4.3 Article

Ethnicity-Related Skeletal Muscle Differences Across the Lifespan

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HUMAN BIOLOGY
卷 22, 期 1, 页码 76-82

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ajhb.20956

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [NIDDK-42618]
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DIABETES AND DIGESTIVE AND KIDNEY DISEASES [P01DK042618] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Despite research and clinical significance, limited information is available on the relations between skeletal muscle (SM) and age in adults, specifically among Hispanics, African Americans (AA), and Asians. The aim was to investigate possible sex and ethnic SM differences in adults over an age range of 60 years. Subjects were 468 male and 1280 female adults (>= 18 years). SM was estimated based on DXA-measured appendicular lean-soft tissue using a previously reported prediction equation. Locally weighted regression smoothing lines were fit to examine SM trends and to localize age cutoffs; piecewise multiple linear regression models were then applied, controlling for weight and height, to identify age cutoffs for sex-specific changes in SM among the ethnic groups. The age of 27 years was identified for women and men as the cut-off after which SM starts to show a negative association with age. Both sexes had a similar ethnic pattern for expected mean SM at the age cutoff, with AA presenting the highest SM values, followed by Whites, Hispanics, and Asians. After the age cutoffs, the lowering of SM differed by ethnicity and sex: AA women showed the greatest SM lowering whereas Hispanic women had the least. Hispanic men tended to show a higher negative association of SM with age followed by AA and Whites. To conclude, significant sex and ethnic differences exist in the magnitude of negative associations of SM with age >27 years. Further studies using a longitudinal design are needed to explore the associations of ethnicity-related decline of SM with health risks. Am. J. Hum. Biol. 22:76-82, 2010. (C) 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

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

4.3
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