Search

It is unclear which energy expenditure prediction equation should guide weight loss interventions in older adults with obesity. We ascertained the validity of four equations commonly used in practice in a series of weight loss studies of adults aged ≥65 with a body mass index ≥30kg/m 2 using indirect calorimetry data. Diagnostic accuracy was defined as <10% discrepancy between predicted and measured resting metabolic rate (RMR). Mean was 73.4 years. RMR using the ReeVue was 1,643 kCal. With 59.0% accuracy, the WHO equation demonstrated the highest accuracy while the Harris-Benedict yielded 53.5% accuracy. The Owens equation demonstrated the least variability (21.5% overprediction, 27.8% underprediction) with 50.7% accuracy. A SECA bioimpedance analyzer noted the second lowest accuracy of 49.6%. Only 43.1% of measurements were within 10% of the gold-standard indirect calorimetry value using the Mifflin equation. All equations demonstrated <60% accuracy suggesting a great need for estimating energy needs.

This study was a 12-week feasibility weight-loss intervention consisting of caloric restriction and aerobic/resistance exercise in older adults with obesity (body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m 2 ) in a geographically isolated area. Primary outcomes assessed weight and physical function. Mean age was 71.0 ± 5.1 years (67% female). Individuals completed 100% of all assessments, attended 88% of the physical therapy classes and 89% of the nutrition sessions. Level of satisfaction (5-point Likert) was high (5.0, 1 - low; 5 - high). Weight decreased from 93.7 ± 9.7 to 89.4 ± 4.0 kg ( p  < 0.001). Mean BMI and waist circumference decreased, respectively, from 35.4 ± 3.4 to 33.6 ± 3.7 ( p  < 0.001), and 116.3 ± 7.5 to 108.7 ± 9.2 cm ( p  = 0.002). Grip strength, gait speed, and 5-times sit-to-stand time all improved from 29.2 ± 7.5 to 35.2 ± 6.7 kg ( p  = 0.006), 1.16 ± 0.21 to 1.35 ± 0.23 m/s ( p  = 0.004), and 12.5 ± 4.0 to 9.6 ± 1.7s ( p  = 0.02). The intervention was feasible and acceptable, and holds promise in promoting weight loss with a concomitant improvement in physical function in older adults.

Food insecurity refers to restricted or uncertain access to and ineffective utilization of nutritious and safe foods. Although food insecurity is linked to poorer physical health consequences among older adults, national estimates are not well known on food insecurity and depression. Using the 2005-2014 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, this study examines the associations between varying food insecurity levels and clinically relevant depressive symptoms (defined by PHQ-9 ≥ 10) among adults ≥60 years old ( n  = 7969). Rates of clinically relevant depressive symptoms in marginal, low, and very low food security were 12.3, 16.3, and 25.2%, respectively. Marginal, low, and very low food security were significantly associated with clinically relevant depressive symptoms: odds ratio (OR) = 1.12 (95% confidence intervals [CI] 1.07-1.18), OR = 1.07 (95% CI 1.03-1.12), and OR = 1.24 (95% CI 1.16-1.32), respectively. Given the intersection of food insecurity and depression, geriatric health professionals should work to improve health and nutrition programs for older adults at risk for or experiencing both public health concerns.

Background: Food insecurity refers to the physical, social, and economic inability to access and secure sufficient, safe and nutritious food. Food insecurity has been found to be associated with poor health status, obesity, and chronic disease. To date, a relationship between food insecurity and functional limitations has not been described in of older adults. Methods: We examined 9309 adults ≥60 years old from the 2005-2014 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES). Food security was categorized as full, marginal, low, and very low. Functional limitations were assessed as having difficulty in physical, basic or instrumental activities of daily living. Results: Of adults ≥60 years old (mean age: 70.5 ± 0.08, 51% female), the prevalence of full, marginal, low, or very low food insecurity was 7572 (81%), 717 (7%), 667 (8%), and 353 (4%), respectively. The prevalence of any functional limitations was 5895 (66.3%). The adjusted odds (OR [95%CI]) of having any functional limitation in marginal, low, and very low food security levels compared to full food security are: 1.08 [1.02-1.13], 1.16 [1.10-1.22], 1.14 [1.07-1.21], respectively. The association between levels of food insecurity and functional limitation is modified by race/ethnicity. Conclusions: Functional limitation is significantly associated with increasing food insecurity in older adults.