On Vacay in Mexico

[mccoy]

OK, if we stick to the non-etymological definition, but to the one you cite. On the other way, I don't see how it is possible to avoid a decline in strength. Even in currently training athletes, that seems statistically unavoidable. Also, we should define function. If it means suppleness, that's easily provided by stretching and hata-yoga asanas.

But again, I don't see how strength and suppleness could improve the intramyocellular absorption of glucose if that's a real asset of larger muscle size. Also, an increase in muscle mass will entail some increase in strength, although not always proportionally. The issue as usual is not a simple one...

[Sibiriak]

On the operational (not just etymological) definition of "sarcopenia"  and how it has evolved:

Sarcopenia: revised European consensus on definition and diagnosis (2019)

 

Quote

Background

in 2010, the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People (EWGSOP) published a sarcopenia definition that aimed to foster advances in identifying and caring for people with sarcopenia. In early 2018, the Working Group met again (EWGSOP2) to update the original definition in order to reflect scientific and clinical evidence that has built over the last decade. This paper presents our updated findings.

 

Quote

Sarcopenia: operational definition

Sarcopenia is a progressive and generalised skeletal muscle disorder that is associated with increased likelihood of adverse outcomes including falls, fractures, physical disability and mortality. The original operational definition of sarcopenia by EWGSOP was a major change at that time, as it added muscle function to former definitions based only on detection of low muscle mass [1].

In these revised guidelines, muscle strength comes to the forefront, as it is recognised that strength is better than mass in predicting adverse outcomes [11, 28, 29, 37].

Muscle quality is also impaired in sarcopenia; this term has been used to describe micro- and macroscopic aspects of muscle architecture and composition. Because of technological limits, muscle quantity and muscle quality remain problematic as primary parameters to define sarcopenia [31, 32, 34]. Detection of low physical performance predicts adverse outcomes, so such measures are thus used to identify the severity of sarcopenia.

In its 2018 definition, EWGSOP2 uses low muscle strength as the primary parameter of sarcopenia; muscle strength is presently the most reliable measure of muscle function (Table (Table1).1). Specifically, sarcopenia is probable when low muscle strength is detected. A sarcopenia diagnosis is confirmed by the presence of low muscle quantity or quality. When low muscle strength, low muscle quantity/quality and low physical performance are all detected, sarcopenia is considered severe.

 

The recognition of the importance of muscular strength and quality  apart from muscle mass alone has led  a few researchers to adopt the term "dynapenia" in  conjunction with the term "sarcopenia",  but that usage has not been generally adopted.

Functional Consequences of Sarcopenia and Dynapenia in the Elderly

Quote

Summary

While muscle mass is essential for regulation of whole body metabolic balance, overall neuromuscular function seems to be a critical factor for maintaining muscle strength and physical independence in the elderly. The relative contribution of physiologic factors contributing to muscle weakness are not fully understood, and further research is needed to better elucidate these mechanisms between muscle groups and across populations.

Introduction

Sarcopenia, as originally defined two decades ago, refers to the age-related loss of muscle mass [1]. Since this time there has been a dramatic increase in scientific inquiry to define the functional consequences and biologic mechanisms of sarcopenia. This explosion of research has at times resulted in ‘sarcopenia’ being directly and causally linked to both muscle weakness and physical disability.

The concept of sarcopenia is frequently used in research settings today and is only beginning to be introduced in the clinical arena. However, thus far no consensus on its definition has been established, and there are no recognized tests or diagnostic criteria [2].

We recently authored an article highlighting the disassociation between the age-related loss of muscle mass and that of muscle strength. In this article we illustrate and raise awareness about the numerous mechanisms, beyond the loss of muscle size due to reduced fiber number and myofibrillar proteins that underlie that muscle weakness in the elderly [3].

For example, impairments in neural activation could explain a portion of muscle weakness, as well as potential alterations in other muscular properties that may reduce contractile quality defined here as a reduction in involuntary force production per unit muscle size.

In this aforementioned paper we proposed that the term ‘sarcopenia’ should be used in its original context (the age-related loss in muscle mass), and that the term ‘dynapenia’ be applied to describe the age-related loss of muscle strength [3]. Regardless of semantics, the deterioration of muscle quantity, contractile quality and neural activation ultimately manifests itself with a reduction in physical function which results in disability development and costly economic consequences [4, 5]. In this article we will first discuss the societal burden and determinants of the loss of physical function with advancing age. Next, we will briefly review the literature on the physiologic mechanisms underlying muscle weakness in the elderly, and lastly provide perspectives on critical issues and research questions that need to be addressed to help advance our understanding and treatment of the deterioration of neuromuscular function that leads to physical impairment in the elderly

 

If you prefer the term "dynapenia" for etymological reasons, that's an option.    But then you need to acknowledge that "dynapenia" is the critical problem facing the elderly, not "sarcopenia" in its outdated definition.

The fact remains that however it's labeled,  the  loss of neuromuscular function   is  the result of many complex age-related biological changes and cannot be reduced to a loss of muscle mass.

See: 

Age-related changes in skeletal muscle: changes to life-style as a therapy (2018)

Skeletal muscle performance and ageing (2017)

 

 

 

To sum up:

1) Sarcopenia is no longer generally defined as simply the loss of muscle mass, but rather as a complex, multifactorial decline in neuromuscular function that leads to physical impairment in the elderly. (Adopting the term  "dynapenia" does not alter the argument).

2) low muscle strength and quality are the  primary parameters of sarcopenia

3) maintaining or gaining muscle mass does NOT prevent age-related decline in muscle strength and quality.

4) numerous mechanisms  beyond the loss of muscle mass underlie sarcopenia

Therefore, apart from whatever other personal benefits it may bring,  increasing muscle mass via maximal hypertrophy training + increased protein intake is NOT an effective  way to prevent sarcopenia.  

Furthermore,  substantially increased protein intake,  especially from animal sources,   sustained over a long period prior to old age,  will likely  have a negative impact on health and longevity. 

Edited July 1, 2020 by Sibiriak

[Mike41]

8 hours ago, Sibiriak said:

Sarcopenia,  as currently understood and defined, is NOT simply or primarily the loss of muscle  mass.   As cited above, maintaining or gaining muscle mass does NOT prevent aging-associated declines in muscle strength and function., ie. it does NOT prevent sarcopenia.

This study also supports your position:

The impact of muscle function, muscle mass and sarcopenia on independent ageing in very old Swedish men

https://bmcgeriatr.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12877-019-1142-y

[mccoy]

21 hours ago, Sibiriak said:

o sum up:

1) Sarcopenia is no longer generally defined as simply the loss of muscle mass, but rather as a complex, multifactorial decline in neuromuscular function that leads to physical impairment in the elderly. (Adopting the term  "dynapenia" does not alter the argument).

2) low muscle strength and quality are the  primary parameters of sarcopenia

3) maintaining or gaining muscle mass does NOT prevent age-related decline in muscle strength and quality.

4) numerous mechanisms  beyond the loss of muscle mass underlie sarcopenia

Therefore, apart from whatever other personal benefits it may bring,  increasing muscle mass via maximal hypertrophy training + increased protein intake is NOT an effective  way to prevent sarcopenia.  

As I understood, dynapenia is a convenient term and strength is measured as a proxy for muscle mass and quality. Mass and quality remain the target characteristics though.

When mass is lost, also strength is usually lost and when strength is gained, some mass is usually gained. So the two variables are correlated.

So, I'm very much skeptic on point 3. maintaining or gaining muscle mass maintains some degree of strength, hence reducing dynapenia. The fact that muscle quality decreases means that we should increase strength and mass more.

increasing strength is not always practical. Exercise to increase strength significantly entail use of heavy loadings, which makes us prone to injuries. So, that's not a practical proposition and actually an anti-longevity factor.

Of course, if we consider strength as the minimum strength and coordination necessary to avoid injuries, then it's all right. This is not the level of strength which is of relevance in weightlifting though.

Edited July 2, 2020 by mccoy

[mccoy]

14 hours ago, Mike41 said:

This study also supports your position:

The impact of muscle function, muscle mass and sarcopenia on independent ageing in very old Swedish men

https://bmcgeriatr.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12877-019-1142-y

Mike, that study examined very old men, mean age 87, I agree that when reaching 90 muscle mass will not be such a big factor and ability to walk around, grasp things and stand up will be enough.

[Sibiriak]

4 minutes ago, mccoy said:

maintaining or gaining muscle mass maintains some degree of strength, hence reducing dynapenia

Yes-- "some degree of strength" maybe.   BUT AN EXTREMELY LOW degree AT BEST  as a matter of empirical fact. 

No one is denying that there is a connection between muscle mass and strength.  Please read this excerpt posted above closely:

Quote

 

The total amount of muscle is a major determinant of the force-generating capacity of the muscle, as demonstrated by the high correlation between muscle mass and strength in a cross-sectional analysis ⁽⁴⁾.

This has led some to conclude that the loss in muscle strength is due entirely to the loss in muscle mass ⁽³⁰⁾.  [ I.e. folks like you, Mccoy]

However, a significant association between the change in muscle strength and mass with exercise training or restricted activity is rarely observed ^(31)(32).

This, along with the finding of disproportionately greater loss of strength compared to lean tissue declines over 11 to 15 years and no correlation between muscle strength and fiber area changes ^(7)(10), suggests that other neuromuscular changes may mediate muscle strength change.

In our cohort, muscle mass changes explained a small (5%) part of the variance in knee strength.   

Because only a small amount of the variance in strength was explained by muscle mass loss and because of the lack of association with physical activity, there is a need to explore the relative contribution of other cellular, neural, or metabolic mediators of changes in muscle function.

 

 

The point is this:   AS YOU GET OLD,  the loss of  muscle strength  and  quality (aka sarcopenia, dynapenia or whatever you want to call it) is NOT primarily due to the loss of muscle mass,  AND maintaining  or increasing muscle mass  does NOT prevent that loss of muscle strength and quality.  Those are the  empirical results found in various studies;  not the results of mechanistic speculation.

As a matter of empirical observation in multiple studies, only a small amount of the variance in strength is explained by loss of muscle mass.

This is because there are OTHER FACTORS causing the loss of muscle strength and quality APART FROM the loss of muscle mass.  (Please, read the full texts of the articles I posted which go into great detail on all those other factors  implicated in the loss of muscles strength and quality.)  Maintaining or increasing muscle mass cannot counteract or compensate for the deterioration on all those other components of the whole neuromuscular/skeletal system.  

Again, let's not speculate--  if you disagree,  please cite  studies that show that maintaining or gaining muscle mass does, as a matter of empirical observation,  prevent AGE-RELATED decline in muscle strength and quality to a significant degree.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

[mccoy]

23 minutes ago, Sibiriak said:

Maintaining or increasing muscle mass cannot counteract or compensate for the deterioration on all those other components of the whole neuromuscular/skeletal system.  

I agree, but we might as well work against the decline of muscle mass and against the deterioration of all other factors. The proverbial two birds with a stone.

I should really read that article, but unfortunately time is not unlimited. Also, conceptually speaking (that's not mere speculation but a matter of logic reasoning) basing an article on mere knee strength or grip strength sound very limiting. 

26 minutes ago, Sibiriak said:

This has led some to conclude that the loss in muscle strength is due entirely to the loss in muscle mass ⁽³⁰⁾.  [ I.e. folks like you, Mccoy]

Ah Ah, no, unfortunately I observed in myself (n=1 observation, but hardly speculation) that even if recovering some muscle mass, my strength is far lower than it used to be when I was in full shape. But probably it is enough to avoid most falls and trivial injuires.

Bottom line, I even forgot why we are discussing here. My n=1 case, I feel hugely better working out and increasing my muscle mass (and strength to an extent). Within reason. That's not speculation. Now, I absolutely do not think that such a feeling equates longevity, but my contention is that it may contribute to healthspan and longevity, always in an optimized fashion.

Valter Longo and Fontana themselves suggest to carry out resistance exercise to boost longevity and well being. They do not suggest to overeat protein, but again, optimizing does not mean overeating.

[Sibiriak]

2 hours ago, mccoy said:

Mike, that study examined very old men

Mccoy,  sarcopenia is an issue primarily in advanced age.   That's when it can become highly debilitating,  or even deadly.  That's when  sarcopenia/dynapenia/frailty- whatever you want to call it-- can threaten your ability to live  independently.  That's when it can threaten you  with serious injury  or death from falls and fractures.

 Your almost 60.   Sarcopenia isn't an issue now.  But  what about  when you  are 80, 90, 100, 110?   You have suggested that your increased (animal) protein intake + hypertrophy-focused resistance training is going to prevent sarcopenia,  ie. the AGE-RELATED decline in neuromuscular function.

If  your protocol is  not going to have any significant effect during those later years of your life,   your claim that its going to prevent "sarcopenia" becomes essentially meaningless.  Preventing sarcopenia when you are not really old is not the issue here!

Previously you wrote:

Quote

it seems that limiting protein and especially animal protein promotes health and longevity. But sarcopenia does not promote that.

 You've suggested that we must balance the increase in health/longevity from protein restriction with prevention of sarcopenia by increasing muscle mass via increased protein intake + hypertrophy training.    And not just increasing protein somewhat as one  hit's 65-75 years old,  as recommended by Levine, Longo and others. 

You have suggested increased (animal) protein intake/ hypertrophy training ALL THROUGH the middle of life.  i.e for decades in advance of old age.

And the justification you put forward is that it will combat sarcopenia.

My research has led me to believe that in fact,  maintaining or increasing muscle mass will  most likely NOT prevent sarcopenia in OLD AGE.  

I conclude,  therefore, that Longo et al.  are correct.  There is no reason to signficantly increase protein intake,  especially animal protein, when one is young/middle aged. 

To repeat, I believe the evidence shows that

• a low calorie,  relatively low protein, nutritionally rich and balanced plant-based diet,  flexibly adjusted for age and individual differences (admitting some unusual exceptions)
• combined with vigorous and varied physical exertion, sport, outdoor activities  etc .
• supported where necessary by individualized resistance training

is the best formula for all aspects of health/longevity including sarcopenia prevention.     

 

 

 

 

Edited July 2, 2020 by Sibiriak

[Sibiriak]

1 hour ago, mccoy said:

but we might as well work against the decline of muscle mass and against the deterioration of all other factors.

That sounds nice, but from my view,   substantially increasing protein intake (especially animal protein) and calories as well-- while young/middle-aged-- with the aim of preventing the decline in muscle mass will

1) in fact do little to prevent sarcopenia in old age, and worse

2) may  accelerate the deterioration of those other factors.

Put anothere way, following a  low calorie,  relatively low protein, nutritionally rich and balanced plant-based diet  (flexibly adjusted for individual differences) is the best choice if your  aim is  increased healthspan and lifespan.

(It won't be the best choice for bodybuilders,  certain athletes, hedonists, lovers of joyous social eating rituals, live -in- the- moment-who-cares-if-you-die-young creative spirits, warriors, revolutionaries, religious devotees et al who have different priorities).

There is no need to alter that approach by  increasing protein and calories throughout one's life  with the aim of increasing muscle mass to prevent sarcopenia.  

The chance that such increased muscle mass will prevent sarcopenia  in old age is very slim.

The chance that the increased protein/calories will detrimentally effect health and longevity is substantial.  

It's therefore not worth the risk.   YMMV  Carpe Diem!

 

 

 

Edited July 2, 2020 by Sibiriak

[mccoy]

4 hours ago, Sibiriak said:

If  your protocol is  not going to have any significant effect during those later years of your life,   your claim that its going to prevent "sarcopenia" becomes essentially meaningless.  Preventing sarcopenia when you are not really old is not the issue here!

My belief was that sarco/dynapenia starts sooner... Surely dynapenia is in progress in my case.

If the issue really starts over 85, then we can fold up shop and close the discussion. I'll retreat!

[mccoy]

3 hours ago, Sibiriak said:

Put anothere way, following a  low calorie,  relatively low protein, nutritionally rich and balanced plant-based diet  (flexibly adjusted for individual differences) is the best choice if your  aim is  increased healthspan and lifespan.

I agree, although I'm critic about the aversion towards some animal products like dairy products and eggs. They may even help to eat less protein, since their protein are more available. so you may settle for an RDA of 0.7 g/kg/d with mixed source protein and with cronometer you can sure optimize leucine and methionine. 

And, why nobody talks about the digestibility issue? Yogurt and cheese to some people is many times more easily digestible than legumes and tofu.

[Clinton]

Bottom line is that the best thing a 90 yr old man can do for strength, muscle size, combat sarcopenia, etc. Is to expose their physical muscles to a resistance that must be overcome.  A 90yr old man doing squats with a 15lb barbell on his shoulders  will be more effective than only walking for many bodily functions; bone mass, brain function, and of course sarcopenia.

Edited July 2, 2020 by Clinton

[Mike41]

On 7/1/2020 at 10:52 AM, Sibiriak said:

Sarcopenia,  as currently understood and defined, is NOT simply or primarily the loss of muscle  mass.   As cited above, maintaining or gaining muscle mass does NOT prevent aging-associated declines in muscle strength and function., ie. it does NOT prevent sarcopenia.

Very true and common sense will help. 
here’s my example:

Let’s use a simple example. Who lives the longest and has the squared curve with it. Skinny, little old women with not a lot of muscle mass. In the blue zones these little darlings, remind me of my Italian grandma, are out digging gardens and piscking vegetables and cooking etc. very active and no chronic diseases. A 103 year old, skinny woman in Iran just survived the corona virus as a matter of fact. Not much muscle on her body. But they showed her walking briskly out of the hospital recently in the news. 

[mccoy]

The conceptual truth is that muscle mass is useless and useful at the same time.

For example, muscle mass is believed to be an efficient glucose sink and blah blah. But men, with greater muscle mass, usually exhibit not less glycemia than women, AFAIK, with lesser muscle mass.

On the other side when training for hypertrophy bones and ligaments also hypertrophize as well  and strength and some coordination develop.

More muscle mass works as shock absober in accidents, without the detriment of adipose tissue, and bones are more resilient.

More muscle mass constitutes a reserve of amminoacids readily available if we have to go to intensive care or are in coma after an accident. Or we want to undergo a fast.

Training for strength and coordination will prevent falls.

So, just applying common sense, hypertrophy and strength + coordination training can indisputably provide a longevity benefit, if not for metabolic reasons, as a preventive measure against seriously detrimental outcomes. Not sure they will happen, but a statistical possibility indeed.

Another distinct advantage of resistance training (confirmed by Valter Longo): the production if IGF-1 by muscle tissue metabolism, which may prevent a detrimental decrease in IGF-1 without eating much methionine.

And, last but not least, the mental benefits of the sense of well being which comes with exercise, possibly related to the production of Brain Neurotrophic Factor...

 

[mccoy]

7 hours ago, Mike41 said:

Very true and common sense will help. 
here’s my example:

Let’s use a simple example. Who lives the longest and has the squared curve with it. Skinny, little old women with not a lot of muscle mass. In the blue zones these little darlings, remind me of my Italian grandma, are out digging gardens and piscking vegetables and cooking etc. very active and no chronic diseases. A 103 year old, skinny woman in Iran just survived the corona virus as a matter of fact. Not much muscle on her body. But they showed her walking briskly out of the hospital recently in the news. 

MMmmmm...., who says that if the lady had access to a gym and practiced light resistance training she may have added a few years to her life? There are no clinical trials on it so it's all speculation, which Sibiriak doesn't seem to like....

[Sibiriak]

4 hours ago, mccoy said:

if the lady had access to a gym and practiced light resistance training she may have added a few years to her life

That would certainly be in accord with Longo's,  Fontana's and most other longevity specialists I've read, and of course my own suggestions:

20 hours ago, Sibiriak said:

I believe the evidence shows that

• a low calorie,  relatively low protein, nutritionally rich and balanced plant-based diet,  flexibly adjusted for age and individual differences (admitting some unusual exceptions)
• combined with vigorous and varied physical exertion, sport, outdoor activities  etc .
• supported where necessary by individualized resistance training

is the best formula for all aspects of health/longevity including sarcopenia prevention.    

 

4 hours ago, mccoy said:

There are no clinical trials on it

Actually there have been many  trials looking into the effects of various exercise modalities  (strength training,  power training,  functional training, balance training etc.) on sarcopenia-related and other health/longevity related parameters.  The benefits of resistance training /functional training are pretty well established, but, as always,  there are many controversies and unanswered questions.   The literature is vast, so I can only point to a few somewhat arbitrary examples, with the hope that you read the full studies at your leisure and assiduously follow the tracks to related ones,  aided I might suggest by reasonable amounts of Italian espresso coffee+adaptogens (per this dubious study just cited by Al Pater!)

Power Training: Can it Improve Functional Performance in Older Adults? A Systematic Review

 

Quote

Abstract

Older adults’ reduced performance in functional activities of daily living (ADL) such as gait, sit to stand or stair climbing may reflect age-related declines in muscular power more so than strength. Therefore, this review was conducted to determine if power training is effective in improving the functional ability of older adults, and if so, if it was more effective than strength training. The review was performed using Medline (PubMed), CINAHL, Sports Discus, ProQuest 5000 International and Google Scholar with the keywords “power training”, “older adult” and “elder” and all derivatives.

Of the 12 eligible studies identified, nine also included a strength training group. Virtually all studies reported significant increases in strength and power for the strength and power training groups. Significant improvements in functional performance were observed for the power training groups in 10 of the 12 studies and in the strength training group in four of the nine studies that also examined the effect of strength training.

These results demonstrate that strength and power training can both significantly improve functional performance in older adults, and suggest that power training may be more effective than strength training in this regard.

Future research in this area should involve larger sample sizes of older men and women with varying levels of pre-training strength, power and functional ability and: 1) compare the relative efficacy of strength and power training; 2) determine if the optimal training prescription differs somewhat for each functional task; and 3) examine changes in quality of life and falls rate.

Systematic review of functional training on muscle strength, physical functioning, and activities of daily living in older adults (2014)

 

Quote

Abstract

Exercise programs are often recommended for preventing or delaying late-life disability. Programs that incorporate functional training, which uses movements similar to performing activities of daily living, may be suitable for such recommendation. The purpose of this systematic review was to examine the effects of functional training on muscle strength, physical functioning, and activities of daily living in older adults. Studies in three electronic databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, and SPORTDiscus) were searched, screened, and appraised. Thirteen studies were included in the review. These studies vary greatly in participant recruitment criteria, functional training content, and selection of comparison groups. Mobility exercises were the most common element in functional training across studies.

Results show beneficial effects on muscle strength, balance, mobility, and activities of daily living, particularly when the training content was specific to that outcome. Functional training may be used to improve functional performance in older adults.

 

Illustration of possible body motor elements required to vacuum a room

 

Quote

Conclusion

We appraised 13 trials of functional training in this review and the results support the specificity of training principle; that is, the best gains in performance are achieved when the training closely mimics the performance. Therefore, functional training may be a better option than muscle strength training alone if the goal is to reduce ADL [ activities of daily living ]  disability in older adults.

Moreover, reviewed trials show a great difference in research design, participant recruitment criteria, and functional training programs. We identified three patterns of functional training: element-based functional training, task-specific-based functional training, and hybrid functional training. Additional research to examine the effect of functional training according to the three patterns on reducing functional decline in older adults is encouraged.

 

Long-term aerobic exercise preserves muscle mass and function with age (2019)

Quote

Research in the prevention of muscle loss and function with age has focused on resistance training as an exercise intervention. Considerably less attention has been paid to aerobic/endurance exercise and the potential benefits of lifelong aerobic exercise. We focus this review on new evidence that supports the benefits of aerobic exercise on muscle mass and function.

Recent data support that aerobic exercise, especially long-term, preserves the neuromuscular junction and motor unit, mitochondrial function, and proteostasis. Although more studies are needed on exact mechanisms, it is our contention that aerobic exercise, like resistance exercise, can help prevent the decline in muscle mass and function with age.

 

 

Upper Extremity Muscle Volumes and Functional Strength After Resistance Training in Older Adults (2013)

 

Quote

Abstract

Aging leads to a decline in strength and an associated loss of independence. The authors examined changes in muscle volume, maximum isometric joint moment, functional strength, and 1-repetition maximum (1RM) after resistance training (RT) in the upper extremity of older adults. They evaluated isometric joint moment and muscle volume as predictors of functional strength. Sixteen healthy older adults (average age 75 ± 4.3 yr) were randomized to a 6-wk upper extremity RT program or control group. The RT group increased 1RM significantly (p < .01 for all exercises). Compared with controls, randomization to RT led to greater functional pulling strength (p = .003), isometric shoulder-adduction moment (p = .041), elbow-flexor volume (p = .017), and shoulder-adductor volume (p = .009).

Shoulder-muscle volumes and isometric moments were good predictors of functional strength. The authors conclude that shoulder strength is an important factor for performing functional reaching and pulling tasks and a key target for upper extremity RT interventions.

 

Quote

To develop an optimal upper extremity RT protocol for increasing functional strength and ability for a variety of tasks, it is important to identify both the type of exercises to include (activation level, task-specific), and the key muscle groups to target.

Our preliminary results indicate that maximum isometric shoulder moments explained more of the variation in functional reaching and pulling strength than maximum isometric elbow moments. This suggests that shoulder strength may be an important factor for performing reaching and pulling tasks. Therefore, future RT programs aimed at increasing functional ability for these tasks may choose to focus on muscles that cross the shoulder joint. For example, in the current study the forward reaching task took place in the sagittal plane, while the RT exercises targeting shoulder-abductor muscles were performed in the frontal plane. It is possible that augmenting the RT program to include additional movements in the sagittal plane that target muscles contributing to shoulder-flexion strength would lead to greater improvements in functional reaching strength. Similarly, we did not include exercises for the rotator-cuff muscles, which may have limited the improvements we observed in the reaching task because these muscles function to stabilize the glenohumeral joint.

The Importance of Resistance Exercise Training to Combat Neuromuscular Aging (2019)

 

Quote

Abstract

Older adults undergoing age-related decrements in muscle health can benefit substantially from resistance exercise training, a potent stimulus for whole muscle and myofiber hypertrophy, neuromuscular performance gains, and improved functional mobility. With the use of advancing technologies, research continues to elucidate the mechanisms of and heterogeneity in adaptations to resistance exercise training beyond differences in exercise prescription. This review highlights the current knowledge in these areas and emphasizes knowledge gaps that require future attention of the field.

 

Strength training for the older adult (2009)

 

Quote

SPECIFICITY AND FUNCTIONAL STRENGTH TRAINING

Strengthening occurs in the specific way that muscle is trained. Sale et al found that closed chain training on a leg press did not increase strength in open-chain knee extension performance and vice versa.14 In designing exercise programs for aging adults, consideration must be given to salient activities and tasks, especially if there is limited functional reserve or little desire to exercise. Tasks that can be compromised by inadequate strength include transfers, stair climbing, mobility, and activities of daily living that tax dynamic balance. Interventions focusing on developing strength enough to safely and efficiently do these tasks receive priority. Because these tasks involve weight bearing in multiple planes, activities that promote stepping, weight shifting and multi-planar movements should be emphasized. 

 

Examples include rising from surfaces of different heights, foot tapping various height steps and progressing to stepping up and over steps and stair climbing, stooping, kneeling, and reaching.  Once these tasks can be accomplished with good form, adding a weighted vest to increase load or increasing speed of movement will provide the necessary overload to continue building strength in ways specific to the task.  

 

For frail individuals, task specificity may be the critical parameter to improve function, rather than intensity, because of diminished reserve and increased bodily fatigue.31 De Vreede,32 Bean,33 and Manini34 have demonstrated that when frail individuals perform task specific exercise, their strength is increased,  similar to the effects of resistance exercise. The performance of certain ADL and household tasks in frail individuals may require enough effort to achieve the threshold required for muscle strengthening, thus combining overload with motor learning to achieve functional improvements.

 

Task-specifc training for frail men and women may achieve functional gains better than resistance exercise alone.

 

 

 

Edited July 3, 2020 by Sibiriak

[Clinton]

Thanks Sibiriak for posting some great info.

I really became re-enamored with high-protein intake largely because I spend considerable time reading articles on bodybuilding websites, and hey - I like to eat some meat!! 😉

I really should try a vegan approach to body-building and eat some beans & rice for example to provide a fairly complete amino-acid rich meal ... I think I could probably maintain present strength & size, add plenty of fiber and nutrients to my diet.

 

[mccoy]

10 minutes ago, Clinton said:

I really should try a vegan approach to body-building and eat some beans & rice for example to provide a fairly complete amino-acid rich meal ... I think I could probably maintain present strength & size, add plenty of fiber and nutrients to my diet.

Clinton, as a matter of fact I noticed that some bodybuilders like to start a vegan diet as a challenge, sometimes a public challenge. It almost seems that it takes more skill to get big on vegan protein, whereas everyone is able to get big with animal protein!

[mccoy]

Sibiriak, thanks for the conspicuos flow of info. I was previously referring to the lack of clinical trials in 105 old skinny women. But maybe there are...

[Clinton]

3 minutes ago, mccoy said:

I was previously referring to the lack of clinical trials in 105 old skinny women. But maybe there are...

lol

[Sibiriak]

31 minutes ago, mccoy said:

I was previously referring to the lack of clinical trials in 105 old skinny women. But maybe there are...

Lol.  Thanks for the clarification.

When you wrote,  "who says that if the lady had access to a gym and practiced light resistance training she may have added a few years to her life? "  I presumed you meant practicing RT for some period of time way before reaching that age.  

But you could be right, I suppose,  it's never to late to start (unless you're on your deathbed, when it actually is too late.)

Edited July 3, 2020 by Sibiriak

[Sibiriak]

52 minutes ago, Clinton said:

Thanks Sibiriak for posting some great info. 

My files are your files,  as the saying goes.

Personally, I'm not a vegan.  I drink modest amounts of kefir,   and eat some oily red fish once every week or two, and some tasty cheese rarely.    The vast bulk of my dietary intake is vegan though.   Putting aside ecological and ethical issues,  I sincerely doubt there is any health/longevity advantage in going totally vegan, and eating a small amount of animal products may actually be advantageous,  depending on the individual.

 

Edited July 3, 2020 by Sibiriak

[Mike41]

9 hours ago, mccoy said:

MMmmmm...., who says that if the lady had access to a gym and practiced light resistance training she may have added a few years to her life? There are no clinical trials on it so it's all speculation, which Sibiriak doesn't seem to like....

Maleness, androgen, testosterone etc. are not associated with longer lifespan. also  Men do worse against covid than women and now it comes to light that male pattern baldness is associated with worse outcomes. Why? See post on this in the covid thread. But IF ITS ALL ABOUT QOL THAN THATS A DIFFERENT ISSUE OF COURSE AND MORE POWER TO YOU! Pun intended 

Edited July 3, 2020 by Mike41

[mccoy]

30 minutes ago, Mike41 said:

But IF ITS ALL ABOUT QOL THAN THATS A DIFFERENT ISSUE OF COURSE AND MORE POWER TO YOU! Pun intended 

I'm more in favour of longevity with reasonable health or without serious mental and physical conditions. The actuarial data on longevity ignore the QOL factor but someone suggested a difference of 7 years between average life expectancy and average life expectancy with QOL. Probably for both sexes, so the female advantage would remain. That's perhaps one reason why there are so few ladies in this forum. They need to worry less!!!

Edited July 3, 2020 by mccoy

[Sibiriak]

Calorie Restriction and Sarcopenia

Quote

The benefits of calorie restriction have been extended into sarcopenia. In rats, a 6 week 20% reduction in calorie intake led to an attenuation of age-related loss of muscle mass and function in the soleus and gastrocnemius muscles through an upregulation of PGC-1α (Joseph et al. 2013a). Calorie restriction also preserved fibre number and type and protected mitochondrial DNA from deletion (Lee et al. 1998b). In rats, calorie restriction decreased apoptosis and protected from oxidative stress (Dirks and Leeuwenburgh 2004) as well as a decrease in the overall oxidation status in skeletal muscle (Hepple et al. 2008).

These data suggest that calorie restriction prevents sarcopenia potentially through an inhibition of apoptosis and enhancement of the mitochondrial function and this has been shown to occur through the upregulation of the NAD-deacetylase Sirt1 (Cohen et al. 2004). Sarcopenia was also attenuated by calorie restriction in the rhesus monkey (Colman et al. 2008).

The relevance and beneficial effects of human calorie restriction is shown in studies which have shown positive effects in diseases such as diabetes and atherosclerosis (Fontana et al. 2004; Weiss et al. 2006). Importantly Mercken et al. showed a long term 30% reduction in calorie intake in humans changed the transcriptional profile in skeletal muscle of an older individual similar to that of a younger subject, increased the production of antioxidants and decreased inflammation (Mercken et al. 2013).

This suggests that the benefits of calorie restriction can be extended into human muscle however a lot more work is needed in this area. It is likely that for a high adherence and for beneficial effects of a calorie restricted diet, this would have to be implemented at a younger age and it would be vital for people to be well informed about calorie intake. This would also need to be looked at on an individual basis as insufficient nutrition is already a problem for a lot of elderly people therefore, if misinformed it could lead to the malnutrition of patients which has been shown to result in a lower muscle mass (Pierik et al. 2017).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6223729/

 

 

Edited July 3, 2020 by Sibiriak