Relationship of Physical Performance with Body Composition and Bone Mineral Density in Individuals over 60 Years of Age: A Systematic Review

Table 1

Summary of studies examining the relationship between physical performance (PP) and body composition.

Author, year	Participants	𝑁 (% of women)	Age (year) Mean (SD)	BMI^aMean (SD)	Body composition	Physical performance measure	Fat mass	Muscle mass
Fat mass and physical functionality
Bohannon et al. 2005	Community dwelling women	104 (100)	74.9 (7.5)	28.1 (6.7)	BMI, WC, WHR	Timed STS Unilateral standing (OLS) 25-ft walk	Negative (𝑟=0.221 to 0.397 for STS and 25-FW; 𝑟=−0.231 to −0.233 for OLS)	N/A
Sharkey and Branch, 2004	Nutrition and Function Study (NAFS)	345 (81)	78.2 (8.4)	34.5% are obese (BMI > 30)	BMI	SLEPS (OLS, walking speed, STS)	Negative	N/A
Jankowski et al. 2008	Women and men with low serum DHEA	109 (50)	69 (7)	27.2 (4.8)	BMI, DXA	CS-PFP	Negative (BMI, 𝑟^2=0.50; Fat index (kg/m^2), 𝑟^2=0.52)	NS
Bouchard et al. 2007	NuAge (Canada)	904 (48)	74 (4.1)	27.9 (4.6)	DXA	Walking speed, Balance (OLS)	Negative (𝑟^2=0.48 with OLS; 0.57 with WS)	NS
Body fat, muscle mass and PP
Woo et al. 2007	Community dwelling elderly living in Hong Kong	4000 (50)	65+	23.7 (3.3)	BMI, DXA	Walking speed, HGS	U-shape with BMI Negative with fat mass	Positive (ASM with HGS)
Estrada et al. 2007	Women receiving estrogen for osteoporosis for 2 years	189 (100)	67.5 (4.8)	24.4 (3.0)	DXA	Walking speed, OLS, STS, HGS	Negative (AFMI; 𝑟=−0.30 to −0.016, except HGS)	Positive (ASM of lower limb; 𝑟=0.18 with WS; 0.21 with HGS)
Valentine et al. 2009	Community dwelling elderly	134 (63)	69.6 (5.4, F) 70.3 (4.7, M)	28.3 (4.6)	DXA	OLS, TUGT, walking speed	Negative (𝑟=0.29 to 0.38)	Positive (leg to total body ratio; 𝑟=−0.29 with TUGT, −0.041 with WS in women only)
Visser et al. 2000	Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam	449 (52)	75(F) 75.8(M)	26.9 (4.2)	DXA	WS, STS	N/A	Positive (𝑟=0.202)
Reid et al. 2008	Mobility limited community dwelling elderly living in Boston	57 (54)	74.2 (7)	28.9 (6.0)	DXA	SPPB score less than 7	NS	Positive (with 1 kg increase in muscle mass, OR = 0.47, CI [0.25, 0.91])
Newman et al. 2003	Health ABC study	2984 (52)	73.6 (2.9)	27.4 (4.8)	DXA	EPESE score less than 10	N/A	Positive (Sarcopenia, OR=1.5, CI [1.1, 2.1])
Muscle mass and handgrip strength
Visser et al. 1998	Framingham Heart Study Cohort	753 (63)	78.2 (0.3)	26.8 (0.3)	DXA, WHR, WC	HGS	N/A	Positive
Payette et al. 1998	Quebec elderly women	30 (100)	81.5 (7.0)	26.0 (4.7)	BIA, BMI	HGS, TUGT	N/A	Positive (𝑟=0.62, HGS) NS (with TUGT)
Lee et al. 2007	Community dwelling elderly living in Hong Kong	4000 (50)	72.5 (5.2)	N/A	DXA	STS, HGS, Walking speed	N/A	Positive (ASMI with HGS; walking speed and STS in women only)
Rolland et al. 2003	EPIDOS study	1458 (100)	70+	25.1 (3.9)	DXA	HGS	N/A	Positive (ASM, 𝑟=0.24)
Rolland et al. 2004	EPIDOS study	1458 (100)	70+	25.1 (3.9)	DXA	HGS	N/A	Positive in BMI less than 29
Pedersen et al. 2002	Dannish (Glostrup) community dwelling elderly	226 (47)	80	26.6 (4.5)	BMI, BIA	HGS, PPT	NS	Positive (HGS, 𝑟=0.40 for men; 0.22 for women)
Taaffe et al. 2001	Health ABC Study	2619 (51)	73.6 (2.9)	27.1 (4.5)	DXA	HGS	No association (𝑟=0.07 with upper extremity; 0.08 with total)	Positive (𝑟=.39 with upper extremity; .32 with total)
Muscle quality and PP
Misic et al. 2007	Community dwelling elderly	55 (36/19)	69.3 (5.5)	28.7 (4.5)	DXA	Berg balance scale, Walking speed	Negative (𝑟=−0.35 with BBS; −0.33 with WS)	NS (Lower extremity muscle mass)
Sipila and Suominen, 1994	Finnish former athletes (A) and controls (C)	33 (100)	73.7 (5.6, A) 73.6 (2.9, C)	N/A	BIA, CT	Walking speed	Negative (𝑟=−0.48(A); −0.66 (C))	NS (muscle index)
Visser et al. 2002	Health ABC study	2979 (52)	70–79	27.3 (4.6)	CT (Midthigh)	LEP (walking speed and STS)	Negative (fat infiltration)	Positive
Hicks et al. 2005	Health ABC study (Pittsburg site only)	1527 (48)	70–79	27%	CT (Midthigh and trunk)	Health ABC PPB (STS, OLS, walking speed)	Negative (fat infiltration)	NS

^aIf the mean was not specified, number indicates % of BMI greater than 30; SD: standard deviation; STS: sit-to-stand; OLS: one-leg-stance; HGS: handgrip strength; ASM: appendicular skeletal muscle mass; N/A: not available, no data; NS: not significant.