| Literature DB >> 34043032 |
J A Davis1, M Mohebbi2, F Collier3,4,5, A Loughman3, H Staudacher3, N Shivappa6,7,8, J R Hébert6,7,8, J A Pasco3,5,9,10, F N Jacka3,11,12,13.
Abstract
A growing body of evidence suggests that diet quality may predict muscle health. This study found that a "Traditional" dietary pattern predicted greater muscle mass, and an anti-inflammatory diet predicted greater muscle mass and better muscle function over 15 years. These findings reinforce the importance of optimising dietary behaviours for healthy ageing.Entities:
Keywords: Ageing; Diet quality; Dietary patterns; Muscle function; Muscle mass; Sarcopenia
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34043032 PMCID: PMC8155648 DOI: 10.1007/s00198-021-06012-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Osteoporos Int ISSN: 0937-941X Impact factor: 4.507
Fig. 1Prisma diagram for GOS participant selection. Participants included were those who provided both muscle and diet data at 10- and 15-year men’s follow-ups of the Geelong Osteoporosis Study
Participants characteristics at baseline and 15-year follow-up assessments
| Study participants (n=522) | ||
|---|---|---|
| Baseline | 15-year follow-up | |
| Age, years, median (IQR) | 50.0 (38.30, 59.70) | 64.0 (52.40, 73.60) |
| Education^* | ||
| • Never attended school , n (%) | 3 (0.6) | 0 |
| • Primary or some secondary school, n (%) | 212 (40.8) | 119 (23.0) |
| • Completed secondary or vocational training, n (%) | 159 (30.6) | 221 (42.6) |
| • Tertiary education, n (%) | 146 (28.0) | 178 (34.4) |
| Employment#* | ||
| • Working | 393 | 285 |
| • Not working | 13 | 10 |
| • Home duties | 0 | 5 |
| • Student | 6 | 3 |
| • Retired | 100 | 204 |
| • Unable to work | 6 | 5 |
| • Not applicable | 1 | 8 |
| PA score, median (IQR)** | 7.9 (7–9) | 7.0 (5–8) |
| Current smoker, n (%)* | 64 (12.3) | 38 (7.3) |
| Current use of medications, n (%)** | 64 (12.3) | 108 (20.8) |
| Medical conditions, n (%)** | 132 (25.4) | 224 (43.1) |
| BMI (kg/m2), median (IQR)** | 26.48 (24.16, 28.97) | 27.38 (24.94, 30.12) |
| Body fat (kg), median (IQR)** | 20.43 (15.25, 25.50) | 24.35 (18.76, 31.51) |
| SMI (kg/m2), mean (±SD)** | 8.67 (0.90) | 8.48 (1.00) |
| • Low SMI <7.0kg/m2, n (%)* | 6 (1.2) | 33 (6.4) |
| TUG (sec), median (IQR) ** | 7.10 (6.44, 8.00) | 8.43 (7.49, 9.80) |
| • Slow TUG ≥20 sec, n (%) | 0 | 10 (1.9) |
| ARFS, mean (±SD) | 30.56 (8.78) | 31.07 (8.90) |
| DII, median (IQR)** | −0.18 (−1.09, 0.69) | 0.18 (−0.75, 1.10) |
| Energy intake (kj/d), median (IQR)** | 8658.14 (6973.17, 10476.96) | 7679.27 (6123.96, 9510.77) |
PA = physical activity, PA score = Baecke Physical Activity Questionnaire, BMI = Body Mass Index, ARFS = Australian Recommended Food Score, DII = Dietary Inflammatory Index, SMI = Skeletal Muscle Index, TUG = Timed Up-and-Go. ^n=2 missing data at baseline, n=4 missing data at 15-year follow-up, #n=3 missing data at baseline, n=2 missing data at 15-year follow-up, *significant difference between baseline and 15-year follow-up values p<0.05, **significant difference between baseline and 15-year follow-up values p<0.001
Fig. 2Changes in muscle health measures and diet quality indices between baseline and 15-year follow-up. a A significant decrease was observed in participants’ skeletal muscle index between baseline and 15 years. b Timed up-and-go scores were significantly slower at 15 years compared to baseline. c Participants’ Australian Recommended Food Scores remained consistent over the 15-year period with R2=0.41 between the two time points. d Minor changes were observed between Dietary Inflammatory Index scores between baseline and 15 years with R2=0.24
Generalised Estimating Equation results for Skeletal Muscle Index (SMI)
| β | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|
| Diet quality indices | ||
| Australian Recommended Food Score | ||
| Model 1# | 0.03 | −0.02, 0.08 |
| Model 2^ | 0.01 | −0.034, 0.06 |
| ^Model adjusted for PA, age and smoking | ||
| Dietary Inflammatory Index | ||
| Model 1# | −0.05* | −0.09, −0.01 |
| Model 2^ | −0.04* | −0.08, −0.004 |
| ^Model adjusted for PA and age, *p<0.05 | ||
| Dietary patterns | ||
| Plant-focused | ||
| Model 1# | −0.09 | −0.18, 0.00 |
| Model 2^ | 0.05 | −0.04, 0.13 |
| ^Model adjusted for PA, age, and fat mass | ||
| Western | ||
| Model 1# | 0.14* | 0.04, 0.24 |
| Model 2^ | 0.00 | −0.10, 0.10 |
| ^Model adjusted for PA, age, and fat mass | ||
| Traditional | ||
| Model 1# | 0.19** | 0.10, 0.28 |
| Model 2^ | 0.12* | 0.04, 0.20 |
#Model unadjusted, ^Model adjusted for PA, age, and Fat mass, PA = physical activity, *p<0.05, **p<0.001, n=522
Generalised Estimating Equation results for Timed Up-and-Go (TUG)
| β | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|
| Diet quality indices | ||
| Australian Recommended Food Score | ||
| Model 1# | −0.17 | −0.34, 0.01 |
| Model 2^ | −0.06 | −0.22, 0.10 |
| ^Model adjusted for PA, education, age | ||
| Dietary Inflammatory Index | ||
| Model 1# | 0.19* | 0.06, 0.32 |
| Model 2^ | 0.11* | 0.001, 0.21 |
| ^Model adjusted for PA and age, *p<0.05 | ||
| Dietary patterns | ||
| Plant-focused | ||
| Model 1# | 0.12 | −0.05, 0.28 |
| Model 2^ | −0.14 | −0.30, 0.02 |
| ^Model adjusted for PA, age, and education | ||
| Western | ||
| Model 1# | −0.77** | −1.06, −0.48 |
| Model 2^ | −0.18 | −0.42, 0.06 |
| ^Model adjusted for PA, age, and education | ||
| Traditional | ||
| Model 1# | −0.18 | −0.37, 0.02 |
| Model 2^ | 0.05 | −0.11, 0.21 |
#Model unadjusted, ^Model adjusted for PA, age, and education, *p<0.05, **p<0.001, n=522