INTRODUCTION: Sufficient high quality dietary protein intake is required to prevent or treat sarcopenia in elderly people. Therefore, the intake of specific protein sources as well as their timing of intake are important to improve dietary protein intake in elderly people.OBJECTIVES: to assess the consumption of protein sources as well as the distribution of protein sources over the day in community-dwelling, frail and institutionalized elderly people.METHODS: Habitual dietary intake was evaluated using 2- and 3-day food records collected from various studies involving 739 community-dwelling, 321 frail and 219 institutionalized elderly people.RESULTS: Daily protein intake averaged 71 ± 18 g/day in community-dwelling, 71 ± 20 g/day in frail and 58 ± 16 g/day in institutionalized elderly people and accounted for 16% ± 3%, 16% ± 3% and 17% ± 3% of their energy intake, respectively. Dietary protein intake ranged from 10 to 12 g at breakfast, 15 to 23 g at lunch and 24 to 31 g at dinner contributing together over 80% of daily protein intake. The majority of dietary protein consumed originated from animal sources (≥60%) with meat and dairy as dominant sources. Thus, 40% of the protein intake in community-dwelling, 37% in frail and 29% in institutionalized elderly originated from plant based protein sources with bread as the principle source. Plant based proteins contributed for >50% of protein intake at breakfast and between 34% and 37% at lunch, with bread as the main source. During dinner, >70% of the protein intake originated from animal protein, with meat as the dominant source.CONCLUSION: Daily protein intake in these older populations is mainly (>80%) provided by the three main meals, with most protein consumed during dinner. More than 60% of daily protein intake consumed is of animal origin, with plant based protein sources representing nearly 40% of total protein consumed. During dinner, >70% of the protein intake originated from animal protein, while during breakfast and lunch a large proportion of protein is derived from plant based protein sources.
ContextRetirement is an opportune time for people to establish new healthy routines. Exercise and nutritional interventions are promising in the prevention and treatment of sarcopenic obesity.ObjectiveThis systematic review aimed to assess the effectiveness of nutritional and exercise interventions for the treatment of sarcopenic obesity in persons of retirement age.Data SourcesPubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and CENTRAL databases were searched in September 2021 for randomized controlled trials; a manual search was also conducted. The search yielded 261 studies, of which 11 were eligible for inclusion.Data ExtractionStudies of community-dwelling individuals with sarcopenic obesity receiving any nutritional or exercise intervention ≥ 8 weeks with the mean age ± standard deviation between 50 and 70 years were included. Primary endpoint was body composition, and secondary endpoints were body mass index, muscle strength, and physical function. The literature review, study selection, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment were performed by two reviewers independently. Data were pooled for meta-analysis when possible.ResultsMeta-analysis was only possible for the exposure “resistance training” and the exposure “training (resistance or aerobic)” in combination with the exposure “added protein” as compared with “no intervention” or “training alone.” Resistance training led to a significant body fat reduction of −1.53% (95%CI, −2.91 to −0.15), an increase in muscle mass of 2.72% (95%CI, 1.23–4.22), an increase in muscle strength of 4.42 kg (95%CI, 2.44–6.04), and a slight improvement in gait speed of 0.17 m/s (95%CI, 0.01–0.34). Protein combined with an exercise intervention significantly reduces fat mass (−0.80 kg; 95%CI, −1.32 to −0.28). Some individual studies of dietary or food supplement interventions for which data could not be pooled showed positive effects on body composition.ConclusionResistance training is an effective treatment for persons of retirement age with sarcopenic obesity. Increased protein intake combined with exercise may increase reductions in fat mass.Systematic Review RegistrationPROSPERO registration no. CRD42021276461.
PURPOSE: Malnutrition and sarcopenia require dietetic and physiotherapy interventions. In this study, we aimed to compare interprofessional identity of dietitians and physiotherapists, as well as attitudes towards, facilitators and barriers for, and occurrence of interprofessional treatment of malnutrition and sarcopenia by both professions.METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey was distributed from December 4, 2021 until January 31, 2022 through an international online network platform for professionals (LinkedIn). Practitioners working as dietitian or physiotherapist in a healthcare setting were eligible for participation. Outcome measures concerned perceptions regarding shared problem domains, interprofessional treatment, attitudes towards interprofessional treatment, interprofessional identity, facilitators, and barriers. A Chi 2-test, Mann-Whitney U-test, and Spearman's Rho correlation were calculated. RESULTS: Data from 53 physiotherapists and 48 dietitians were included. Malnutrition is considered a shared problem domain by both professions ( U = 1248.000; p = 0.858). While sarcopenia is treated by both professions ( U = 1260.000; p = 0.927), physiotherapists consider sarcopenia more often a shared problem domain compared to dietitians ( U = 1003.000; p = 0.044). Attitudes towards interprofessional treatment were mostly positive (73%, n = 35 and 87%, n = 46 respectively). Interprofessional identity of dietitians was lower compared to physiotherapists (median = 4.0 versus median = 4.3 respectively; U = 875.000, p = 0.007). This was explained by lower interprofessional belonging (median = 4.0 versus median = 4.8 respectively; U = 771.000, p < 0.001) and lower interprofessional commitment (median = 4.0 versus median = 4.3 respectively; U = 942.500, p = 0.023). Interprofessional identity was correlated with efficient means of communication ( r = 0.30, p = 0.003) and bureaucracy ( r = -0.21, p = 0.034). Other barriers reported included available time, financial compensation, interprofessional knowledge, and obtaining extra care. Most reported facilitators concerned role clarity, clarity of expertise, and willingness of others to collaborate. CONCLUSION: Dietitians and physiotherapists have different interprofessional identities, but both are advocates of interprofessional treatment. Both professions mostly treat malnutrition and sarcopenia individually and have different perceptions regarding sarcopenia as shared problem domain. Facilitators were mainly related to clarity and commitment while barriers were mainly related to resources.
