Ilse Reinders1, Rachel A Murphy2, Annemarie Koster3, Ingeborg A Brouwer4, Marjolein Visser5, Melissa E Garcia2, Lenore J Launer2, Kristin Siggeirsdottir6, Gudny Eiriksdottir6, Palmi V Jonsson7, Vilmundur Gudnason8, Tamara B Harris2. 1. Laboratory of Epidemiology and Population Sciences, National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. Department of Health Sciences and the EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands. ilse.reinders@nih.gov. 2. Laboratory of Epidemiology and Population Sciences, National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 3. Department of Social Medicine, School for Public Health and Primary Care (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Health Sciences and the EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Health Sciences and the EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics and the EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 6. Icelandic Heart Association Research Institute, Kopavogur, Iceland. 7. Department of Geriatrics, Landspitali National University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine, University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland. 8. Icelandic Heart Association Research Institute, Kopavogur, Iceland. Faculty of Medicine, University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Aging is associated with increased risk of reduced mobility. However, data on muscle components in relation to subjective and objective indicators of disability is limited. METHODS: Data were from 2,725 participants (43% men) aged 74.8±4.7 years from the AGES-Reykjavik Study. At baseline, maximal isometric thigh strength (dynamometer chair), and midthigh muscle area and muscle fat infiltration were assessed with computed tomography. Usual 6 m gait speed and mobility disability were assessed at baseline and after 5.2±0.3 years. Incident mobility disability was defined as having much difficulty or unable to walk 500 m or climb-up 10 steps. A decrease of ≥0.1 m/s in gait speed was considered clinically relevant. RESULTS: Greater strength and area were protective for mobility disability risk and gait speed decline. After adjustment for other muscle components, greater strength was independently associated with lower mobility disability risk in women odds ratios (OR) 0.78 (95% CI 0.62, 0.99), and lower decline in gait speed risk among both men OR 0.64 (0.54, 0.76), and women OR 0.72 (0.62, 0.82). Larger muscle area was independently associated with lower mobility disability risk in women OR 0.67 (0.52, 0.87) and lower decline in gait speed risk in men OR 0.74 (0.61, 0.91). CONCLUSIONS: Greater muscle strength and area were independently associated with 15-30% decreased risk of mobility disability in women and gait speed decline in men. Among women, greater muscle strength was also associated with lower risk of gait speed decline. Interventions aimed at maintaining muscle strength and area in old age might delay functional decline. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Gerontological Society of America 2015.
BACKGROUND: Aging is associated with increased risk of reduced mobility. However, data on muscle components in relation to subjective and objective indicators of disability is limited. METHODS: Data were from 2,725 participants (43% men) aged 74.8±4.7 years from the AGES-Reykjavik Study. At baseline, maximal isometric thigh strength (dynamometer chair), and midthigh muscle area and muscle fat infiltration were assessed with computed tomography. Usual 6 m gait speed and mobility disability were assessed at baseline and after 5.2±0.3 years. Incident mobility disability was defined as having much difficulty or unable to walk 500 m or climb-up 10 steps. A decrease of ≥0.1 m/s in gait speed was considered clinically relevant. RESULTS: Greater strength and area were protective for mobility disability risk and gait speed decline. After adjustment for other muscle components, greater strength was independently associated with lower mobility disability risk in women odds ratios (OR) 0.78 (95% CI 0.62, 0.99), and lower decline in gait speed risk among both men OR 0.64 (0.54, 0.76), and women OR 0.72 (0.62, 0.82). Larger muscle area was independently associated with lower mobility disability risk in women OR 0.67 (0.52, 0.87) and lower decline in gait speed risk in men OR 0.74 (0.61, 0.91). CONCLUSIONS: Greater muscle strength and area were independently associated with 15-30% decreased risk of mobility disability in women and gait speed decline in men. Among women, greater muscle strength was also associated with lower risk of gait speed decline. Interventions aimed at maintaining muscle strength and area in old age might delay functional decline. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Gerontological Society of America 2015.
Authors: B H Goodpaster; C L Carlson; M Visser; D E Kelley; A Scherzinger; T B Harris; E Stamm; A B Newman Journal: J Appl Physiol (1985) Date: 2001-06
Authors: Stephanie Studenski; Subashan Perera; Kushang Patel; Caterina Rosano; Kimberly Faulkner; Marco Inzitari; Jennifer Brach; Julie Chandler; Peggy Cawthon; Elizabeth Barrett Connor; Michael Nevitt; Marjolein Visser; Stephen Kritchevsky; Stefania Badinelli; Tamara Harris; Anne B Newman; Jane Cauley; Luigi Ferrucci; Jack Guralnik Journal: JAMA Date: 2011-01-05 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Marco Pahor; Jack M Guralnik; Walter T Ambrosius; Steven Blair; Denise E Bonds; Timothy S Church; Mark A Espeland; Roger A Fielding; Thomas M Gill; Erik J Groessl; Abby C King; Stephen B Kritchevsky; Todd M Manini; Mary M McDermott; Michael E Miller; Anne B Newman; W Jack Rejeski; Kaycee M Sink; Jeff D Williamson Journal: JAMA Date: 2014-06-18 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Anne B Newman; Catherine L Haggerty; Bret Goodpaster; Tamara Harris; Steve Kritchevsky; Michael Nevitt; Toni P Miles; Marjolein Visser Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2003-03 Impact factor: 5.562
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: Kristen M Beavers; Daniel P Beavers; Beverly A Nesbit; Walter T Ambrosius; Anthony P Marsh; Barbara J Nicklas; W Jack Rejeski Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2013-09-20 Impact factor: 5.002
Authors: Robert M Blew; Vinson R Lee; Jennifer W Bea; Megan C Hetherington-Rauth; Jean-Phillipe Galons; Maria I Altbach; Timothy G Lohman; Scott B Going Journal: J Clin Densitom Date: 2018-03-23 Impact factor: 2.617
Authors: Samannaaz S Khoja; Charity G Moore; Bret H Goodpaster; Anthony Delitto; Sara R Piva Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2018-02-06 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: Baback Roshanravan; Kushang V Patel; Linda F Fried; Cassianne Robinson-Cohen; Ian H de Boer; Tamara Harris; Rachel A Murphy; Suzanne Satterfield; Bret H Goodpaster; Michael Shlipak; Anne B Newman; Bryan Kestenbaum Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2016-10-21 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Eleanor M Simonsick; Nancy W Glynn; Gerald J Jerome; Michelle Shardell; Jennifer A Schrack; Luigi Ferrucci Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2016-06-02 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Seongjin Choi; David A Reiter; Michelle Shardell; Eleanor M Simonsick; Stephanie Studenski; Richard G Spencer; Kenneth W Fishbein; Luigi Ferrucci Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2016-04-13 Impact factor: 6.053