4.7 Article

Age- and Sex-Specific Changes in Lower-Limb Muscle Power Throughout the Lifespan

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/gerona/glaa013

关键词

Leg extension power; Sarcopenia; Dynapenia; Aging; Body mass index; Skeletal muscle

资金

  1. Ministerio de Educacion, Cultura y Deporte of the Government of Spain [FPU014/05106, EST17/00868]
  2. Biomedical Research Networking Center on Frailty and Healthy Aging (CIBERFES)
  3. FEDER funds from the European Union [CB16/10/00477]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Our main goal was to evaluate the pattern and time course of changes in relative muscle power and its constituting components throughout the life span. Methods: A total of 1,305 subjects (729 women and 576 men; aged 20-93 years) participating in the Copenhagen Sarcopenia Study took part. Body mass index (BMI), leg lean mass assessed by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), and leg extension muscle power (LEP) assessed by the Nottingham power rig were recorded. Relative muscle power (normalized to body mass) and specific muscle power (normalized to leg lean mass) were calculated. Segmented regression analyses were used to identify the onset and pattern of age-related changes in the recorded variables. Results: Relative muscle power began to decline above the age of 40 in both women and men, with women showing an attenuation of the decline above 75 years. Relative muscle power decreased with age due to (i) the loss of absolute LEP after the fourth decade of life and (ii) the increase in BMI up to the age of 75 years in women and 65 years in men. The decline in absolute LEP was caused by a decline in specific LEP up to the age of 75 in women and 65 in men, above which the loss in relative leg lean mass also contributed. Conclusions: Relative power decreased (i) above 40 years by the loss in absolute power (specific power only) and the increase in body mass, and (ii) above similar to 70 years by the loss in absolute power (both specific power and leg lean mass).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据