Julian Alcazar1, Jose Losa-Reyna2, Carlos Rodriguez-Lopez1, Ana Alfaro-Acha3, Leocadio Rodriguez-Mañas4, Ignacio Ara1, Francisco J García-García5, Luis M Alegre6. 1. GENUD Toledo Research Group, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, Toledo, Spain; CIBER of Frailty and Healthy Aging (CIBERFES), Madrid, Spain. 2. GENUD Toledo Research Group, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, Toledo, Spain; CIBER of Frailty and Healthy Aging (CIBERFES), Madrid, Spain; Department of Geriatrics, Hospital Virgen del Valle, Complejo Hospitalario de Toledo, Toledo, Spain. 3. CIBER of Frailty and Healthy Aging (CIBERFES), Madrid, Spain; Department of Geriatrics, Hospital Virgen del Valle, Complejo Hospitalario de Toledo, Toledo, Spain. 4. CIBER of Frailty and Healthy Aging (CIBERFES), Madrid, Spain; Department of Geriatrics, Hospital Universitario de Getafe, Madrid, Spain. 5. CIBER of Frailty and Healthy Aging (CIBERFES), Madrid, Spain; Department of Geriatrics, Hospital Virgen del Valle, Complejo Hospitalario de Toledo, Toledo, Spain. Electronic address: franjogarcia@telefonica.net. 6. GENUD Toledo Research Group, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, Toledo, Spain; CIBER of Frailty and Healthy Aging (CIBERFES), Madrid, Spain. Electronic address: luis.alegre@uclm.es.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Skeletal muscle power has been demonstrated to be a stronger predictor of functional limitations than any other physical capability. However, no validated alternatives exist to the usually expensive instruments and/or time-consuming methods to evaluate muscle power in older populations. Our aim was to validate an easily applicable procedure to assess muscle power in large cohort studies and the clinical setting and to assess its association with other age-related outcomes. METHODS: Forty community dwelling older adults (70-87 years) and 1804 older subjects (67-101 years) participating in the Toledo Study for Healthy Aging were included in this investigation. Sit-to-stand (STS) velocity and muscle power were calculated using the subject's body mass and height, chair height and the time needed to complete five STS repetitions, and compared with those obtained in the leg press exercise using a linear position transducer. In addition, STS performance, physical (gait speed) and cognitive function, sarcopenia (skeletal muscle index (SMI)) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) were recorded to assess the association with the STS muscle power values. RESULTS: No significant differences were found between STS velocity and power values and those obtained from the leg press force-velocity measurements (mean difference ± 95% CI = 0.02 ± 0.05 m·s-1 and 6.9 ± 29.8 W, respectively) (both p > 0.05). STS muscle power was strongly associated with maximal muscle power registered in the leg press exercise (r = 0.72; p < 0.001). In addition, cognitive function and SMI, and physical function, were better associated with absolute and relative STS muscle power, respectively, than STS time values after adjusting by different covariates. In contrast, STS time was slightly more associated with HRQoL than STS muscle power measures. CONCLUSION: The STS muscle power test proved to be a valid, and in general, a more clinically relevant tool to assess functional trajectory in older people compared to traditional STS time values. The low time, space and material requirements of the STS muscle power test, make this test an excellent choice for its application in large cohort studies and the clinical setting.
INTRODUCTION: Skeletal muscle power has been demonstrated to be a stronger predictor of functional limitations than any other physical capability. However, no validated alternatives exist to the usually expensive instruments and/or time-consuming methods to evaluate muscle power in older populations. Our aim was to validate an easily applicable procedure to assess muscle power in large cohort studies and the clinical setting and to assess its association with other age-related outcomes. METHODS: Forty community dwelling older adults (70-87 years) and 1804 older subjects (67-101 years) participating in the Toledo Study for Healthy Aging were included in this investigation. Sit-to-stand (STS) velocity and muscle power were calculated using the subject's body mass and height, chair height and the time needed to complete five STS repetitions, and compared with those obtained in the leg press exercise using a linear position transducer. In addition, STS performance, physical (gait speed) and cognitive function, sarcopenia (skeletal muscle index (SMI)) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) were recorded to assess the association with the STS muscle power values. RESULTS: No significant differences were found between STS velocity and power values and those obtained from the leg press force-velocity measurements (mean difference ± 95% CI = 0.02 ± 0.05 m·s-1 and 6.9 ± 29.8 W, respectively) (both p > 0.05). STS muscle power was strongly associated with maximal muscle power registered in the leg press exercise (r = 0.72; p < 0.001). In addition, cognitive function and SMI, and physical function, were better associated with absolute and relative STS muscle power, respectively, than STS time values after adjusting by different covariates. In contrast, STS time was slightly more associated with HRQoL than STS muscle power measures. CONCLUSION: The STS muscle power test proved to be a valid, and in general, a more clinically relevant tool to assess functional trajectory in older people compared to traditional STS time values. The low time, space and material requirements of the STS muscle power test, make this test an excellent choice for its application in large cohort studies and the clinical setting.
Authors: Hélio José Coelho-Júnior; Marco Carlos Uchida; Anna Picca; Roberto Bernabei; Francesco Landi; Riccardo Calvani; Matteo Cesari; Emanuele Marzetti Journal: Aging Clin Exp Res Date: 2021-02-15 Impact factor: 3.636
Authors: Robinson Ramírez-Vélez; Mikel Izquierdo; Antonio García-Hermoso; Leidy T Ordoñez-Mora; Carlos Cano-Gutierrez; Florelba Campo-Lucumí; Miguel Ángel Pérez-Sousa Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-07-12 Impact factor: 4.996
Authors: Erik Frykholm; Sarah Gephine; Didier Saey; Arthur Lemson; Peter Klijn; Eline Bij de Vaate; François Maltais; Hieronymus van Hees; André Nyberg Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-06-02 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Daniel Jerez-Mayorga; Álvaro Huerta-Ojeda; Luis Javier Chirosa-Ríos; Francisco Guede-Rojas; Iris Paola Guzmán-Guzmán; Leonardo Intelangelo; Claudia Miranda-Fuentes; Pedro Delgado-Floody Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-06-25 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Paulo Cezar Rocha Dos Santos; Claudine J C Lamoth; Lilian Teresa Bucken Gobbi; Inge Zijdewind; Fabio Augusto Barbieri; Tibor Hortobágyi Journal: Front Aging Neurosci Date: 2021-06-21 Impact factor: 5.750