Table 2.

Summary of studies examining the relationship between leg power and diabetes mellitus in older adults

Authors	Participants	Mean Age ± SD (years)	Design	Leg Power Measure	Findings
Hilton et al. 2008 (61)	6 obese participants with DM and PN and their 6 age- and sex-matched controls	Obese participants (58 ± 10) Controls (58 ± 9.2)	Cross-sectional	Biodex Multi-joint System III Pro isokinetic dynamometer	↓ leg power among obese participants with DM and PN
Volpato et al. 2012 (62)	835 community-dwelling adults (11.4% with DM diagnosis)	With DM (73.8 ± 6.5) Without DM (73.9 ± 6.2)	Cross-sectional analysis of InCHIANTI cohort	Nottingham power rig	↓ leg power among participants with DM
Kalyani et al. 2013 (63)	2573 adults aged ≥ 50 years (321 with DM diagnosis)	63.3 ± 0.3	Cross-sectional	Kin-Com isokinetic dynamometer	↓ leg power among participants with DM
Sacchetti et al. 2013 (64)	Four groups (n=12 each) consisting of sedentary DM adults (DM1 and DM4), trained DM adults, and non-DM sedentary controls	Sedentary DM1 (60.0 ± 10.7), Sedentary DM4 (58.2 ± 17.5), trained DM adults (61.8 ± 19.4), control (62.5 ± 4.0)	Cross-sectional	Kin-Com isokinetic dynamometer	↓ leg power among sedentary, but not trained participants with DM
Ibanez et al. 2008 (65)	9 Type 2 DM, older sedentary men and 11 age-matched controls	DM (66.6 ± 3.1) Non-DM adults (64.8 ± 2.6)	Cross-sectional (resistance training program)	Half-squat test	Leg power gains were similar among participants with and without DM

DM= Diabetes Mellitus; PN= Peripheral Neuropathy; InCHIANTI= Invecchiare in Chianti, Aging in the Chianti Area; DM1= Sedentary DM in 1st Quartile of MNCV; DM4= Sedentary DM in 4th Quartile of MNCV; MNCV= Motor Nerve Conduction Velocity