4.4 Article

Skeletal muscle mass and quality: evolution of modern measurement concepts in the context of sarcopenia

Journal

PROCEEDINGS OF THE NUTRITION SOCIETY
Volume 74, Issue 4, Pages 355-366

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0029665115000129

Keywords

Body composition; Nutritional assessment; Sarcopenia; Cachexia; Sarcopenic obesity

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The first reports of accurate skeletal muscle mass measurement in human subjects appeared at about the same time as introduction of the sarcopenia concept in the late 1980s. Since then these methods, computed tomography and MRI, have been used to gain insights into older (i.e. anthropometry and urinary markers) and more recently developed and refined methods (ultrasound, bioimpedance analysis and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry) of quantifying regional and total body skeletal muscle mass. The objective of this review is to describe the evolution of these methods and their continued development in the context of sarcopenia evaluation and treatment. Advances in these technologies are described with a focus on additional quantifiable measures that relate to muscle composition and 'quality'. The integration of these collective evaluations with strength and physical performance indices is highlighted with linkages to evaluation of sarcopenia and the spectrum of related disorders such as sarcopenic obesity, cachexia and frailty. Our findings show that currently available methods and those in development are capable of non-invasively extending measures from solely 'mass' to quality evaluations that promise to close the gaps now recognised between skeletal muscle mass and muscle function, morbidity and mortality. As the largest tissue compartment in most adults, skeletal muscle mass and aspects of muscle composition can now be evaluated by a wide array of technologies that provide important new research and clinical opportunities aligned with the growing interest in the spectrum of conditions associated with sarcopenia.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available