B Buehring1, E Siglinsky1, D Krueger1, W Evans2, M Hellerstein2, Y Yamada3, N Binkley4. 1. University of Wisconsin Osteoporosis Clinical Research Program, 2870 University Avenue, Suite 100, Madison, WI, 53705, USA. 2. University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA. 3. National Institute of Health & Nutrition, Tokyo, Japan. 4. University of Wisconsin Osteoporosis Clinical Research Program, 2870 University Avenue, Suite 100, Madison, WI, 53705, USA. nbinkley@wisc.edu.
Abstract
DXA-measured lean mass is often used to assess muscle mass but has limitations. Thus, we compared DXA lean mass with two novel methods-bioelectric impedance spectroscopy and creatine (methyl-d3) dilution. The examined methodologies did not measure lean mass similarly and the correlation with muscle biomarkers/function varied. INTRODUCTION: Muscle function tests predict adverse health outcomes better than lean mass measurement. This may reflect limitations of current mass measurement methods. Newer approaches, e.g., bioelectric impedance spectroscopy (BIS) and creatine (methyl-d3) dilution (D3-C), may more accurately assess muscle mass. We hypothesized that BIS and D3-C measured muscle mass would better correlate with function and bone/muscle biomarkers than DXA measured lean mass. METHODS: Evaluations of muscle/lean mass, function, and serum biomarkers were obtained in older community-dwelling adults. Mass was assessed by DXA, BIS, and orally administered D3-C. Grip strength, timed up and go, and jump power were examined. Potential muscle/bone serum biomarkers were measured. Mass measurements were compared with functional and serum data using regression analyses; differences between techniques were determined by paired t tests. RESULTS: Mean (SD) age of the 112 (89F/23M) participants was 80.6 (6.0) years. The lean/muscle mass assessments were correlated (.57-.88) but differed (p < 0.0001) from one another with DXA total body less head being highest at 37.8 (7.3) kg, D3-C muscle mass at 21.1 (4.6) kg, and BIS total body intracellular water at 17.4 (3.5) kg. All mass assessment methods correlated with grip strength and jump power (R = 0.35-0.63, p < 0.0002), but not with gait speed or repeat chair rise. Lean mass measures were unrelated to the serum biomarkers measured. CONCLUSIONS: These three methodologies do not similarly measure muscle/lean mass and should not be viewed as being equivalent. Functional tests assessing maximal muscle strength/power (grip strength and jump power) correlated with all mass measures whereas gait speed was not. None of the selected serum measures correlated with mass. Efforts to optimize muscle mass assessment and identify their relationships with health outcomes are needed.
DXA-measured lean mass is often used to assess muscle mass but has limitations. Thus, we compared DXA lean mass with two novel methods-bioelectric impedance spectroscopy and creatine (methyl-d3) dilution. The examined methodologies did not measure lean mass similarly and the correlation with muscle biomarkers/function varied. INTRODUCTION: Muscle function tests predict adverse health outcomes better than lean mass measurement. This may reflect limitations of current mass measurement methods. Newer approaches, e.g., bioelectric impedance spectroscopy (BIS) and creatine (methyl-d3) dilution (D3-C), may more accurately assess muscle mass. We hypothesized that BIS and D3-C measured muscle mass would better correlate with function and bone/muscle biomarkers than DXA measured lean mass. METHODS: Evaluations of muscle/lean mass, function, and serum biomarkers were obtained in older community-dwelling adults. Mass was assessed by DXA, BIS, and orally administered D3-C. Grip strength, timed up and go, and jump power were examined. Potential muscle/bone serum biomarkers were measured. Mass measurements were compared with functional and serum data using regression analyses; differences between techniques were determined by paired t tests. RESULTS: Mean (SD) age of the 112 (89F/23M) participants was 80.6 (6.0) years. The lean/muscle mass assessments were correlated (.57-.88) but differed (p < 0.0001) from one another with DXA total body less head being highest at 37.8 (7.3) kg, D3-C muscle mass at 21.1 (4.6) kg, and BIS total body intracellular water at 17.4 (3.5) kg. All mass assessment methods correlated with grip strength and jump power (R = 0.35-0.63, p < 0.0002), but not with gait speed or repeat chair rise. Lean mass measures were unrelated to the serum biomarkers measured. CONCLUSIONS: These three methodologies do not similarly measure muscle/lean mass and should not be viewed as being equivalent. Functional tests assessing maximal muscle strength/power (grip strength and jump power) correlated with all mass measures whereas gait speed was not. None of the selected serum measures correlated with mass. Efforts to optimize muscle mass assessment and identify their relationships with health outcomes are needed.
Authors: Peggy Mannen Cawthon; Kathleen M Fox; Shravanthi R Gandra; Matthew J Delmonico; Chiun-Fang Chiou; Mary S Anthony; Ase Sewall; Bret Goodpaster; Suzanne Satterfield; Steven R Cummings; Tamara B Harris Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Iván José Fuentes-Abolafio; Michele Ricci; María Rosa Bernal-López; Ricardo Gómez-Huelgas; Antonio Ignacio Cuesta-Vargas; Luis Miguel Pérez-Belmonte Journal: Aging Clin Exp Res Date: 2022-08-08 Impact factor: 4.481
Authors: William D Leslie; John T Schousboe; Suzanne N Morin; Patrick Martineau; Lisa M Lix; Helena Johansson; Eugene V McCloskey; Nicholas C Harvey; John A Kanis Journal: Arch Osteoporos Date: 2020-06-25 Impact factor: 2.617
Authors: Alfonso J Cruz-Jentoft; Gülistan Bahat; Jürgen Bauer; Yves Boirie; Olivier Bruyère; Tommy Cederholm; Cyrus Cooper; Francesco Landi; Yves Rolland; Avan Aihie Sayer; Stéphane M Schneider; Cornel C Sieber; Eva Topinkova; Maurits Vandewoude; Marjolein Visser; Mauro Zamboni Journal: Age Ageing Date: 2019-01-01 Impact factor: 10.668
Authors: Joshua I Barzilay; Petra Buzkova; Michael G Shlipak; Mary F Lyles; Nisha Bansal; Pranav S Garimella; Joachim H Ix; Jorge R Kizer; Elsa S Strotmeyer; Luc Djousse; Mary L Biggs; David Siscovick; Kenneth J Mukamal Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2021-08-07 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Kexin Zhu; Jean Wactawski-Wende; Heather M Ochs-Balcom; Michael J LaMonte; Kathleen M Hovey; William Evans; Mahalakshmi Shankaran; Bruce R Troen; Hailey R Banack Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2021-08-13 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: N Hong; E Siglinsky; D Krueger; R White; C O Kim; H C Kim; Y Yeom; N Binkley; Y Rhee; B Buehring Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2020-09-07 Impact factor: 4.507