4.7 Article

Longitudinal study of muscle strength, quality, and adipose tissue infiltration

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION
卷 90, 期 6, 页码 1579-1585

出版社

AMER SOC CLINICAL NUTRITION
DOI: 10.3945/ajcn.2009.28047

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute on Aging [N01-AG-6-2101, N01-AG-6-2103, N01-AG-6-2106]
  2. Intramural Research Program of the NIH, National Institute on Aging

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Sarcopenia is thought to be accompanied by increased muscle fat infiltration. However, no longitudinal studies have examined concomitant changes in muscle mass, strength, or fat infiltration in older adults. Objective: We present longitudinal data on age-related changes in leg composition, strength, and muscle quality (MQ) in ambulatory, well-functioning men and women. We hypothesized that muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) and strength would decrease and muscular fat infiltration would increase over 5 y. Design: Midthigh muscle, subcutaneous fat (SF), and intermuscular fat (IMF) CSAs and isokinetic leg muscle torque (MT) and MQ (MT/quadriceps CSA) were examined over 5 y in the Health, Aging, and Body Composition study cohort (n = 1678). Results: Men experienced a 16.1% loss of MT, whereas women experienced a 13.4% loss. Adjusted annualized decreases in MT were 2-5 times greater than the loss of muscle CSA in those who lost weight and in those who remained weight-stable. Weight gain did not prevent the loss of MT, despite a small increase in muscle CSA. Only those who gained weight had an increase in SF (P < 0.001), whereas those who lost weight also lost SF (P < 0.001). There was an age-related increase in IMF in men and women (P < 0.001), and IMF increased in those who lost weight, gained weight, or remained weight-stable (all P < 0.001). Conclusions: Loss of leg MT in older adults is greater than muscle CSA loss, which suggests a decrease in MQ. Additionally, aging is associated with an increase in IMF regardless of changes in weight or SF. Am J Clin Nutr 2009;90:1579-85.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据