Previous studies assessing protective effects of physical activity on depression have had conflicting results; one recent study argued that excluding disabled subjects attenuated any observed effects. The authors' objective was to compare the effects of higher levels of physical activity on prevalent and incident depression with and without exclusion of disabled subjects. Participants were 1,947 community-dwelling adults from the Alameda County Study aged 50-94 years at baseline in 1994 with 5 years of follow-up. Depression was measured using criteria from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association, 1994). Physical activity was measured with an eight-point scale; odds ratios are based upon a one-point increase on the scale. Even with adjustments for age, sex, ethnicity, financial strain, chronic conditions, disability, body mass index, alcohol consumption, smoking, and social relations, greater physical activity was protective for both prevalent depression (adjusted odds ratio (OR) = 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.79, 1.01) and incident depression (adjusted OR = 0.83, 95% CI: 0.73, 0.96) over 5 years. Exclusion of disabled subjects did not attenuate the incidence results (adjusted OR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.67, 0.92). Findings support the protective effects of physical activity on depression for older adults and argue against excluding disabled subjects from similar studies.

OBJECTIVE:To examine the temporal relation between obesity and depression to determine if each constitutes a risk factor for the other. DESIGN: A two-wave, 5-y-observational study with all measures at both times. SUBJECTS: A total of 2123 subjects, 50 y of age and older, who participated in the 1994 and 1999 waves of the Alameda County Study. MEASUREMENTS: Obesity defined as body mass index (BMI)X30. Depression assessed using DSM-IV symptom criteria for major depressive episodes. Covariates include indicators of age, gender, education, marital status, social support, life events, physical health problems, and functional limitations. RESULTS: Obesity at baseline was associated with increased risk of depression 5 y later, even after controlling for depression at baseline and an array of covariates. The reverse was not true; depression did not increase the risk of future obesity. CONCLUSION: These results, the first ever on reciprocal effects between obesity and depression, add to a growing body of evidence concerning the adverse effects of obesity on mental health. More studies are needed on the relation between obesity and mental health and implications for prevention and treatment.

Does obesity affect mental health? Two waves of data from a panel study of community residents 50 years and older were used to investigate the association between obesity and eight indicators of mental health: happiness, perceived mental health, life satisfaction, positive affect, negative affect, optimism, feeling loved and cared for, and depression. For none of the eight mental health outcomes examined did we observe a protective effect for obesity. Either no association was observed between obesity and psychological functioning, or the obese were worse off. Using 1994-1999 prospective data, the obese were at increased risk for poorer mental health on five of the outcomes examined using bivariate analyses. However, controlling for mental health problems at baseline and using statistical controls for covariates, the increased relative risk was limited to depression. There has been sufficient disparity of results thus far to justify further research on this question.