The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Old Adults Perform Activities of Daily Living Near Their Maximal Capabilities
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Old adults' ability to execute activities of daily living (ADLs) declines with age. One possible reason for this decline is that the execution of customary motor tasks requires a substantially greater effort in old compared with young adults relative to their available maximal capacity. METHODS: We tested the hypothesis that the relative effort (i.e., the percentage of joint moment relative to maximal joint moment) to execute ADLs is higher in old adults compared with young adults. Healthy young adults (n = 13; mean age, 22 years) and old adults (n = 14; mean age, 74 years) ascended and descended stairs and rose from a chair and performed maximal-effort isometric supine leg press. Using inverse dynamics analysis, we determined knee joint moments in ADLs and computed relative effort. RESULTS: Compared with young adults, old adults had 60% lower maximal leg press moments, 53% slower knee angular velocity at peak torque, and 27% lower knee joint moments in the ADLs (all p <.05). Relative effort in ascent was 54% (SD +/- 16%) and 78% (+/-20%) in young and old adults, respectively; in descent, it was 42% (+/-20%) and 88% (+/-43%); and in chair rise, it was 42% (+/-19%) and 80% (+/-34%) (all p <.05). The relative electromyographic activity of the vastus lateralis and the coactivity of the biceps femoris associated with this relative effort were, respectively, 2- and 1.6-fold greater in old compared with young adults in the 3 ADLs (p <.05). CONCLUSIONS: For healthy old adults, the difficulty that arises while performing ADLs may be due more to working at a higher level of effort relative to their maximum capability than to the absolute functional demands imposed by the task.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
LIBET, B., GLEASON, C. A., WRIGHT, E. W., & PEARL, D. K. (1983) · Brain · doi:10.1093/brain/106.3.623 · Cited by 2,498
Cited by
Dynapenia and aging: an update
Manini, T. M., & Clark, B. C. (2012) · The Journals of Gerontology: Series A · doi:10.1093/gerona/glr010 · Cited by 875
Wang, D. X. M., Yao, J., Zirek, Y., Reijnierse, E. M., & Maier, A. B. (2020) · Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle · doi:10.1002/jcsm.12502 · Cited by 655
Sit-to-stand test: Performance and determinants across the age-span
Bohannon, R. W., Bubela, D. J., Magasi, S. R., Wang, Y.-C., & Gershon, R. C. (2010) · Isokinetics and Exercise Science · doi:10.3233/ies-2010-0389 · Cited by 366
Caserotti, P., Aagaard, P., Buttrup Larsen, J., & Puggaard, L. (2008) · Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports · doi:10.1111/j.1600-0838.2007.00732.x · Cited by 254
Byrne, C., Faure, C., Keene, D. J., & Lamb, S. E. (2016) · Sports Medicine · doi:10.1007/s40279-016-0489-x · Cited by 234
Metadata
- Authors
- Hortobagyi, T., Mizelle, C., Beam, S., & DeVita, P.
- Venue
- The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2003-05-01
- Volume
- 58
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- M453-M460
- ISSN
- 1079-5006 (ISSN-L)
- 1758-535X
- OpenAlex
- W2104904325
- Cited by
- 379
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 26.89
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.