| Literature DB >> 27933408 |
Peter Francis1,2,3, William Mc Cormack4,5, Clodagh Toomey4,5,6, Catherine Norton4,5, Jean Saunders7, Emmet Kerin4, Mark Lyons4, Philip Jakeman4,5.
Abstract
The age-related decline in functional capability is preceded by a reduction in muscle quality. The purpose of this study was to assess the combined effects of progressive resistance training (PRT) and protein supplementation beyond habitual intakes on upper leg lean tissue mass (LTM), muscle quality and functional capability in healthy 50-70 years women. In a single-blinded, randomized, controlled design, 57 healthy older women (age 61.1 ± 5.1 years, 1.61 ± 0.65 m, 65.3 ± 15.3 kg) consumed 0.33 g/kg body mass of a milk-based protein matrix (PRO) for 12 weeks. Of the 57 women, 29 also engaged in a PRT intervention (PRO + PRT). In comparison to the PRO group (n = 28), those in the PRO + PRT group had an increase in upper leg LTM [0.04 (95% CI -0.07 to 0.01) kg vs. 0.13 (95% CI 0.08-0.18) kg, P = 0.027], as measured by Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry; an increase in knee extensor (KE) torque [-1.6 (95% CI -7.3 to 4.4 N m) vs. 10.2 (95% CI 4.3-15.8 N m), P = 0.007], as measured from a maximal voluntary isometric contraction (Con-Trex MJ; CMV AG); and an increase in extended gait speed [-0.01 (95% CI -0.52-0.04) m s-1 vs. 0.10 (95% CI 0.05-0.22) m s-1, P = 0.001] as measured from a maximal 900 m effort. There was no difference between groups in the time taken to complete 5 chair rises or the number of chair rises performed in 30 s (P > 0.05). PRT in healthy older women ingesting a dietary protein supplement is an effective strategy to improve upper leg LTM, KE torque and extended gait speed in healthy older women.Entities:
Keywords: Functional capability; Healthy aging; Muscle strength; Sarcopenia
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27933408 PMCID: PMC5684326 DOI: 10.1007/s10522-016-9671-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biogerontology ISSN: 1389-5729 Impact factor: 4.277
Fig. 1Order of study procedures, equipment used and personnel administering the procedure
Baseline participant characteristics, body composition, muscle function and functional capability in healthy older women
| PRO (n = 28) | PRO + PRT (n = 29) |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 61.8 ± 4.5 | 60.4 ± 5.6 | 0.324 |
| Height (cm) | 160.4 (7.8) | 162.0 (6.0) | 0.637 |
| Body mass (kg) | 68.6 ± 12.2 | 64.9 (10.9) | 0.666 |
| BMI (kg m−2) | 26.1 ± 3.9 | 24.7 (4.1) | 0.439 |
| Body fat (%) | 37.7 ± 6.6 | 36.7 ± 5.0 | 0.515 |
| LTM (kg) | 39.9 ± 4.8 | 39.9 ± 3.5 | 0.811 |
| Protein intake (g kg day−1) | 1.22 ± 0.34 | 1.29 ± 0.34 | 0.432 |
| Upper limb LTM (kg) | 3.68 ± 0.60 | 3.71 ± 0.52 | 0.865 |
| Knee extensor peak torque (N m) | 89.0 (26.5) | 86.2 ± 22.8 | 0.346 |
| Muscle quality (N m kg−1/LTM) | 25.7 ± 6.5 | 23.3 ± 5.8 | 0.153 |
| 900 m gait speed (m s−1) | 2.14 (0.50) | 2.29 ± 0.47 | 0.587 |
| 5 Chair repetition (s) | 8.3 ± 2.0 | 8.4 (2.4) | 0.696 |
| Chair repetitions in 30 s (n)b | 18 ± 5 | 18 ± 4 | 0.826 |
Values are means ± SDs or medians (IQR). No significant differences were found between groups
aP values for the difference between PRO and PRO + EX groups analysed by independent t test or Mann–Whitney U test
bPRO, n = 17, PRO + PRT, n = 14
Fig. 2Mean and individual relative percentage change in dependent variables
Change in LTM, muscle function and functional capability in healthy older women
| Treatment effect | Treatment effect (%) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| 1 − β | ∆ |
| 1 − β | |
| LTM (kg) | ||||||
| PRO | −0.21 (−0.8 to 0.3) | 0.133 | −0.6 (−2.0 to 0.9) | 0.142 | ||
| PRO + EX | 0.34 (−0.2 to 0.9) | 1.0 (−0.5 to 2.5) | ||||
| Upper leg LTM (kg) | ||||||
| PRO | 0.04 (−0.07 to 0.01) | 0.027 | 0.606 | 1.2 (−0.2 to 2.6) | 0.017 | 0.680 |
| PRO + EX | 0.13 (0.08–0.18) | 3.6 (2.3 to 5.0) | ||||
| Knee extensor torque (N m) | ||||||
| PRO | −1.6 (−7.3 to 4.4) | 0.007 | 0.784 | −1.3 (−7.8 to 5.9) | 0.008 | 0.766 |
| PRO + EX | 10.2 (4.3–15.8) | 12.7 (5.6–19.0) | ||||
| Muscle quality (N m kg−1) | ||||||
| PRO | −0.8 (−2.2 to 1.0) | 0.062 | −2.4 (−8.1 to 5.1) | 0.046 | 0.520 | |
| PRO + EX | 1.8 (0.0 to 3.2) | 9.0 (1.6–14.6) | ||||
| 900 m gait speed (m s−1)b | ||||||
| PRO | −0.01 (−0.52 to.−0.04) | 0.001 | −0.4 (−2.6 to 1.8) | 0.001 | ||
| PRO + EX* | 0.10 (0.05–0.22) | 3.8 (3.0–8.4) | ||||
| 5 Chair REP (s)b | ||||||
| RO | −0.01 (−0.48 to 0.45) | 0.749 | 0.8 (−4.9 to 6.5) | 0.793 | ||
| PRO + EX* | 0.01 (−0.23 to 0.60) | 0.1 (−2.8 to 6.8) | ||||
| Chair REP 30 s (n)c | ||||||
| PRO | −1.0 (−1.8 to −0.2) | 0.572 | −4.2 (−7.8 to −6.2) | 0.904 | ||
| PRO + EX* | −0.5 (−2.0 to 0.0) | −5.3 (−10.0 to 0.0) | ||||
LTM lean tissue mass, REP repetition, 1 − β statistical power
Data are means (95% CIs) and * medians (Bootstrap 95% CIs). Treatment effect = (value at 12 week − value at baseline)
aP values for the difference in treatment effect, PRO compared with PRO + PRT, analysed by univariate ANOVA or Kruskall Wallis Test with treatment group as a fixed factor
bPRO, n = 25, PRO + PRT, n = 26
cPRO, n = 17, PRO + PRT, n = 14
Pearson correlations between relative change in laboratory measures of muscle function and relative change in 900 m performance
| ∆ % Laboratory measures | ∆ % Gait speed (m/s)a |
|
|---|---|---|
| Upper leg LTM (kg) | 0.005 | 0.972 |
| KE torque/BM (N m kg−1) | 0.514 | <0.001 |
| Muscle quality (N m kg−1) | 0.478 | <0.001 |
aPearsons r
* P values for the correlations reported