4.7 Article

The associations of adiposity, physical activity and inflammation with fatigue in older adults

期刊

BRAIN BEHAVIOR AND IMMUNITY
卷 25, 期 7, 页码 1482-1490

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbi.2011.06.002

关键词

Fatigue; Adiposity; Inflammation; Depression; Physical activity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Persistent feelings of fatigue are a widespread complaint reported by older adults, and are associated with detriments in health and quality of life. The aim of this study was to determine the influence of weight status, habitual physical activity and inflammation, after controlling for common psychosocial variables such as depression, on perceptions of fatigue in relatively healthy older adults. Older men and women (N = 182, age = 69.2 +/- 6.7 years, 98 men) were assessed for adiposity via dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, physical activity (PA) using accelerometers, systemic inflammation [serum C-reactive protein (CRP), interleukin-6 (IL-6), sIL-6R and WBC count], fatigue according to the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI), sleep using the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) and depression via the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS). Men and women reported similar levels of fatigue in all dimensions (p > 0.05) except women reported higher levels of mental fatigue than men (p = 0.049). With the exception of mental fatigue, adiposity was positively, and physical activity was inversely associated with all other dimension of fatigue (r range = 0.20-0.42, and -0.18 to -0.37, respectively). CRP, IL-6 and WBC were also related to several dimensions of fatigue (r range = 0.15-0.26). Regression analyses revealed that after controlling for other factors, including depression and sleep quality, adiposity independently explained a significant amount of the variance in general and physical fatigue. In addition to depression and sleep quality, adiposity may represent a potential target for reducing fatigue in older adults. (C) 2011 Published by Elsevier Inc.

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

4.7
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