4.3 Article

Association of daily step count and serum testosterone among men in the United States

期刊

ENDOCRINE
卷 72, 期 3, 页码 874-881

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12020-021-02631-2

关键词

Male General Health; Physical activity; Steps count; Testosterone level; NHANES; Accelerometer data

资金

  1. Universita degli Studi di Roma La Sapienza

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found an association between daily step counts and serum total testosterone levels in men, with an increase in total testosterone levels corresponding to an increase in daily step counts.
Purpose To describe the association between daily activity (i.e., daily step counts and accelerometer intensity measures) and serum TT levels in a representative sample of US adults aged 18 years or older. Methods A retrospective cohort study was carried out utilizing the NHANES (National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey) 2003-2004 cycle. Physical activity was measured with a waist-worn uniaxial accelerometer (AM-7164; ActiGraph) for up to 7 days using a standardized protocol. Using linear and multivariable logistic regression controlling for relevant social, demographic, lifestyle, and comorbidity characteristics, we assessed the association between daily step counts and TT. Results A total of 279 subjects with a median age 46 (IQR: 33-56) were included in the analysis. 23.3% of the cohort had a low serum TT level (TT < 350 ng/dl). Compared to men who took <4000 steps per day, men who took >4000 or >8000 steps/day had a lower odd of being hypogonadal (OR 0.14, 95% CI: 0.07-0.49 and 0.08, 95%CI: 0.02-0.44, respectively). While a threshold effect was noted on average, TT increased 7 ng/dL for each additional 1000 steps taken daily (beta-estimate: 0.007, 95% CI: 0.002-0.013). Conclusions Patients with the lowest daily step counts had higher odds of being hypogonadal. The current work supports a possible association between daily steps, total testosterone, and hypogonadism for men in the US.

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

4.3
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