Sébastien Barbat-Artigas1, Charlotte H Pion1, Jean-Philippe Leduc-Gaudet2, Yves Rolland3, Mylène Aubertin-Leheudre4. 1. Département de Biologie, Université du Québec À Montréal, Montréal, Canada; Groupe de Recherche en Activité Physique Adaptée, Université du Québec À Montréal, Montréal, Canada; Centre de Recherche de l'Institut Universitaire de Gériatrie de Montréal, Montréal, Canada. 2. Groupe de Recherche en Activité Physique Adaptée, Université du Québec À Montréal, Montréal, Canada; Département de Kinanthropologie, Université du Québec À Montréal, Montréal, Canada; Centre de Recherche de l'Institut Universitaire de Gériatrie de Montréal, Montréal, Canada. 3. Service de Médecine Interne et de Gérontologie Clinique, Gérontopôle de Toulouse, Hôpital La Grave-Casselardit, Toulouse, France; Unité Inserm 1027, Faculté de médecine de Toulouse, Toulouse, France. 4. Groupe de Recherche en Activité Physique Adaptée, Université du Québec À Montréal, Montréal, Canada; Département de Kinanthropologie, Université du Québec À Montréal, Montréal, Canada; Centre de Recherche de l'Institut Universitaire de Gériatrie de Montréal, Montréal, Canada. Electronic address: aubertin-leheudre.mylene@uqam.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Divergent conclusions emerge from the literature regarding the relationship between muscle quality (defined as muscle strength per unit of muscle mass) and physical function. These contrasted results may be due to the influence of factors such as age, obesity, and muscle mass itself. Consequently, the aim of the present study was to explore the role of these factors in the relationship between muscle quality (MQ) and physical function. METHODS: Data are from 312 individuals (97 men and 215 women) aged 50 years and older. Body composition (dual energy X-ray absorptiometry) and knee extension strength of the right leg (1 repetition maximum) were assessed. Appendicular lean body mass index (AppLBMI) and MQ (knee extension strength /right leg lean mass) were calculated. A composite score of physical function was created based on the timed up-and-go, alternate step, sit-to-stand, and balance tests. RESULTS: MQ was significantly associated with physical function when AppLBMI (β = 0.179; P = .004) and body mass index (BMI) (β = 0.178; P = .003), but not age (β = 0.065; P = .26), were included in regression analysis. AppLBMI (β = 0.221; P < .001), BMI (β = 0.234; P < .001), and age (β = 0.134; P = .018) significantly interacted with MQ to determine physical function. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that muscle mass, obesity, and age influence the relationship between MQ and physical function, suggesting that these factors should be taken into account when interpreting MQ. Even so, higher levels of MQ were associated with higher physical function scores. Nutritional and physical activity interventions may be designed in this regard.
BACKGROUND: Divergent conclusions emerge from the literature regarding the relationship between muscle quality (defined as muscle strength per unit of muscle mass) and physical function. These contrasted results may be due to the influence of factors such as age, obesity, and muscle mass itself. Consequently, the aim of the present study was to explore the role of these factors in the relationship between muscle quality (MQ) and physical function. METHODS: Data are from 312 individuals (97 men and 215 women) aged 50 years and older. Body composition (dual energy X-ray absorptiometry) and knee extension strength of the right leg (1 repetition maximum) were assessed. Appendicular lean body mass index (AppLBMI) and MQ (knee extension strength /right leg lean mass) were calculated. A composite score of physical function was created based on the timed up-and-go, alternate step, sit-to-stand, and balance tests. RESULTS:MQ was significantly associated with physical function when AppLBMI (β = 0.179; P = .004) and body mass index (BMI) (β = 0.178; P = .003), but not age (β = 0.065; P = .26), were included in regression analysis. AppLBMI (β = 0.221; P < .001), BMI (β = 0.234; P < .001), and age (β = 0.134; P = .018) significantly interacted with MQ to determine physical function. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that muscle mass, obesity, and age influence the relationship between MQ and physical function, suggesting that these factors should be taken into account when interpreting MQ. Even so, higher levels of MQ were associated with higher physical function scores. Nutritional and physical activity interventions may be designed in this regard.
Authors: Stephen D Anton; Adam J Woods; Tetso Ashizawa; Diana Barb; Thomas W Buford; Christy S Carter; David J Clark; Ronald A Cohen; Duane B Corbett; Yenisel Cruz-Almeida; Vonetta Dotson; Natalie Ebner; Philip A Efron; Roger B Fillingim; Thomas C Foster; David M Gundermann; Anna-Maria Joseph; Christy Karabetian; Christiaan Leeuwenburgh; Todd M Manini; Michael Marsiske; Robert T Mankowski; Heather L Mutchie; Michael G Perri; Sanjay Ranka; Parisa Rashidi; Bhanuprasad Sandesara; Philip J Scarpace; Kimberly T Sibille; Laurence M Solberg; Shinichi Someya; Connie Uphold; Stephanie Wohlgemuth; Samuel Shangwu Wu; Marco Pahor Journal: Ageing Res Rev Date: 2015-10-14 Impact factor: 10.895
Authors: Chunliu Pan; Neha Jaiswal Agrawal; Yanni Zulia; Shalini Singh; Kai Sha; James L Mohler; Kevin H Eng; Joe V Chakkalakal; John J Krolewski; Kent L Nastiuk Journal: JCI Insight Date: 2020-03-26
Authors: Regis Radaelli; Eurico N Wilhelm; Cíntia E Botton; Anderson Rech; Martim Bottaro; Lee E Brown; Ronei S Pinto Journal: Age (Dordr) Date: 2014-10-31
Authors: Jean-Yves Reginster; Cyrus Cooper; René Rizzoli; John A Kanis; Geoff Appelboom; Ivan Bautmans; Heike A Bischoff-Ferrari; Maarten Boers; Maria Luisa Brandi; Olivier Bruyère; Antonio Cherubini; Bruno Flamion; Roger A Fielding; Andrea Ildiko Gasparik; Luc Van Loon; Eugene McCloskey; Bruce H Mitlak; Alberto Pilotto; Suzanne Reiter-Niesert; Yves Rolland; Yannis Tsouderos; Marjolein Visser; Alfonso J Cruz-Jentoft Journal: Aging Clin Exp Res Date: 2015-12-30 Impact factor: 3.636
Authors: Hellen C G Nabuco; Crisieli M Tomeleri; Paulo Sugihara Junior; Rodrigo R Fernandes; Edilaine F Cavalcante; Melissa Antunes; Alex S Ribeiro; Denilson C Teixeira; Analiza M Silva; Luís B Sardinha; Edilson S Cyrino Journal: Nutrients Date: 2018-05-03 Impact factor: 5.717