence that the power-function relationship may be described as curvilinear. However, these findings have never been confirmed in a representative population. Methods. An analysis was conducted using data from the InCHIANTI study, a population-based cohort of 1032 adults living in Italy. To assess the relationships between impairments in power and strength and mobility performance, we created separate multivariate linear and log-transformed regression models as well as separate logistic regression models. Results. Subjects were age ≥65 years, predominately female (54%), with a mean age of 74.2 years, and most had mild-moderate mobility limitations (Short Physical Performance Battery score 10.5 ± 2.1). Though leg extension power and isometric hip extension strength were closely associated, in several separate multivariate linear regression models, leg power consistently explained more of the variance than strength did in several measures of physical performance. Differences were even larger when observed in curvilinear models of power and strength. Using separate multivariate logistic regression models to examine the odds ratios for mobility limitations in persons with low muscle power versus high muscle power, and in persons with low muscle strength versus high muscle strength, we found that both factors influenced risk for mobility limitations, but low power was associated with a 2-3-fold greater likelihood than low strength. Conclusion. These findings identified muscle power to be a more influential proximal determinant of physical performance than impairments in strength and emphasized muscle power as an important determinant of mobility skills in older adults.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0041662225&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0041662225&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 12902531

AN - SCOPUS:0041662225

VL - 58

SP - 728

EP - 733

JO - Journals of Gerontology - Series A Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences

JF - Journals of Gerontology - Series A Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences

SN - 1079-5006

IS - 8

ER -