Ericka N Merriwether1, Helen H Host, David R Sinacore. 1. Applied Kinesiology Laboratory, Program in Physical Therapy, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri, MO 63108, USA. emerriwether@wustl.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sarcopenic (SP) indices are used to estimate loss of skeletal lean mass and function and to determine the prevalence of SP in older adults. It is believed that older women and men with lower skeletal lean mass will be weaker and have more functional limitations. PURPOSE: (1) To classify community-dwelling older adults using 2 common SP indices: appendicular lean mass/height² (ALM/ht²) and skeletal muscle index (SMI), and (2) to determine each indices value as indicators of lower extremity strength and physical function. METHODS: The sample consisted of 154 community-dwelling older adults (111 women and 43 men; mean age = 82.4, SD = 3.6 years; mean body mass index = 25.8, SD = 4.4 kg/m). Each underwent whole-body dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry to assess lean mass. The 9-item modified Physical Performance Test and self-selected walking speed were used to evaluate function. Lower extremity strength was measured bilaterally using isokinetic dynamometry. RESULTS: The ALM/ht² index classified 75 participants (49%) as SP and 79 (51%) as nonsarcopenic (NSP). The SMI classified 129 participants (84%) as SP and 25 (16%) as NSP. There were no differences in functional measures between groups by gender using either index after classification. The ALM/ht index was more strongly correlated with peak torque of all lower extremity muscle groups (r = 0.276-0.487) compared with the SMI (r = 0.103-0.344). There was no relationship between SP index and physical function. DISCUSSION: There were marked differences in how 2 SP indices classified community-dwelling older adults. Lower extremity strength was lower in older women classified as SP than NSP using the ALM/ht index, but LE strength was not different in older men. However, no lower extremity strength differences were observed between SP and NSP men or women using the SMI classification. None of the SP index uniformly identified community-dwelling older adults with functional or strength deficits. CONCLUSIONS: Detection of strength deficits using SP indices alone may be gender-specific and may not reflect strength or functional decline in community-dwelling men aged 80 years or older. Given associations between lower extremity strength and physical function, strength measures remain a better predictor of physical performance than SP indices for community-dwelling older men and women.
BACKGROUND: Sarcopenic (SP) indices are used to estimate loss of skeletal lean mass and function and to determine the prevalence of SP in older adults. It is believed that older women and men with lower skeletal lean mass will be weaker and have more functional limitations. PURPOSE: (1) To classify community-dwelling older adults using 2 common SP indices: appendicular lean mass/height² (ALM/ht²) and skeletal muscle index (SMI), and (2) to determine each indices value as indicators of lower extremity strength and physical function. METHODS: The sample consisted of 154 community-dwelling older adults (111 women and 43 men; mean age = 82.4, SD = 3.6 years; mean body mass index = 25.8, SD = 4.4 kg/m). Each underwent whole-body dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry to assess lean mass. The 9-item modified Physical Performance Test and self-selected walking speed were used to evaluate function. Lower extremity strength was measured bilaterally using isokinetic dynamometry. RESULTS: The ALM/ht² index classified 75 participants (49%) as SP and 79 (51%) as nonsarcopenic (NSP). The SMI classified 129 participants (84%) as SP and 25 (16%) as NSP. There were no differences in functional measures between groups by gender using either index after classification. The ALM/ht index was more strongly correlated with peak torque of all lower extremity muscle groups (r = 0.276-0.487) compared with the SMI (r = 0.103-0.344). There was no relationship between SP index and physical function. DISCUSSION: There were marked differences in how 2 SP indices classified community-dwelling older adults. Lower extremity strength was lower in older women classified as SP than NSP using the ALM/ht index, but LE strength was not different in older men. However, no lower extremity strength differences were observed between SP and NSP men or women using the SMI classification. None of the SP index uniformly identified community-dwelling older adults with functional or strength deficits. CONCLUSIONS: Detection of strength deficits using SP indices alone may be gender-specific and may not reflect strength or functional decline in community-dwelling men aged 80 years or older. Given associations between lower extremity strength and physical function, strength measures remain a better predictor of physical performance than SP indices for community-dwelling older men and women.
Authors: Jaehee Kim; ZiMian Wang; Steven B Heymsfield; Richard N Baumgartner; Dympna Gallagher Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Ellen F Binder; Kenneth B Schechtman; Ali A Ehsani; Karen Steger-May; Marybeth Brown; David R Sinacore; Kevin E Yarasheski; John O Holloszy Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: L P Fried; C M Tangen; J Walston; A B Newman; C Hirsch; J Gottdiener; T Seeman; R Tracy; W J Kop; G Burke; M A McBurnie Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2001-03 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Marjolein Visser; Stephen B Kritchevsky; Bret H Goodpaster; Anne B Newman; Michael Nevitt; Elizabeth Stamm; Tamara B Harris Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: M Visser; A B Newman; M C Nevitt; S B Kritchevsky; E B Stamm; B H Goodpaster; T B Harris Journal: Ann N Y Acad Sci Date: 2000-05 Impact factor: 5.691
Authors: Adam J Bittel; Kathryn L Bohnert; Dominic N Reeds; Linda R Peterson; Lisa de Las Fuentes; Manuela Corti; Carolyn L Taylor; Barry J Byrne; W Todd Cade Journal: JIMD Rep Date: 2018-04-14
Authors: Adam J Bittel; Daniel C Bittel; Lori J Tuttle; Michael J Strube; Michael J Mueller; W Todd Cade; David R Sinacore Journal: J Geriatr Phys Ther Date: 2017 Apr/Jun Impact factor: 3.381
Authors: Roma Krzymińska-Siemaszko; Natasza Czepulis; Aleksandra Suwalska; Lechoslaw B Dworak; Anna Fryzowicz; Beata Madej-Dziechciarow; Katarzyna Wieczorowska-Tobis Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2014-11-25 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Daniel J Wilkinson; Syed S I Bukhari; Bethan E Phillips; Marie C Limb; Jessica Cegielski; Matthew S Brook; Debbie Rankin; William K Mitchell; Hisamine Kobayashi; John P Williams; Jonathan Lund; Paul L Greenhaff; Kenneth Smith; Philip J Atherton Journal: Clin Nutr Date: 2017-09-23 Impact factor: 7.324
Authors: Ali A Dabaja; Matthew S Wosnitzer; Anna Mielnik; Alexander Bolyakov; Peter N Schlegel; Darius A Paduch Journal: Asian J Androl Date: 2014 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 3.285
Authors: Fanny Buckinx; Francesco Landi; Matteo Cesari; Roger A Fielding; Marjolein Visser; Klaus Engelke; Stefania Maggi; Elaine Dennison; Nasser M Al-Daghri; Sophie Allepaerts; Jurgen Bauer; Ivan Bautmans; Maria Luisa Brandi; Olivier Bruyère; Tommy Cederholm; Francesca Cerreta; Antonio Cherubini; Cyrus Cooper; Alphonso Cruz-Jentoft; Eugene McCloskey; Bess Dawson-Hughes; Jean-Marc Kaufman; Andrea Laslop; Jean Petermans; Jean-Yves Reginster; René Rizzoli; Sian Robinson; Yves Rolland; Ricardo Rueda; Bruno Vellas; John A Kanis Journal: J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle Date: 2018-01-19 Impact factor: 12.910