Rationale: Sarcopenia and obesity are prevalent conditions and are both associated with negative health outcomes. ESPEN and EASO reached consensus on the definition and diagnostic criteria for sarcopenic obesity (SO) encompassing indicators fat mass, muscle mass, and muscle function. However, few studies report on the effect of lifestyle interventions on these SO indicators. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of combined lifestyle interventions on SO indicators and on a composite SO index.Methods: Analyses were performed on two pooled RCT’s (MPS, PROBE) in older adults with obesity participating in a 13-wk program targeting weight loss while preserving muscle mass, providing a combination of caloric restriction, higher protein intake and resistance exercise training. SO indicators measured at baseline and post-intervention included 5x chair stand test (CST) in seconds for muscle function, fat mass percentage (FM%) and appendicular lean mass divided by body weight (ALM/W) using DXA. The SO index was calculated using sex-specific z-scores: -CST(s) + ALM/W – FM%; higher scores indicating better muscle function and body composition. Mixed model analyses were performed to assess the changes from baseline to post-intervention, adjusted for sex and age.Results: A total of 154 participants (age 65±6y; 59% male, BMI 33.1±4.3kg/m2) were included. After the 13-wk lifestyle interventions, weight (-2.87kg 95%CI -4.16;-1.64) and FM% (-1.81% 95%CI -2.42;-1.21) decreased significantly, CST improved significantly (-1.51s 95%CI -2.02;-1.00) from baseline and ALM/W was maintained (0kg/kg 95%CI 0.01;0.01). The SO index improved (+1.16 z-score 95%CI 0.86;1.44).Conclusion: Lifestyle interventions combining nutrition & exercise improved individual SO indicators and the SO index in older adults with obesity. The SO index could be a useful and sensitive criterion in the prevention and management of sarcopenic obesity.
Rationale: Lean body mass, including muscle, is known to decrease with age, which may contribute to loss of physical function, an indicator of frailty. Moreover, low muscle thickness is considered an indicator of frailty in critically ill patients. However, little is known about the relationship between muscle thickness and frailty in community dwelling adults. Therefore, we studied the association between frailty and whole body lean body mass index (LBMi) and muscle thickness of the rectus femoris (RF) in community dwelling older adults. Methods: In older adults aged ≥55y, who participated in the Hanze Health and Ageing Study, frailty status was assessed with a multidimensional instrument, measuring frailty on a cognitive, psychosocial en physical level, i.e., the Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI), using ≥4 as cut-off score for frailty. LBMi (kg/m2) was estimated with BIA (Quadscan 4000©, Bodystat), using the build-in equation. Muscle thickness (mm) of the RF was measured with ultrasound, using the Bodymetrix© (Intelametrix). Univariate and multivariate binary logistic regression analyses were performed for LBMi and for RF thickness. Multivariate analysis corrected for age, sex, body mass index (kg/m2), and handgrip strength (handgrip dynamometer; kg). A p-level of <0.05 was considered significant and Odds Ratios (OR; [95% CI]) were presented. Results: 93 participants (age 65.2±7.7 years; male 46 %; LBMi 17.2±2.6 kg/m2; RF 14.6±4.4 mm; median GFI =1 (interquartile range=0-3; frail: n=18) were included in the analysis. In both the univariate and multivariate analysis, LBMi (p=0.082, OR=0.82 [0.66-1.03]; p=0.077, OR=0.55 [0.28-1.07] respectively) and muscle thickness of RF (p=0.436, OR=0.95 [0.84-1.08]; p=0.796, OR= 1.02 [0.88-1.18] respectively) were not significantly associated with frailty. None of the co-variables were significantly associated with frailty either. Conclusion: In this sample of older adults aged ≥55 years, LBMi and RF thickness are not associated with frailty. However, frail participants scored at cut-off or just above, and measurements in a population with higher scores for frailty may provide further insight in the association between lean body mass and muscle thickness and frailty.
ObjectivesBody weight and muscle mass loss following an acute hospitalization in older patients may be influenced by malnutrition and sarcopenia among other factors. This study aimed to assess the changes in body weight and composition from admission to discharge and the geriatric variables associated with the changes in geriatric rehabilitation inpatients.DesignRESORT is an observational, longitudinal cohort.Setting and ParticipantsGeriatric rehabilitation inpatients admitted to geriatric rehabilitation wards at the Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Australia (N = 1006).MethodsChanges in body weight and body composition [fat mass (FM), appendicular lean mass (ALM)] from admission to discharge were analyzed using linear mixed models. Body mass index (BMI) categories, (risk of) malnutrition (Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition), sarcopenia (European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People), dependence in activities of daily living (ADL), multimorbidity, and cognitive impairment were tested as geriatric variables by which the changes in body weight and composition may differ.ResultsA total of 1006 patients [median age: 83.2 (77.7–88.8) years, 58.5% female] were included. Body weight, FM (kg), and FM% decreased (0.30 kg, 0.43 kg, and 0.46%, respectively) and ALM (kg) and ALM% increased (0.17 kg and 0.33%, respectively) during geriatric rehabilitation. Body weight increased in patients with underweight; decreased in patients with normal/overweight, obesity, ADL dependence and in those without malnutrition and sarcopenia. ALM% and FM% decreased in patients with normal/overweight. ALM increased in patients without multimorbidity and in those with malnutrition and sarcopenia; ALM% increased in patients without multimorbidity and with sarcopenia.Conclusions and ImplicationsIn geriatric rehabilitation, body weight increased in patients with underweight but decreased in patients with normal/overweight and obesity. ALM increased in patients with malnutrition and sarcopenia but not in patients without. This suggests the need for improved standard of care independent of patients’ nutritional risk.
