Findings from the study showed that there is a high prevalence of chronic conditions among older adults in this population. This finding is similar to a previous study by Faronbi et al. (2019), which revealed that chronic illness is prevalent among the Nigerian older adult population. The high prevalence might be attributed to the global ageing population, where people are living longer, and the increasing opportunity to live with chronic conditions. Also, a significant proportion of the population may be living in a disadvantaged area where access to preventive care may be highly limited, thereby increasing their vulnerability to chronic illness.

It is worth mentioning that more than a quarter of the population is at risk for nutrition problems. This is similar to that reported by Nurizky et al. (2017), who found that 37% of their study population were at risk of malnutrition. An urgent intervention in this regard might have brought about a better outcome and prevented irreparable damage that may exacerbate the progression of malnutrition among older adults. Furthermore, findings showed that 1.9% were malnourished; this agrees with the study conducted by Ribeiro et al. (2011), who observed a prevalence of malnutrition of 1.3% among community-dwelling older adults in Brazil. This finding is also lower than that obtained by Ghani et al. (2013), who reported that 5.53% of their subjects were suffering from malnutrition. The respondents within the group aged 81–90 years had the highest proportion (40 respondents) at risk of malnutrition. Also, at this age, there may have been significant loss of muscle mass as compared to the middle-aged older adults (60–70 years). This supports the assertion that malnutrition is most common in the upper geriatric age group (80 years and above) (Ghani et al. 2013). This finding also correlates with the results by Lahiri et al. (2015), where older age was associated with lower MNA scores. Baweja et al. (2008) similarly found that as age increases, malnutrition and risk of malnutrition increase. It can be concluded that this age group is more dependent, less mobile, and more isolated than those 60–70 years of age.

Furthermore, Baweja et al. (2008) established that age alone had a significant and independent effect on important anthropometric and biochemical nutritional assessment variables. They argued that increasing age was independently associated with poor nutritional status.

Findings from this study also revealed a significant relationship between gender and nutritional status of the older people (p < 0.05). This agrees with the findings of Ghani et al. (2013), where malnutrition was prominent in males (23.16%) as compared to females (18.95%) of the same age group based on the MNA score. Also, nutrition was significantly associated with chronic illness (OR = 0.11, p = 0.001). Experts have suggested that nutrition is a major modifiable determinant of chronic disease, and scientific evidence has been released to support the role of diet in altering the impact, both positive and negative, on health throughout life (WHO Joint Consultation 2003). Similarly, other scholars have suggested that consuming high-quality foods was associated with a lower risk of chronic disease and mortality over 20 years of follow-up (Hay et al. 2017). Furthermore, findings from this study revealed an association between chronic illness and overweight (OR = 0.127, p < 0.000). Kearns et al. (2014) identified overweight and obesity as significant contributors to the burden of chronic disease in the population. They, therefore, suggested that a relatively modest reduction in average BMI in the population could result in a significant impact on the burden of chronic disease.

High physical activity was significantly associated with chronic illness, as high physical activity reduced the odds for chronic illness (OR = 0.13, p < 0.001). Regarding the relationship of age with physical activity, of the 81 respondents (25.3%) in the71–80 age group, 36 (11.3%) reported low physical activity, while 11 (3.4%) reported high physical activity. Of the 57 respondents (17.8%) in the 81–90 age group, 29 (9.1%) reported low physical activity, while only 2 (0.6%) reported high physical activity. This result suggests that increased age is associated with reduced physical activity.

Similarly, in a study by Babatsikou et al. (2012), people of both sexes aged 65–79 years showed a significantly higher rate of physical activity than those aged 80–90 years. The findings also agreed with Milanović et al. (2013), who reported that both men and women became progressively less active with increasing age, and hence this negatively affected their muscle strength, endurance, and body structure. Also, findings from this study agree with Murtagh et al. (2015), who showed a significant difference in physical activity levels between all age groups (60–64, 65–69, 70–74, 75+), with physical activity levels declining with age also supporting this study. Moderate physical activity was dominant compared to low and high physical activity, and this is because most physical activity by the respondents occurred incidentally, i.e. from activities of daily living (ADLs), and not from any planned exercise or leisure-time activity. The result is also consistent with the report by Milanović et al. (2013), where energy consumption estimated by the IPAQ showed that moderate physical activity, as compared with walking and heavy physical activity, accounted for almost half the energy consumed by both men and women, regardless of age category. The job status of the respondents can be said to have influenced their level of physical activity. Those who had no job, the retirees, and traders had lower physical activity than those with an active job. The physical activity level of the respondents was influenced by duties at work, gardening activity, or household chores but not by leisure-time activity. This suggests that respondents’ tasks at work are associated with their level of physical activity. A recent study by Gudnadottir et al. (2019) found that occupational activity (OA) was associated with self-reported physical activity. They observed that a higher proportion of individuals in high-OA jobs (e.g. construction workers and farm workers) met the physical activity guidelines than those in medium-OA (e.g. clerks and fabricators) and low-OA jobs (e.g. administrators and engineers).

Non-communicable disease is highly prevalent in this population, as evidenced by the presence of non-communicable disease reported by 61.9% of the respondents. The findings of this study agree with the findings by Clausen et al. (2000) and Mahesh et al. (2013), where major geriatric problems such as visual problems and hypertension were reported among their population.

Furthermore, a significant association was observed between nutrition and physical activity (p-value of 0.000, r = −0.274) at a 0.05 level; the direction of the correlation may mean that increased BMI (for obese people) may hinder their ability to engage in high levels of physical activity. Also, a significant association was found between nutrition and morbidity (p-value of 0.019, r = −0.131) at a 0.05 level; the direction of the correlation may mean that underweight older adults are more prone to having a prolonged period of the disease condition. There was a significant association between physical activity and morbidity as well (p-value of 0.000, r = 0.339) at a 0.05 level. Staying physically active and engaging in regular exercise can produce long-term health benefits and even improve health for some older people who already have diseases and disabilities. A systematic review evaluating the benefits of physical activity by Windle et al. (2010) confirmed that being physically active was associated with improved physical functioning in activities such as walking. A population-based study by Chen (2010) confirmed the importance of physical activity in the prevention of progressive functional decline. Improvements in muscle strength in old age have been observed in response to physical activities (Taylor et al. 2004).