↓ Skip to main content

Anthropometric, physical function and general health markers of Masters athletes: a cross-sectional study

Overview of attention for article published in PeerJ, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Readers on

mendeley
135 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Anthropometric, physical function and general health markers of Masters athletes: a cross-sectional study
Published in
PeerJ, September 2017
DOI 10.7717/peerj.3768
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Once the general decline in muscle mass, muscle strength and physical performance falls below specific thresholds, the middle aged or older adult will be diagnosed as having sarcopenia (a loss of skeletal muscle mass and strength). Sarcopenia contributes to a range of adverse events in older age including disability, hospitalisation, institutionalisation and falls. One potentially relevant but understudied population for sarcopenia researchers would be Masters athletes. Masters sport is becoming more common as it allows athletes (typically 40 years and older) the opportunity to participate in individual and/or team sports against individuals of similar age. This study examined a variety of measures of anthropometric, physical function and general health markers in the male and female Masters athletes who competed at the 2014 Pan Pacific Masters Games held on the Gold Coast, Australia. Bioelectrical impedance analysis was used to collect body fat percentage, fat mass and fat-free mass; with body mass, height, body mass index (BMI) and sarcopenic status also recorded. Physical function was quantified by handgrip strength and habitual walking speed; with general health described by the number of chronic diseases and prescribed medications. Between group analyses utilised ANOVA and Tukey's post-hoc tests to examine the effect of age group (40-49, 50-59, 60-69 and >70 years old) on the outcome measures for the entire sample as well as the male and female sub-groups. A total of 156 athletes (78 male, 78 female; mean 55.7 years) provided informed consent to participate in this study. These athletes possessed substantially better anthropometric, physical function and general health characteristics than the literature for their less physically active age-matched peers. No Masters athletes were categorised as being sarcopenic, although one participant had below normal physical performance and six participants had below normal muscle strength. In contrast, significant age-related reductions in handgrip strength and increases in the number of chronic diseases and prescribed medications were observed for the overall cohort as well as the male and female sub-groups. Nevertheless, even those aged over 70 years only averaged one chronic disease and one prescribed medication. These results may suggest that participation in Masters sport helps to maintain anthropometry, physical function and general health in middle-aged and older adults. However, it is also possible that only healthier middle-aged and older adults with favourable body composition and physical function may be able to participate in Masters sport. Future research should therefore utilise longitudinal research designs to determine the health and functional benefits of Master sports participation for middle-aged and older adults.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 135 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 135 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 15%
Student > Bachelor 19 14%
Student > Master 15 11%
Researcher 10 7%
Student > Postgraduate 6 4%
Other 18 13%
Unknown 47 35%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 21 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 8%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Psychology 3 2%
Other 20 15%
Unknown 59 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 June 2019.
All research outputs
#7,210,442
of 27,612,826 outputs
Outputs from PeerJ
#5,189
of 15,183 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#94,507
of 329,543 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PeerJ
#146
of 355 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,612,826 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,183 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,543 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 355 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.