Adiposity and Balance Control in the Elderly Mainenti MRM et al. Table 1 - Anthropometric characteristics of the studied sample. CLINICS 2011;66(9):1513-1518 Low Fat Mass Group (n = 23) High Fat Mass Group (n = 22) Values are expressed as the median (1st – 3rd quartile) for numerical variables and as the absolute number (percentage) for categorical variables. BMI = Body Mass Index; RUS = right unilateral stance; LUS = left unilateral stance; Fat % = Fat percentage; FFM = Fat-free mass. *p,0.05 (Low Fat Mass Group vs. High Fat Mass Group; Mann Whitney Test for numerical variables and chi-square test for categorical variables). southern Brazil11 but were slightly lower when compared to data collected in a US study,5 probably due to the use of different equations11,31 to calculate this variable. Table 2 - Stabilometric variables for High and Low Fat Mass Groups. Variable Weight (kg) BMI (kg/m2) Age (years) Waist (cm) Fat % Fat mass (kg) FFM (kg) Right leg dominance Subjects not using support during RUS Subjects not using support during LUS Variable X SD (mm) Y SD (mm) X Range (mm) Y Range (mm) Effective Area (mm2) Trials OBEO OBEC CBEO CBEC Tandem Right Tandem Left OBEO OBEC* CBEO CBEC* Tandem Right Tandem Left OBEO OBEC CBEO CBEC Tandem Right Tandem Left OBEO OBEC* CBEO CBEC* Tandem Right Tandem Left OBEO OBEC* CBEO CBEC Tandem Right Tandem Left Low Fat Mass Group (n = 23) 0.21 (0.15-0.24) 0.19 (0.16-0.25) 0.52 (0.38-0.56) 0.63 (0.51-0.76) 0.62 (0.51-0.74) 0.60 (0.52-0.76) 0.37 (0.30-0.39) 0.40 (0.31-0.48) 0.54 (0.40-0.62) 0.52 (0.45-0.58) 0.74 (0.51-0.97) 0.52 (0.44-0.88) 1.07 (0.94-1.34) 1.16 (1.02-1.34) 2.98 (2.29-3.36) 3.85 (3.06-5.01) 3.92 (3.29-4.56) 3.80 (3.21-4.59) 1.98 (1.67-2.47) 2.23 (1.92-2.71) 3.08 (2.19-3.43) 3.11 (2.70-3.70) 4.00 (2.98-6.90) 3.54 (3.08-5.48) 0.57 (0.37-0.65) 0.64 (0.41-0.98) 1.81 (1.09-2.10) 1.97 (1.60-3.25) 3.52 (1.74-4.93) 2.10 (1.60-3.94) Sample (n = 45) 67.00 (59.10-77.10) 28.08 (25.30-32.60) 66 (62-72) 89.00 (82.30-93.50) 44.28 (41.64-48.44) 29.08 (25.26-36.57) 37.16 (34.35-39.63) 40 (88.89%) 8 (17.78%) 11 (24.44%) High Fat Mass Group (n = 22) 0.20 (0.15-0.24) 0.25 (0.17-0.39) 0.45 (0.36-0.54) 0.61 (0.47-0.82) 0.65 (0.53-0.81) 0.70 (0.58-0.78) 0.40 (0.34-0.46) 0.52 (0.45-0.65) 0.51 (0.43-0.58) 0.66 (0.54-0.72) 0.65 (0.39-0.77) 0.67 (0.52-1.02) 1.07 (0.92-1.44) 1.38 (1.14-2.17) 2.82 (2.41-3.69) 3.50 (2.74-4.72) 3.71 (3.26-4.70) 4.05 (3.52-4.50) 2.26 (1.85-2.82) 3.09 (2.82-3.97) 2.81 (2.12-3.36) 3.71 (3.31-4.46) 3.87 (2.59-5.00) 4.40 (3.21-5.42) 0.59 (0.42-0.77) 1.04 (0.78-1.87) 1.48 (1.05-2.18) 2.52 (1.54-3.59) 2.81 (1.38-4.04) 3.16 (1.78-5.21) Data are presented as the median (1st - 3rd quartile). *p#0.01 (Mann Whitney Test). SD = Standard Deviation; OBEO = Opened Base, Eyes Open; OBEC = Opened Base, Eyes Closed; CBEO = Closed Base, Eyes Open; CBEC = Closed Base, Eyes Closed. The presented values are the Spearman Correlation Coefficients. *p,0.05; §0.05,p,0.10. BMI = Body Mass Index; Fat % = Fat percentage; FFM = Fat-free mass; RUS = right unilateral stance; LUS = left unilateral stance; NDUS = Non-dominant unilateral stance. 1516 59.20 (57.50-64.00) 25.39 (24.56-26.84) 69 (60-73) 82.60 (80.08-87.50) 42.06 (40.19-43.99) 25.66 (23.39-27.88) 34.92 (34.12-36.71) 20 (86.96%) 6 (26.09%) 7 (30.43%) 77.10 (70.08-88.78)* 32.60 (31.05-35.38)* 66 (62-71) 92.00 (89.20-106.25)* 48.44 (45.18-50.35)* 36.57 (32.49-43.36)* 39.61 (37.51-45.88)* 20 (90.91%) 2 (9.09%) 4 (18.18%) Weight, body mass index, waist circumference, fat percentage, and fat mass were positively and significantly correlated with the number of contacts needed to avoid falling during unilateral stance, but only the fat percentage and the fat mass were associated with the number of contacts during right and left unilateral stance. The greater responsiveness observed during left stance may be related to the greater number of individuals with right leg dominance (Table 1). Supporting the body for a one-minute period should be more difficult with the non-dominant leg than with the dominant leg. This correlation becomes stronger when the results for the non-dominant unilateral stance are analyzed (Table 3). When controlling body sway becomes more difficult, it becomes easier to detect differ- ences due to other causes, such as adiposity. When the entire sample was divided into two groups based on median fat mass, greater instability was observed in the High Fat Mass Group for some stabilometric variables when the subjects’ eyes were closed, which is a situation in which visual feedback is eliminated and better integration of somatosensory and vestibular inputs are required to ensure adequate postural control. In addition to the results Table 3 - Correlations observed during unilateral stance: Number of foot or hand contacts vs. body composition and general variables. Variable Weight (kg) Height (m) BMI (kg/cm2) Age (years) Waist (cm) Fat % Fat mass (kg) FFM (kg) RUS 0.17 -0.10 0.30 0.26 0.22 0.46* 0.31* -0.03 LUS 0.30* -0.02 0.36* 0.30 0.42* 0.43* 0.38* 0.16 NDUS 0.33* 0.02 0.37* 0.31* 0.41* 0.44* 0.40* 0.19