OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between protein intake and dynapenia. DESIGN: A cross-sectional/observational study. SETTING: Department of Kinanthropology at the University of Quebec at Montreal. PARTICIPANTS: Seventy-two non-frail postmenopausal women aged between 50 to 75 years were recruited. MEASUREMENTS: Body weight (BW), lean body mass (LBM; %) and skeletal muscle mass (bio-electrical impedancemetry analysis), maximum voluntary handgrip strength (using hand dynamometer), aerobic capacity (VO2peak) and dietary intake were measured. Women were divided according to dynapenia criteria. RESULTS: The strongest correlation between muscle strength and protein intake was observed when we express the amount of protein in g/d/BW. No differences for age, BMI, status of menopause, fat mass and VO2peak were observed between non-dynapenic, type I dynapenic and type II dynapenic women, independently of the criteria used. We observed significant differences in protein intake (g/d/BW) between non-dynapenic and type II dynapenic (p<0.01) as well as between type I dynapenic and type II dynapenic (p<0.01) when dynapenia was expressed in kg/BW and in kg/LBM, respectively. It should be noted that no differences in LBM between the three groups were observed when dynapenia was expressed in kg/BW and kg/LBM. Protein intake for all groups respected the RDA of 0.8 to 1.2 g/d/BW (non-dynapenic: 1.44/1.38; type I dynapenic: 1.30/1.33; type II dynapenic: 1.05/1.08 g/d/BW). CONCLUSIONS: Protein intake seems to play a role in the development of dynapenia particularly at the level of type II dynapenia. Therefore, an increase in the recommended daily allowance for protein intake may be warranted.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between protein intake and dynapenia. DESIGN: A cross-sectional/observational study. SETTING: Department of Kinanthropology at the University of Quebec at Montreal. PARTICIPANTS: Seventy-two non-frail postmenopausal women aged between 50 to 75 years were recruited. MEASUREMENTS: Body weight (BW), lean body mass (LBM; %) and skeletal muscle mass (bio-electrical impedancemetry analysis), maximum voluntary handgrip strength (using hand dynamometer), aerobic capacity (VO2peak) and dietary intake were measured. Women were divided according to dynapenia criteria. RESULTS: The strongest correlation between muscle strength and protein intake was observed when we express the amount of protein in g/d/BW. No differences for age, BMI, status of menopause, fat mass and VO2peak were observed between non-dynapenic, type I dynapenic and type II dynapenicwomen, independently of the criteria used. We observed significant differences in protein intake (g/d/BW) between non-dynapenic and type II dynapenic (p<0.01) as well as between type I dynapenic and type II dynapenic (p<0.01) when dynapenia was expressed in kg/BW and in kg/LBM, respectively. It should be noted that no differences in LBM between the three groups were observed when dynapenia was expressed in kg/BW and kg/LBM. Protein intake for all groups respected the RDA of 0.8 to 1.2 g/d/BW (non-dynapenic: 1.44/1.38; type I dynapenic: 1.30/1.33; type II dynapenic: 1.05/1.08 g/d/BW). CONCLUSIONS: Protein intake seems to play a role in the development of dynapenia particularly at the level of type II dynapenia. Therefore, an increase in the recommended daily allowance for protein intake may be warranted.
Authors: V A Hughes; W R Frontera; M Wood; W J Evans; G E Dallal; R Roubenoff; M A Fiatarone Singh Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2001-05 Impact factor: 6.053
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: F Landi; R Calvani; M Tosato; A M Martone; A Picca; E Ortolani; G Savera; S Salini; M Ramaschi; R Bernabei; E Marzetti Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2017 Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: A P Rossi; R Micciolo; S Rubele; F Fantin; C Caliari; E Zoico; G Mazzali; E Ferrari; S Volpato; M Zamboni Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2017 Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: Katie R Hirsch; Andrew J Tweedell; Craig R Kleinberg; Gena R Gerstner; T J Barnette; Jacob A Mota; Abbie E Smith-Ryan; Eric D Ryan Journal: J Am Coll Nutr Date: 2018-04-27 Impact factor: 3.169
Authors: Jeannette M Beasley; Betsy C Wertheim; Andrea Z LaCroix; Ross L Prentice; Marian L Neuhouser; Lesley F Tinker; Stephen Kritchevsky; James M Shikany; Charles Eaton; Zhao Chen; Cynthia A Thomson Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2013-10-28 Impact factor: 5.562