Race and sex effects on the association between muscle strength, soft tissue, and bone mineral density in healthy elders: The Health, Aging, and Body Composition Study

Two factors generally reported to influence bone density are body composition and muscle strength. However, it is unclear if these relationships are consistent across race and sex, especially in older persons. If differences do exist by race and/or sex, then strategies to maintain bone mass or minimize bone loss in older adults may need to be modified accordingly. Therefore, we examined the independent effects of bone mineral-free lean mass (LM), fat mass (FM), and muscle strength on regional and whole body bone mineral density (BMD) in a cohort of 2619 well-functioning older adults participating in the Health, Aging, and Body Composition (Health ABC) Study with complete measures. Participants included 738 white women, 599 black women, 827 white men, and 455 black men aged 70-79 years. BMD (g/cm(2)) of the femoral neck, whole body, upper and lower limb, and whole body and upper limb bone mineral-free LM and FM was assessed by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Handgrip strength and knee extensor torque were determined by dynamometry. In analyses stratified by race and sex and adjusted for a number of confounders, LM was a significant (p < 0.001) determinant of BMD, except in white women for the lower limb and whole body. In women, FM also was an independent contributor to BMD at the femoral neck, and both PM and muscle strength contributed to limb BMD. The following were the respective Beta-weights (regression coefficients for standardized data, Std beta) and percent difference in BMD per unit (7.5 kg) LM: femoral neck, 0.202-0.386 and 4.7-6.9 %; lower limb,.0.209-0.357 and 2.9-3.5%; whole body, 0.239-0.484 and 3.0-4.7 %; and upper limb (unit = 0.5 kg), 0.231-0.407 and 3.1-3.4%. Adjusting for bone size (bone mineral apparent density [BMAD]) or body size BMD/height) diminished the importance of LM, and the contributory effect of FM became more pronounced. These results indicate that LM and FM were associated with bone mineral depending on the bone site and bone index used. Where differences did occur, they were primarily by sex not race. To preserve BMD, maintaining or increasing LM in the elderly would appear to be an appropriate strategy, regardless of race or sex.

The influence of a concurrent cognitive task on the compensatory stepping response to a perturbation in balance-impaired and healthy elders

This study investigated the influence of a concurrent cognitive task on the compensatory stepping response in balance-impaired elders and the attentional demand of the stepping response. Kinetic, kinematic and neuromuscular measures of a forward recovery step were investigated in 15 young adults, 15 healthy elders and 13 balance-impaired elders in a single task (postural recovery only) and dual task (postural recovery and vocal reaction time task) situation. Results revealed that reaction times were longer in all subjects when performed concurrently with a compensatory step, they were longer for a step than an in-place response and longer for balance-impaired older adults compared with young adults. An interesting finding was that the latter group difference may be related to prioritization between the two tasks rather than attentional demand, as the older adults completed the step before the reaction time, whereas the young adults could perform both concurrently. Few differences in step characteristics were found between tasks, with the most notable being a delayed latency and reduced magnitude of the early automatic postural response in healthy and balance-impaired elders with a concurrent task. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Levels of consensus and majority and minority influence

Three experiments are reported which examine the effects of consensus information on majority and minority influence. In all experiments two levels of consensus difference were examined; large (82% versus 18%) and small (52% versus 48%). Experiment 1 showed that a majority source had more influence than a minority source, irrespective of consensus level. Experiment 2 examined the cause of this effect by presenting only the source label ('majority' versus 'minority'), only the consensus information (percentages) or both. The superior influence of the majority was again found when either (a) both source label and consensus information were given (replicating Experiment 1) and (b) only consensus information was given, but not when (c) only the source label was given. The results showed majority influence was due to the consensus information indicating more than 50% of the population supported that position. Experiment 3 also manipulated message quality (strong versus weak arguments) to identify whether systematic processing had occurred. Message quality only had an impact with the minority of 18%. These studies show that consensus information has different effects' for majority and minority influence. For majority influence, having over 50% support is sufficient to cause compliance while for a minority there are advantages to being numerically small, in terms of leading to detailed processing of its message. Copyright (C) 2002 John Wiley Sons, Ltd.

Majority versus minority influence: When, not whether, source status instigates heuristic or systematic processing

Two experiments investigated the extent of message processing of a persuasive communication proposed by either a numerical majority or minority. Both experiments crossed source status (majority versus minority) with message quality (strong versus weak arguments) to determine which source condition is associated with systematic processing. The first experiment showed a reliable difference between strong and weak messages, indicating systematic processing had occurred, for a minority irrespective of message direction (pro- versus counter-attitudinal), but not for a majority. The second experiment showed that message outcome moderates when a majority or a minority leads to systematic processing. When the message argued for a negative personal outcome, there was systematic processing only for the majority source; but when the message did not argue for a negative personal outcome, there was systematic processing only for the minority source. Thus one key moderator of whether a majority or minority source leads to message processing is whether the topic induces defensive processing motivated by self-interest. Copyright (C) 2002 John Wiley Sons, Ltd.