title: Sex-specific differences in gait patterns of healthy older adults: results from the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging.
abstract: The effects of normal aging and orthopedic conditions on gait patterns during customary walking have been extensively investigated. Empirical evidence supports the notion that sex differences exist in the gait patterns of young adults but it is unclear as to whether sex differences exist in older adults. The aim of this study was to investigate sex-specific differences in gait among older adults. Study participants were 336 adults (50-96 years; 162 women) enrolled in the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging (BLSA) who completed walking tasks at self-selected speed without assistance. After adjusting for significant covariates, women walked with higher cadence (p=0.01) and shorter stride length (p=0.006) compared to men, while gait speed was not significantly related to sex. Women also had less hip range of motion (ROM; p=0.004) and greater ankle ROM (p<0.001) in the sagittal-plane, and greater hip ROM (p=0.004) in the frontal-plane. Hip absorptive mechanical work expenditure (MWE) of the women was greater in the sagittal-plane (p<0.001) and lower in the frontal-plane (p<0.001), compared to men. In summary, women's gait is characterized by greater ankle ROM than men while men tend to have greater hip ROM than women. Characterizing unique gait patterns of women and men with aging may be beneficial for detecting the early stages of gait abnormalities that may lead to pathology.
authors: Department of Mechanical Engineering, Chonnam National University, 50 Daehak-ro, Yeosu, Jeonnam 550-749, South Korea. seunguk.ko@gmail.com
authors: Seung-uk
authors: SU
authors: Ko
authors: Magdalena I
authors: MI
authors: Tolea
authors: Jeffrey M
authors: JM
authors: Hausdorff
authors: Luigi
authors: L
authors: Ferrucci
references: J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2010 Mar;65B(2):174-84
references: 20051464
references: Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 1998 Jan-Feb;77(1):2-7
references: 9482373
references: Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2000 Oct;15(8):583-91
references: 10936430
references: Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2008 Dec;23(10):1260-8
references: 18774631
references: J Appl Physiol (1985). 2000 May;88(5):1804-11
references: 10797145
references: J Biomech. 2009 Aug 25;42(12):1834-9
references: 19646705
references: Age Ageing. 1997 Jan;26(1):15-9
references: 9143432
references: J Appl Physiol (1985). 2004 Jan;96(1):149-60
references: 12949019
references: Brain Res. 2009 Feb 9;1253:92-9
references: 19084511
references: Aging (Milano). 2001 Feb;13(1):16-21
references: 11292147
references: Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002 Aug;(401):162-9
references: 12151893
references: Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2001 Jan;82(1):26-30
references: 11239282
references: J Biomech. 1990;23(6):617-21
references: 2341423
references: AMRL TR. 1964 Oct;:1-149
references: 14243640
references: J Rehabil Res Dev. 1993;30(2):210-23
references: 8035350
references: Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2004 Feb;19(2):145-52
references: 14967577
references: J Biomech. 2001 Apr;34(4):481-90
references: 11266671
references: J Biomech. 2006;39(12):2213-20
references: 16168997
references: J Biomech. 2010 Apr 19;43(6):1104-10
references: 20080238
references: Gerontology. 2009;55(6):702-6
references: 19713694
references: Phys Ther. 1990 Jun;70(6):340-7
references: 2345777
references: Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2004 Jan;19(1):44-9
references: 14659929