Objectives Many studies report a higher prevalence of musculoskeletal pain in women than in men. This paper presents an overview of sex differences in musculoskeletal pain with specific attention for: different parameters for duration of musculoskeletal pain (ie, 1-y period prevalence, point prevalence, prevalence of chronic pain, and prevalence of persistent chronic pain); and (2) different anatomic pain sites. Methods For the analyses, data from 2 general population-based prospective surveys (Dutch population-based Musculoskeletal Complaints and Consequences Cohort study and Monitoring Project on Risk Factors for Chronic Diseases-study) were used. The study population consisted of persons aged 25 to 64 years living in the Netherlands. Data on self-reported pain complaints were assessed by written questionnaires. Results The results of this study showed that prevalence rates of musculoskeletal pain were higher for women than for men in the Dutch general population aged 25 to 64 years on the basis of 2 population-based surveys. For musculoskeletal pain in any location, 39% of men and 45% of women reported chronic complaints. Highest female predominance was found for the hip and wrist/hand, whereas lowest and not statistically significant sex differences were found for the lower back and knee. All duration parameters of musculoskeletal pain showed a female predominance of musculoskeletal pain (1-y period prevalence, point prevalence, prevalence of chronic pain, and prevalence of persistent chronic pain). In those with persistent chronic pain, women tended to report higher severity scores. Discussion The present study shows that women have higher prevalence rates of musculoskeletal pain in most anatomic pain sites, no matter the duration of musculoskeletal pain. Future research should focus on explaining these sex differences with the ultimate goal to develop better prevention and management strategies for musculoskeletal pain in both men and women.

Vegan or vegetarian diets have been suggested to reduce type 2 diabetes (T2D) risk. However, not much is known on whether variation in the degree of having a plant-based versus animal-based diet may be beneficial for prevention of T2D. We aimed to investigate whether level of adherence to a diet high in plant-based foods and low in animal-based foods is associated with insulin resistance, prediabetes, and T2D. Our analysis included 6798 participants (62.7 ± 7.8 years) from the Rotterdam Study (RS), a prospective population-based cohort in the Netherlands. Dietary intake data were collected with food-frequency questionnaires at baseline of three sub-cohorts of RS (RS-I-1: 1989–1993, RS-II-1: 2000–2001, RS-III-1: 2006–2008). We constructed a continuous plant-based dietary index (range 0–92) assessing adherence to a plant-based versus animal-based diet. Insulin resistance at baseline and follow-up was assessed using homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR). Prediabetes and T2D were collected from general practitioners’ records, pharmacies’ databases, and follow-up examinations in our research center until 2012. We used multivariable linear mixed models to examine association of the index with longitudinal HOMA-IR, and multivariable Cox proportional-hazards regression models to examine associations of the index with risk of prediabetes and T2D. During median 5.7, and 7.3 years of follow-up, we documented 928 prediabetes cases and 642 T2D cases. After adjusting for sociodemographic and lifestyle factors, a higher score on the plant-based dietary index was associated with lower insulin resistance (per 10 units higher score: β = −0.09; 95% CI: − 0.10; − 0.08), lower prediabetes risk (HR = 0.89; 95% CI: 0.81; 0.98), and lower T2D risk [HR = 0.82 (0.73; 0.92)]. After additional adjustment for BMI, associations attenuated and remained statistically significant for longitudinal insulin resistance [β = −0.05 (− 0.06; − 0.04)] and T2D risk [HR = 0.87 (0.79; 0.99)], but no longer for prediabetes risk [HR = 0.93 (0.85; 1.03)]. In conclusion, a more plant-based and less animal-based diet may lower risk of insulin resistance, prediabetes and T2D. These findings strengthen recent dietary recommendations to adopt a more plant-based diet.Clinical Trial Registry number and website NTR6831, http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=6831.

Malnutrition is widespread in older people and represents a major geriatric syndrome with multifactorial etiology and severe consequences for health outcomes and quality of life. The aim of the present paper is to describe current approaches and evidence regarding malnutrition treatment and to highlight relevant knowledge gaps that need to be addressed. Recently published guidelines of the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) provide a summary of the available evidence and highlight the wide range of different measures that can be taken—from the identification and elimination of potential causes to enteral and parenteral nutrition—depending on the patient’s abilities and needs. However, more than half of the recommendations therein are based on expert consensus because of a lack of evidence, and only three are concern patient-centred outcomes. Future research should further clarify the etiology of malnutrition and identify the most relevant causes in order to prevent malnutrition. Based on limited and partly conflicting evidence and the limitations of existing studies, it remains unclear which interventions are most effective in which patient groups, and if specific situations, diseases or etiologies of malnutrition require specific approaches. Patient-relevant outcomes such as functionality and quality of life need more attention, and research methodology should be harmonised to allow for the comparability of studies.

The aim was to explore the self-reported impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on nutrition and physical activity behaviour in Dutch older adults and to identify subgroups most susceptible to this impact. Participants (N = 1119, aged 62–98 y, 52.8% female) of the Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam living independently completed a COVID-19 questionnaire. Questions on diagnosis, quarantine and hospitalization were asked, as well as impact of the pandemic on ten nutrition and physical activity behaviours. Associations of pre-COVID-19 assessed characteristics (age, sex, region, household composition, self-rated health, BMI, physical activity, functional limitations) with reported impact were tested using logistic regression analyses. About half of the sample (48.3–54.3%) reported a decrease in physical activity and exercise due to the pandemic. An impact on nutritional behaviour predisposing to overnutrition (e.g., snacking more) was reported by 20.3–32.4%. In contrast, 6.9–15.1% reported an impact on behaviour predisposing to undernutrition (e.g., skipping warm meals). Those who had been in quarantine (n = 123) more often reported a negative impact. Subgroups with higher risk of impact could be identified. This study shows a negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on nutrition and physical activity behaviour of many older adults, which may increase their risk of malnutrition, frailty, sarcopenia and disability.

The effect of equivalent oral doses of vitamin D3 600 IU/day, 4200 IU/week and 18,000 IU/month on vitamin D status was compared in a randomized clinical trial in nursing home residents. A daily dose was more effective than a weekly dose, and a monthly dose was the least effective.