Effects Of Other Lifestyle Factors Research Articles

Associations between lifestyle factors and multidimensional frailty: a cross-sectional study among community-dwelling older people

BackgroundMultidimensional frailty, including physical, psychological, and social components, is associated to disability, lower quality of life, increased healthcare utilization, and mortality. In order to prevent or delay frailty, more knowledge of its determinants is necessary; one of these determinants is lifestyle. The aim of this study is to determine the association between lifestyle factors smoking, alcohol use, nutrition, physical activity, and multidimensional frailty.MethodsThis cross-sectional study was conducted in two samples comprising in total 45,336 Dutch community-dwelling individuals aged 65 years or older. These samples completed a questionnaire including questions about smoking, alcohol use, physical activity, sociodemographic factors (both samples), and nutrition (one sample). Multidimensional frailty was assessed with the Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI).ResultsHigher alcohol consumption, physical activity, healthy nutrition, and less smoking were associated with less total, physical, psychological and social frailty after controlling for effects of other lifestyle factors and sociodemographic characteristics of the participants (age, gender, marital status, education, income). Effects of physical activity on total and physical frailty were up to considerable, whereas the effects of other lifestyle factors on frailty were small.ConclusionsThe four lifestyle factors were not only associated with physical frailty but also with psychological and social frailty. The different associations of frailty domains with lifestyle factors emphasize the importance of assessing frailty broadly and thus to pay attention to the multidimensional nature of this concept. The findings offer healthcare professionals starting points for interventions with the purpose to prevent or delay the onset of frailty, so community-dwelling older people have the possibility to aging in place accompanied by a good quality of life.

Associations between indicators of diet quality and psychological distress, depression and anxiety in emerging adults: Results from a nationally representative observational sample

BackgroundDepression, anxiety and their related symptoms are a leading cause of global disability and economic burden. Three quarters of all mental disorders occur by the age of 24 years making the identification of modifiable risk factors during these years imperative for prevention. This study examined associations between diet and psychological distress, depression and anxiety in a nationally representative sample of Australians during emerging adulthood. MethodsCross-sectional data (N= 1,340) from the 2017-18 Australian National Health Survey were analysed including fruit, vegetable and sugar sweetened beverage consumption. The primary outcome was psychological distress measured by the Kesler Psychological Distress Scale. Self-reported depression and anxiety were also assessed. Ordinal logistic regression analyses were fitted and adjusted for potential sociodemographic and lifestyle confounders. ResultsUnadjusted odds of high psychological distress were 45% greater among participants not meeting daily fruit intake guidelines (OR 1.45; 95% CI 1.17–1.81). Failure to meet fruit intake guidelines was associated with 66% and 48% increased odds for depression (OR 1.66; 95% CI 1.06–2.60) and anxiety (OR 1.48; 95% CI 1.02–2.15), respectively. Adjustment for lifestyle factors attenuated results across all outcomes. LimitationsThis study is limited by reliance on cross-sectional, self-reported data, limited statistical power for some exposures, and use of rudimentary diet proxies. ConclusionsThe findings suggested an association between some dietary indicators and mental health amongst emerging adults, however this association may be explained by other sociodemographic and lifestyle factors. Further longitudinal studies in this age group are warranted to investigate the directionality of this association and the relative effects of other lifestyle factors that cluster with diet.

Breast implants and cancer.

Although silicone breast implants have been linked to various short-term complications, less is known about their long-range effects. Most attention has focused on connective tissue disorders, but the range of immunologic disturbances observed in women with implants suggests that consideration also be given to other chronic diseases, including cancer. The greatest attention has focused on breast cancer, given clinical reports suggesting an association and observations that mammographic visualization is deterred by implants. Findings from epidemiologic studies, however, actually suggest that breast cancer risk might be reduced among women with implants, although the biologic mechanism remains undefined. In addition, most studies do not suggest that women with breast implants have more advanced breast cancer at diagnosis or a worse prognosis than those without implants. The majority of studies have focused on women who received implants for cosmetic reasons, with little previous investigation of women who received implants for breast reconstruction following cancer surgery. In terms of other cancers, animal as well as clinical data suggest potential risks of sarcomas and hematologic cancers, including multiple myeloma. The risk of these cancers has not yet been adequately addressed by epidemiologic studies, although several ongoing studies should provide insights. It will be important for studies to consider effects of other lifestyle factors as well as to analyze relationships according to duration of implantation, a demonstrated determinant of implant deterioration. In addition, consideration should be given to type of implant, including implants with polyurethane foam covers, which can leak toluene diamine, a demonstrated carcinogen in animals.

Fat, Caloric Intake, and Obesity: Lifestyle Risk Factors for Breast Cancer

Dietary fat is a likely important determinant of postmenopausal breast cancer as part of an intricate and inseparable interaction of lifestyle cancer risk factors that include dietary fat, type of fat, energy intake and expenditure, and obesity. These factors possibly build upon individual susceptibilities derived from a complex array of polygenetic risk determinants. Epidemiologic studies have not provided conclusive evidence for a dietary fat-breast cancer association, partly because studies that focus on a single nutrient cannot always evaluate readily the interactive effects of other lifestyle factors. Further, persons generally underestimate their usual dietary intake, measured by either food frequency questionnaires (FFQs) or diet records. A dietary measurement model that accounts for this underreporting demonstrated that FFQs and diet records may not be able to detect a dietary fat-breast cancer association because of measurement error biases. Although meta-analysis of epidemiologic data across individual studies suggests only a weak association between breast cancer and dietary fat, this result is compatible with the dietary measurement model and does not rule out a contributing role for dietary fat, either alone or with other causative factors. Research is needed that focuses on a comprehensive approach to dietary lifestyle choices and breast cancer risk and that emphasizes a fat-caloric intake-obesity linkage. The best hope for a definitive answer may rest with randomized, controlled clinical trials. Two such trials, the Women's Health Initiative and the Women's Intervention Nutrition Study, are under way. J Am Diet Assoc. 1997;97(suppl):S24-S30.