A O Brady1, C R Straight, M D Schmidt, E M Evans. 1. Anne O. Brady, PhD, University of Georgia, Department of Kinesiology, 330 River Road, Athens, GA 30602, USA, anneobrady@gmail.com, Phone: 678-938-8862.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the impact of body mass index (BMI) (normal weight, overweight, obese) on the relationship between muscle quality (MQ) and physical function in community-dwelling older women. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: University research laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: Community-dwelling older women (n = 94, 73.6 ± 5.4 y) stratified by BMI (normal weight: 20.0-24.9 kg/m2; overweight: 25.0-29.9 kg/m2; obese: ≥ 30.0 kg/m2). MEASUREMENTS: Body mass index using height and weight, leg extension power via the Nottingham power rig, body composition using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, and physical function (6-minute walk, 8-foot up-and-go, 30-second chair stand). Muscle quality was defined as leg power (watts) normalized for lower-body mineral-free lean mass (kg). RESULTS: Following adjustments for covariates, muscle quality was significantly higher in women of normal BMI compared to overweight (10.0 ± 0.4 vs. 8.7 ± 0.4 watts/kg, p = 0.03). Muscle quality was a significant predictor of performance on the 6-minute walk and 8-foot up-and-go in normal and overweight women (all p < 0.05) and performance on the 30-second chair stand in normal and obese women (both p < 0.05). Body mass index did not significantly impact the association between MQ and physical function (all p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Muscle quality varies by BMI, yet the relationship to physical function is not significantly different across BMI groups. The results imply that interventions that increase MQ in older women may improve physical function, regardless of BMI.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the impact of body mass index (BMI) (normal weight, overweight, obese) on the relationship between muscle quality (MQ) and physical function in community-dwelling older women. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: University research laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: Community-dwelling older women (n = 94, 73.6 ± 5.4 y) stratified by BMI (normal weight: 20.0-24.9 kg/m2; overweight: 25.0-29.9 kg/m2; obese: ≥ 30.0 kg/m2). MEASUREMENTS: Body mass index using height and weight, leg extension power via the Nottingham power rig, body composition using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, and physical function (6-minute walk, 8-foot up-and-go, 30-second chair stand). Muscle quality was defined as leg power (watts) normalized for lower-body mineral-free lean mass (kg). RESULTS: Following adjustments for covariates, muscle quality was significantly higher in women of normal BMI compared to overweight (10.0 ± 0.4 vs. 8.7 ± 0.4 watts/kg, p = 0.03). Muscle quality was a significant predictor of performance on the 6-minute walk and 8-foot up-and-go in normal and overweight women (all p < 0.05) and performance on the 30-second chair stand in normal and obesewomen (both p < 0.05). Body mass index did not significantly impact the association between MQ and physical function (all p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Muscle quality varies by BMI, yet the relationship to physical function is not significantly different across BMI groups. The results imply that interventions that increase MQ in older women may improve physical function, regardless of BMI.
Authors: V E Arango-Lopera; P Arroyo; L M Gutiérrez-Robledo; M U Pérez-Zepeda; M Cesari Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: Catherine M Jankowski; Wendolyn S Gozansky; Rachael E Van Pelt; Margaret L Schenkman; Pamela Wolfe; Robert S Schwartz; Wendy M Kohrt Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2008-02-21 Impact factor: 5.002
Authors: B L Tracy; F M Ivey; D Hurlbut; G F Martel; J T Lemmer; E L Siegel; E J Metter; J L Fozard; J L Fleg; B F Hurley Journal: J Appl Physiol (1985) Date: 1999-01
Authors: Maren S Fragala; M H Clark; Stephen J Walsh; Alison Kleppinger; James O Judge; George A Kuchel; Anne M Kenny Journal: Gend Med Date: 2012-11-02
Authors: I Bondoc; S K Cochrane; T S Church; P Dahinden; S Hettwer; F-C Hsu; R S Stafford; M Pahor; T W Buford Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: Chad R Straight; Thomas B Voigt; Anudeep V Jala; John D Chase; Olivia R Ringham; Philip A Ades; Michael J Toth; Mark S Miller Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2019-11-13 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Barbara Resnick; J Richard Hebel; Ann L Gruber-Baldini; Gregory E Hicks; Marc C Hochberg; Denise Orwig; Marty Eastlack; Jay Magaziner Journal: Arch Gerontol Geriatr Date: 2018-02-15 Impact factor: 3.250
Authors: Daniel Jerez-Mayorga; Luis Javier Chirosa Ríos; Alvaro Reyes; Pedro Delgado-Floody; Ramon Machado Payer; Isabel María Guisado Requena Journal: PeerJ Date: 2019-08-07 Impact factor: 2.984
Authors: Francisco Javier Domínguez-Muñoz; José Carmelo Adsuar; Jorge Carlos-Vivas; Santos Villafaina; Miguel Angel Garcia-Gordillo; Miguel Ángel Hernández-Mocholi; Daniel Collado-Mateo; Narcis Gusi Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-03-19 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Pablo Jorge Marcos-Pardo; Noelia González-Gálvez; Abraham López-Vivancos; Alejandro Espeso-García; Luis Manuel Martínez-Aranda; Gemma María Gea-García; Francisco Javier Orquín-Castrillón; Ana Carbonell-Baeza; José Daniel Jiménez-García; Daniel Velázquez-Díaz; Cristina Cadenas-Sanchez; Emanuele Isidori; Chiara Fossati; Fabio Pigozzi; Lorenzo Rum; Catherine Norton; Audrey Tierney; Ilvis Äbelkalns; Agita Klempere-Sipjagina; Juris Porozovs; Heikki Hannola; Niko Niemisalo; Leo Hokka; David Jiménez-Pavón; Raquel Vaquero-Cristóbal Journal: Nutrients Date: 2020-12-22 Impact factor: 5.717