Physical activity (PA) is important for healthy ageing. Better insight into objectively measured PA levels in older adults is needed, since most previous studies employed self-report measures for PA assessment, which are associated with overestimation of PA. This study aimed to provide insight in objectively measured indoor and outdoor PA of older adults, and in PA differences by frailty levels. Data were collected among non-frail (N = 74) and frail (N = 10) subjects, aged 65 to 89 years. PA, measured for seven days with accelerometers and GPS-devices, was categorized into three levels of intensity (sedentary, light, and moderate-to-vigorous PA). Older adults spent most time in sedentary and light PA. Subjects spent 84.7%, 15.1% and 0.2%per day in sedentary, light and moderate-to-vigorous PA respectively. On average, older adults spent 9.8 (SD 23.7) minutes per week in moderate-to-vigorous activity, and 747.0 (SD 389.6) minutes per week in light activity. None of the subjects met the WHO recommendations of 150 weekly minutes of moderate-to-vigorous PA. Age-, sex- and health status-adjusted results revealed no differences in PA between non-frail and frail older adults. Subjects spent significantly more sedentary time at home, than not at home. Non-frail subjects spent significantly more time not at home during moderate-to-vigorous activities, than at home. Objective assessment of PA in older adults revealed that most PA was of light intensity, and time spent in moderate-to-vigorous PA was very low. None of the older adults met the World Health Organization recommendations for PA. These levels of MVPA are much lower than generally reported based on self-reported PA. Future studies should employ objective methods, and age specific thresholds for healthy PA levels in older adults are needed. These results emphasize the need for effective strategies for healthy PA levels for the growing proportion of older adults. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0123168
MULTIFILE
Physical activity (PA) is important for healthy ageing. Better insight into objectively measured PA levels in older adults is needed, since most previous studies employed self-report measures for PA assessment, which are associated with overestimation of PA. This study aimed to provide insight in objectively measured indoor and outdoor PA of older adults, and in PA differences by frailty levels. Data were collected among non-frail (N = 74) and frail (N = 10) subjects, aged 65 to 89 years. PA, measured for seven days with accelerometers and GPS-devices, was categorized into three levels of intensity (sedentary, light, and moderate-to-vigorous PA). Older adults spent most time in sedentary and light PA. Subjects spent 84.7%, 15.1% and 0.2%per day in sedentary, light and moderate-to-vigorous PA respectively. On average, older adults spent 9.8 (SD 23.7) minutes per week in moderate-to-vigorous activity, and 747.0 (SD 389.6) minutes per week in light activity. None of the subjects met the WHO recommendations of 150 weekly minutes of moderate-to-vigorous PA. Age-, sex- and health status-adjusted results revealed no differences in PA between non-frail and frail older adults. Subjects spent significantly more sedentary time at home, than not at home. Non-frail subjects spent significantly more time not at home during moderate-to-vigorous activities, than at home. Objective assessment of PA in older adults revealed that most PA was of light intensity, and time spent in moderate-to-vigorous PA was very low. None of the older adults met the World Health Organization recommendations for PA. These levels of MVPA are much lower than generally reported based on self-reported PA. Future studies should employ objective methods, and age specific thresholds for healthy PA levels in older adults are needed. These results emphasize the need for effective strategies for healthy PA levels for the growing proportion of older adults. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0123168
MULTIFILE
To compare comfort‐related outcomes when wearing rigid gas permeable (RGP) contact lenses made of two different materials and using two cleaning regimes. In a double‐masked lens material cross‐over study, subjects (n = 28 who completed the study) were refitted with new lenses made from (A) Boston XO material in one eye and made from (B) ONSI‐56 material in the other eye. The lenses made from materials A and B were worn on the right eye and the left eye following the pattern AB–BA–AB (or vice versa) during the first, second, and third 5 week trial periods respectively. Miraflow cleaner (1st and 2nd period) was replaced by Boston Advance cleaner in the 3rd period. Comfort‐related outcomes were assessed by a numerical rating scale (NRS) after each period. Subjects rated six comfort‐related factors: satisfaction, sharpness of vision, end of day comfort, maximum comfortable wearing time, maximum wearing time and foreign body feeling. Additionally we obtained subjects’ preferences for type of lens and lens cleaner during an exit interview. The sessile drop method was used to measure static contact angles.
LINK
