4.7 Article

Protein intake and exercise for optimal muscle function with aging: Recommendations from the ESPEN Expert Group

期刊

CLINICAL NUTRITION
卷 33, 期 6, 页码 929-936

出版社

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE
DOI: 10.1016/j.clnu.2014.04.007

关键词

Aging; Nutrition; Protein; Amino acids; Exercise; Sarcopenic obesity

资金

  1. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute [R01HL095903]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aging process is associated with gradual and progressive loss of muscle mass along with lowered strength and physical endurance. This condition, sarcopenia, has been widely observed with aging in sedentary adults. Regular aerobic and resistance exercise programs have been shown to counteract most aspects of sarcopenia. In addition, good nutrition, especially adequate protein and energy intake, can help limit and treat age-related declines in muscle mass, strength, and functional abilities. Protein nutrition in combination with exercise is considered optimal for maintaining muscle function. With the goal of providing recommendations for health care professionals to help older adults sustain muscle strength and function into older age, the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) hosted a Workshop on Protein Requirements in the Elderly, held in Dubrovnik on November 24 and 25, 2013. Based on the evidence presented and discussed, the following recommendations are made (a) for healthy older people, the diet should provide at least 1.0-1.2 g protein/kg body weight/day, (b) for older people who are malnourished or at risk of malnutrition because they have acute or chronic illness, the diet should provide 1.2-1.5 g protein/kg body weight/day, with even higher intake for individuals with severe illness or injury, and (c) daily physical activity or exercise (resistance training, aerobic exercise) should be undertaken by all older people, for as long as possible. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd and European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism. All rights reserved.

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