Ilse Reinders1,2, Rachel A Murphy1, Kathryn R Martin1,3, Ingeborg A Brouwer2, Marjolein Visser2,4, Daniel K White5, Anne B Newman6, Denise K Houston7, Alka M Kanaya8, Daniel S Nagin9, Tamara B Harris1. 1. Laboratory of Epidemiology and Population Science, Intramural Research Program, National Institute on Aging, Bethesda, Maryland. 2. Department of Health Sciences and the EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 3. Epidemiology Group, School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK. 4. Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, Internal Medicine, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 5. Department of Physical Therapy, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware. 6. Department of Epidemiology, Center for Aging and Population Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 7. Sticht Center on Aging, Section on Gerontology and Geriatric Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina. 8. Division of General Internal Medicine, University of California at San Francisco, San Francisco, California. 9. Heinz College, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To examine body mass index (BMI) trajectories with change in lean mass and physical function in old age. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Health, Aging and Body Composition Study. PARTICIPANTS: Black and white men (n = 482) and women (n = 516) aged 73.1 ± 2.7 and initially free of disability. MEASUREMENTS: A group-based trajectory model was used to determine BMI trajectories, the path a person's BMI followed over 9 years. Lean mass, gait speed, grip strength, and knee extension strength were assessed at baseline and after 9 years, and relative changes were calculated. Multivariable linear regression was used to determine associations between trajectories and relative change in lean mass and physical function. RESULTS: Four BMI trajectories were identified for men and four for women. Although all demonstrated a decline in BMI, the rate of decline differed according to trajectory for women only. Men in Trajectory 4 (mean BMI at baseline 33.9 ± 2.3 kg/m(2) ) declined more than those in Trajectory 1 (mean BMI at baseline 22.9 ± 1.6 kg/m(2) ) in gait speed (-9.91%, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -15.15% to -4.67%) and leg strength (-8.63%, 95% CI = -15.62% to -1.64%). Women in Trajectory 4 (mean BMI at baseline 34.9 ± 3.0 kg/m(2) ) had greater losses than those in Trajectory 1 (mean BMI at baseline 20.5 ± 1.6 kg/m(2) ) in lean mass in the arms (-3.19%, 95% CI = -6.16% to -0.23%). No other associations were observed. CONCLUSION: Obese men had the highest risk of decline in physical function despite similar weight loss between trajectories, whereas overweight and obese women who lost the most weight had the greatest risk of lean mass loss. The weight at which a person enters old age is informative for predicting loss in lean mass and physical function, illustrating the importance of monitoring weight.
OBJECTIVES: To examine body mass index (BMI) trajectories with change in lean mass and physical function in old age. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Health, Aging and Body Composition Study. PARTICIPANTS: Black and white men (n = 482) and women (n = 516) aged 73.1 ± 2.7 and initially free of disability. MEASUREMENTS: A group-based trajectory model was used to determine BMI trajectories, the path a person's BMI followed over 9 years. Lean mass, gait speed, grip strength, and knee extension strength were assessed at baseline and after 9 years, and relative changes were calculated. Multivariable linear regression was used to determine associations between trajectories and relative change in lean mass and physical function. RESULTS: Four BMI trajectories were identified for men and four for women. Although all demonstrated a decline in BMI, the rate of decline differed according to trajectory for women only. Men in Trajectory 4 (mean BMI at baseline 33.9 ± 2.3 kg/m(2) ) declined more than those in Trajectory 1 (mean BMI at baseline 22.9 ± 1.6 kg/m(2) ) in gait speed (-9.91%, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -15.15% to -4.67%) and leg strength (-8.63%, 95% CI = -15.62% to -1.64%). Women in Trajectory 4 (mean BMI at baseline 34.9 ± 3.0 kg/m(2) ) had greater losses than those in Trajectory 1 (mean BMI at baseline 20.5 ± 1.6 kg/m(2) ) in lean mass in the arms (-3.19%, 95% CI = -6.16% to -0.23%). No other associations were observed. CONCLUSION:Obesemen had the highest risk of decline in physical function despite similar weight loss between trajectories, whereas overweight and obesewomen who lost the most weight had the greatest risk of lean mass loss. The weight at which a person enters old age is informative for predicting loss in lean mass and physical function, illustrating the importance of monitoring weight.
Authors: L M Salamone; T Fuerst; M Visser; M Kern; T Lang; M Dockrell; J A Cauley; M Nevitt; F Tylavsky; T G Lohman Journal: J Appl Physiol (1985) Date: 2000-07
Authors: Jennifer A Schrack; Vadim Zipunnikov; Jeff Goldsmith; Jiawei Bai; Eleanor M Simonsick; Ciprian Crainiceanu; Luigi Ferrucci Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2013-12-14 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Lisa A Tseng; Matthew J Delmonico; Marjolein Visser; Robert M Boudreau; Bret H Goodpaster; Ann V Schwartz; Eleanor M Simonsick; Suzanne Satterfield; Tamara Harris; Anne B Newman Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2013-05-16 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Jung Sun Lee; Marjolein Visser; Frances A Tylavsky; Stephen B Kritchevsky; Ann V Schwartz; Nadine Sahyoun; Tamara B Harris; Anne B Newman Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2009-04-14 Impact factor: 6.053
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: Shirley M Bluethmann; Wayne Foo; Renate M Winkels; Scherezade K Mama; Kathryn H Schmitz Journal: J Aging Phys Act Date: 2020-04-24 Impact factor: 1.961
Authors: O Alison Potok; Ronit Katz; Nisha Bansal; David S Siscovick; Michelle C Odden; Joachim H Ix; Michael G Shlipak; Dena E Rifkin Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2020-07-16 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Alexandra M V Wennberg; Rodolfo Savica; Clinton E Hagen; Rosebud O Roberts; David S Knopman; John H Hollman; Prashanthi Vemuri; Clifford R Jack; Ronald C Petersen; Michelle M Mielke Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2016-11-21 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Bradley M Appelhans; Brittney S Lange-Maia; Kelley Pettee Gabriel; Carrie Karvonen-Gutierrez; Kelly Karavolos; Sheila A Dugan; Gail A Greendale; Elizabeth F Avery; Barbara Sternfeld; Imke Janssen; Howard M Kravitz Journal: Aging Clin Exp Res Date: 2019-10-04 Impact factor: 3.636
Authors: Jason Lacombe; Benjamin J Cairns; Jane Green; Gillian K Reeves; Valerie Beral; Miranda E G Armstrong Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2016-05-05 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: John T Schousboe; Allyson M Kats; Lisa Langsetmo; Brent C Taylor; Tien N Vo; Deborah M Kado; Howard A Fink; Kristine E Ensrud Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-01-29 Impact factor: 3.240