4.5 Article

Cardiorespiratory fitness and risk of disability pension: a prospective population based study in Finnish men

Journal

OCCUPATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL MEDICINE
Volume 60, Issue 10, Pages 765-769

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/oem.60.10.765

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Early retiring is a major social problem in many western countries. Aim: To investigate whether good cardiorespiratory fitness prevents disability pensioning in Finnish middle-aged men. Methods: Subjects were a random population based sample of 1307 men who were 42260 years old at baseline, had not retired before baseline or died during follow up, and had undergone a cycle ergometer test at baseline. Cardiorespiratory fitness was assessed at baseline with a maximal but symptom limited exercise test on an electrically braked cycle ergometer. Results: During a follow up of 11 years on average, 790 (60.4%) men were awarded a disability pension, only 254 (19.4%) men reached the old-age pension without previous early pension, and 263 (20.1%) men were still working at the end of follow up. After adjustment for age, body mass index, alcohol consumption, smoking, education, occupation, and baseline chronic diseases, an inverse association was observed between cardiorespiratory fitness and the risk of disability pension. Men with VO2max <25.98 ml/kg/min (lowest fifth) had a 3.28-fold (95% CI 1.70 to 6.32) and men with the duration of exercise test <9.54 minutes (lowest fifth) had a 4.66-fold (95% CI 2.43 to 8.92) risk of disability pension due to cardiovascular diseases compared with men in the highest fifths. Men with lowest fitness level also had an increased risk of disability pension due to musculoskeletal disorders, or all reasons combined. Conclusions: Physical fitness is inversely associated with the risk of disability pension and especially with the risk of disability due to cardiovascular diseases.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available