4.7 Article

Total Water Intakes of Community-Living Middle-Old and Oldest-Old Adults

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/gerona/gln045

Keywords

Fluid intake; Beverage consumption; Aging; Population

Funding

  1. Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station [ALA013-020]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Literature reporting total daily water intake of community-dwelling older adults is limited. We evaluated differences in total water intake, water sources, water from meal and snack beverages, timing of beverage consumption, and beverage selection for three older age groups (young-old, 65-74 years; middle-old, 75-84 years; and oldest-old, >= 85 years). Data for 2,054 older adults from the 1999-2002 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey were used for this study. Multivariate analyses controlling for age, sex, race-ethnicity, education, and marital status were conducted to determine differences in water intake variables across the age groups. Total water intakes found for the middle-old and oldest-old age groups were significantly lower than those found for the young-old age group. The relative contributions of beverages to total water intake were 40.8%, 38.3%, and 36.4% for the young-old, middle-old, and oldest-old, respectively. The water intakes from beverages consumed at snack occasions were significantly lower for the middle-old and oldest-old groups than those for the young-old group. All groups consumed the greatest amount of water in the morning. Coffee was the predominant source of water from beverages for all groups. This study fills a gap in the literature by providing an analysis of the daily water intake of middle-old and oldest-old adults. We found that the total water intake for the middle-old and oldest-old was significantly lower than that for the young-old. Future research needs to investigate the clinical outcomes associated with declining water intakes of community-dwelling older adults.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available