Understanding taste is key for optimizing the palatability of seaweeds and other non-animal-based foods rich in protein. The lingual papillae in the mouth hold taste buds with taste receptors for the five gustatory taste qualities. Each taste bud contains three distinct cell types, of which Type II cells carry various G protein-coupled receptors that can detect sweet, bitter, or umami tastants, while type III cells detect sour, and likely salty stimuli. Upon ligand binding, receptor-linked intracellular heterotrimeric G proteins initiate a cascade of downstream events which activate the afferent nerve fibers for taste perception in the brain. The taste of amino acids depends on the hydrophobicity, size, charge, isoelectric point, chirality of the alpha carbon, and the functional groups on their side chains. The principal umami ingredient monosodium l-glutamate, broadly known as MSG, loses umami taste upon acetylation, esterification, or methylation, but is able to form flat configurations that bind well to the umami taste receptor. Ribonucleotides such as guanosine monophosphate and inosine monophosphate strongly enhance umami taste when l-glutamate is present. Ribonucleotides bind to the outer section of the venus flytrap domain of the receptor dimer and stabilize the closed conformation. Concentrations of glutamate, aspartate, arginate, and other compounds in food products may enhance saltiness and overall flavor. Umami ingredients may help to reduce the consumption of salts and fats in the general population and increase food consumption in the elderly.
MULTIFILE
As the population is aging rapidly, there is a strong increase in the number of individuals with chronic disease and physical limitations. The decrease in skeletal muscle mass and function (sarcopenia) and the increase in fat mass (obesity) are important contributors to the development of physical limitations, which aggravates the chronic diseases prognosis. The combination of the two conditions, which is referred to as sarcopenic obesity, amplifies the risk for these negative health outcomes, which demonstrates the importance of preventing or counteracting sarcopenic obesity. One of the main challenges is the preservation of the skeletal muscle mass and function, while simultaneously reducing the fat mass in this population. Exercise and nutrition are two key components in the development, as well as the prevention and treatment of sarcopenic obesity. The main aim of this narrative review is to summarize the different, both separate and combined, exercise and nutrition strategies so as to prevent and/or counteract sarcopenic obesity. This review therefore provides a current update of the various exercise and nutritional strategies to improve the contrasting body composition changes and physical functioning in sarcopenic obese individuals.
Background: Although diagnosing and treating malnutrition, sarcopenia and underweight are recommended to be embedded and sustained within nutritional care, it is unknown if that is facilitated in geriatric rehabilitation. This study determined the proportion of geriatric rehabilitation inpatients with malnutrition, sarcopenia or underweight receiving dietetic interventions as part of routine clinical care and if these patients have greater improvements in body weight and composition compared to patients not receiving dietetic interventions.Methods: Geriatric rehabilitation inpatients from the observational REStORing health of acutely unwell adulTs (RESORT) cohort were included (n=971, median age 83.2 [77.7-88.8] years, 58.5% (n=568) females). Malnutrition, sarcopenia and underweight were defined by the Global Leadership Initiative of Malnutrition, European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People 2 and age-specific body mass index cut-offs. Data on dietetic interventions initiated by dietitians as part of clinical care was extracted from the centralised hospital database. Changes in body weight (kg), skeletal muscle mass (kg, %), and fat mass (kg, %) from admission to discharge were determined using linear mixed models.Results: Dietetic interventions were received by 306 (62.0%), 138 (71.5%) and 153 (76.9%) of patients with malnutrition (n=493), sarcopenia (n=193) and underweight (n=199). Duration and frequency of dietetic interventions were higher in patients with malnutrition, sarcopenia or underweight compared to patients without those conditions. There were no differences in body weight/composition changes in patients with malnutrition, sarcopenia or underweight receiving dietetic interventions compared to those not receiving interventions.Conclusions: One-third of geriatric rehabilitation inpatients with malnutrition, sarcopenia or underweight are not receiving dietetic interventions and therefore the referral and diagnostic process require improvements. Patients with malnutrition, sarcopenia or underweight receiving dietetic interventions had no greater improvements in body weight/composition compared to those who did not receive interventions. Tailoring dietetic interventions for malnutrition, sarcopenia and underweight diagnosis may improve patient outcomes.
MULTIFILE