TABLE 3.

The influence of chronic illness, health status, physical activity level, and BMI on the strength of the correlations (Pearson’s r) between age and the examined A&BC characteristics in senior women.

Characteristics		Chronic illness		Self-assessed health status		MET		BMI
		Yes (n = 397)	No (n = 264)	P/AVR (n = 455)	G/VG. (n = 206)	≤600 (n = 333)	>600 (n = 328)	<25 (n = 154)	25–29.9 (n = 288)	≥30 (n = 219)
Overall analysis of anthropometric and body composition characteristics
Body height cm]	r	−.20	ns	−.21	ns	−.15	−.22	ns	−.17	−.28 <.001
	p	<.001		<.001		.006	<.001		.004
Body mass [kg]	r	−.17 .001	−.12 .061	−.18 <.001	ns	−.28 <.001	−.11 .056	ns	−.12 .039	−.23 .001
	p
PA [MET/min/week]	r p	−.22 <.001	ns	−.15 .001	−.15 .027	X	X	ns	−.22 <.001	−.40 <.001
TBW [kg]	r p	−.13 .006	ns	−.15 .002	ns	−.18 .001	−.10 .069	ns	ns	−.22
										.001
Proteins [kg]	r	−17	ns	−.18	ns	−.21	−.13	ns	ns	−.26 <.001
	p	<.001		<.001		<.001	.015
Minerals [kg]	r p	−.13 .007	ns	−.15 .002	ns	−.16 .004	−.11 .046	ns	ns	−.22
										.001
BFM [kg]	r	−.15 .004	−.11 .072	−.16 <.001	ns	−.28 <.001	ns	ns	−.13 .039	−.16 .018
	p
FFM [kg]	r p	−.15 .004	ns	−.15	ns	−.18	−.11	ns	ns	−.23 .001
				.001		.001	.050
SMM [kg]	r p	−.18 <.001	ns	−.18 <.001	ns	−.20 <.001	−.14 .013	ns	ns	−.26
										<.001
BMI [kg/m2]	r	−.10	ns	−.11	ns	−.25	ns	X	X	X
	p	.048		.020		<.001
PBF [%]	r	−.09	ns	−.12	ns	−.21	ns	ns	ns	ns
	p	.057		.012		<.001
WHR	r	−.31	ns	−.33	−.14	−.31	−.28	ns	−.32	−.35 <.001
	p	<.001		<.001	.047	<.001	<0.001		<.001
VFL	r p	−.16 .002	ns	−.18 <.001	ns	−.26 <.001	−.10 .083	ns	−.13 .033	−.23 .001
Segmental analysis of anthropometric and body composition characteristics
FFM upper limbs [kg]	r p	−.25 <.001	−.12 .050	−.24 <.001	ns	−.26 <.001	−.20 <.001	ns	−.16 .006	−.36 <.001
PFFM upper limbs [%]	r p	−.23 <.001	ns	−.20 <.001	ns	−.21 <.001	−.16 .003	ns	−.13 .028	−.29 <.001
BFM upper limbs [kg]	r p	−.14 .006	−.11 .072	−.15 .001	ns	−.26 <.001	ns	ns	−.20 .001	−.14 .037
PBFM upper limbs [%]	r p	−.11 .027	ns	−.12 .011	ns	−.24 <.001	ns	ns	−12 .035	ns
FFM trunk [kg]	r	−.30	−.15	−.29	−.14	−.29 <.001	−.25 <.001	ns	−.21 <.001	−.41 <.001
	p	<.001	.014	<.001	.050
PFFM trunk [%]	r p	−.29 <.001	−.14 .019	−.25 <.001	−.18 .010	−.25 <.001	−.22 <0.001	ns	−.19 .001	−.34 <.001
BFM trunk [kg]	r	−.19	−.13	−.22	ns	−.29	−.14	ns	ns	−.29
	p	<.001	.037	<.001		<.001	.013			<.001
PBF trunk [%]	r	−.15	ns	−.17	ns	−.27	ns	ns	ns	−.17
	p	.003		<.001		<.001				.010
FFM lower limbs [kg]	r	−.13	ns	−.13	ns	−.18	ns	ns	ns	−.15
	p	.010		.005		.001				.025
PFFM lower limbs [%]	r	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns
	p
BFM lower limbs [kg]	r	ns	ns	ns	ns	−.24	ns	ns	ns	ns
	p					<.001
PBF lower limbs [%]	r	ns	ns	ns	ns	−.21	ns	ns	ns	ns
	p					<.001

Notes: P—poor, AVR, average, G—good, VG, very good. ns—no significant differences. Only significant (bold) and near significant (normal font) values were considered, X—no statistical analyses.