Muscle mass should be a new vital sign, research shows

Packerjohn

Interesting study/article on the importance of muscle mass. Can vouch from personal experience.
Contracted sepsis and was in the hospital for 7 days. After I recovered, several medical professionals said being in decent shape saved my life, most people with it that bad go out in a body bag. Yes, exercise is important.


A new review paper published in Annals of Medicine, and supported by Abbott, confirms the critical role muscle mass plays in health with studies demonstrating that people with less muscle had more surgical and post-operative complications, longer hospital stays, lower physical function, poorer quality of life and overall lower survival.2

The review examined the latest research over the course of a year (January 2016 - January 2017) including more than 140 studies in inpatient, outpatient and long-term care settings, and had one resounding conclusion -- muscle mass matters. The data show muscle mass can say a lot about a person's overall health status, especially if living with a chronic disease. For example:

A study in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) showed women with breast cancer who had more muscle had a nearly 60 percent better chance of survival.3
Patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) with more muscle spend less time on the ventilator -- as well as less time in the ICU -- and have a better chance of survival.4,5,6
People with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who have more muscle experience better respiratory outcomes and lower occurrence of osteopenia or osteoporosis.7,8
In the long-term care setting, a study found individuals with lower muscle mass had more severe Alzheimer's.9
"Muscle mass should be looked at as a new vital sign," said Carla Prado, Ph.D., R.D., associate professor at the University of Alberta and principal author of the paper. "If healthcare professionals identify and treat low muscle mass, they can significantly improve their patients' health outcomes. Fortunately, advances in technology are making it easier for practitioners to measure muscle mass."

Full article: https://eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-10/ghn-mms101718.php

Rocknut53

Interesting article even though it seems intuitive that muscle mass would equate to better health. My husband has health issues (all 4 requiring surgeries, one coming up soon) that I'm certain would have had shorter recovery periods had he had some level of overall fitness beforehand.

aokoye

Here's the full article (as opposed to a synopsis) which is titled, Review Article
Implications of low muscle mass across the continuum of care: a narrative review. It's open access: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07853890.2018.1511918

My main question in relation to implementation would be this. In the context of a primary care setting or a setting where a CT scan is not necessary for treatment, how are they recommending medical professionals test muscle mass? It looks like the studies that were looked at that were in primary care settings primarily used DXA and BIA.

This quote from the article is more or less what I'm getting at:
"Currently, body composition measurement tools (e.g. DXA, CT) although available to specific clinical settings are not widely available to the general population. Hand held tools such as ultrasound and BIA show promise and are in various stages of validation in different clinical settings"

The article goes on to discuss some issues with hand held tools.

kimny72

I would love it if this caused some kind of advances in accurate and accessible ways to measure BF! Dexa and bod pod testing can be pretty hard to find in some areas of the country, and even more limited when you factor in price.

Packerjohn

kimny72 wrote: »

I would love it if this caused some kind of advances in accurate and accessible ways to measure BF! Dexa and bod pod testing can be pretty hard to find in some areas of the country, and even more limited when you factor in price.

Very true. We did put people on the moon almost 50 year ago using computing technology that was over 1000x less powerful than the phones every tween runs around with.

You'd think something is out there.

rheddmobile

I'm more interested in how they intend practitioners "treat" low muscle mass. Doctors have a strikingly low success rate at getting patients to persist in lifestyle interventions of any kind, and I'm not aware of any other way to increase muscle. Also, how would identifying and treating low muscle mass in an ICU setting even work? People on ventilators are not going to start lifting weights.

Packerjohn

rheddmobile wrote: »

I'm more interested in how they intend practitioners "treat" low muscle mass. Doctors have a strikingly low success rate at getting patients to persist in lifestyle interventions of any kind, and I'm not aware of any other way to increase muscle. Also, how would identifying and treating low muscle mass in an ICU setting even work? People on ventilators are not going to start lifting weights.

You need to get people to realize there is value to muscle mass/strength long before the need for a ventilator arises.

snowflake954

Packerjohn wrote: »

rheddmobile wrote: »

I'm more interested in how they intend practitioners "treat" low muscle mass. Doctors have a strikingly low success rate at getting patients to persist in lifestyle interventions of any kind, and I'm not aware of any other way to increase muscle. Also, how would identifying and treating low muscle mass in an ICU setting even work? People on ventilators are not going to start lifting weights.

You need to get people to realize there is value to muscle mass/strength long before the need for a ventilator arises.

I agree with this. My husband (64) says our health center membership, which is very expensive in central Rome, is like an insurance policy.

fishgutzy

The US only uses "taping." Measuring specific points and checking the chart output.
When I was in the Air Force, they only measured the bicep to determine if one should be granted a higher maximum weight due to muscle. In my case, when they measured, it reduced my maximum allowed weight so the stick with the standard which I was already over at that point.

tbright1965

fishgutzy wrote: »

The US only uses "taping." Measuring specific points and checking the chart output.
When I was in the Air Force, they only measured the bicep to determine if one should be granted a higher maximum weight due to muscle. In my case, when they measured, it reduced my maximum allowed weight so the stick with the standard which I was already over at that point.

The Army taped as well. I was 5'11" and 195#, but would max the PT test running 2 miles in 13:02 or faster, 70+ pushups and 80+ situps in 2 minutes for each event.

But I'd get taped and my 19" neck and at the time 32" waist ensured I wasn't on a weight management program.

I think they wanted me to weight about 20-25# less than I did.

fishgutzy

tbright1965 wrote: »

fishgutzy wrote: »

The US only uses "taping." Measuring specific points and checking the chart output.
When I was in the Air Force, they only measured the bicep to determine if one should be granted a higher maximum weight due to muscle. In my case, when they measured, it reduced my maximum allowed weight so the stick with the standard which I was already over at that point.

The Army taped as well. I was 5'11" and 195#, but would max the PT test running 2 miles in 13:02 or faster, 70+ pushups and 80+ situps in 2 minutes for each event.

But I'd get taped and my 19" neck and at the time 32" waist ensured I wasn't on a weight management program.

I think they wanted me to weight about 20-25# less than I did.

My nieces husband is an E8 in the army. First Sergeant. He leads by example.
He was a skinny teenager. But now his a massive muscular soldier. Gets taped every time. Passes. His biceps are bigger than many adult necks.

zyxst

If my GP starts using my muscle mass to determine my health, I may as well live at a funeral home.

tbright1965

fishgutzy wrote: »

tbright1965 wrote: »

fishgutzy wrote: »

The US only uses "taping." Measuring specific points and checking the chart output.
When I was in the Air Force, they only measured the bicep to determine if one should be granted a higher maximum weight due to muscle. In my case, when they measured, it reduced my maximum allowed weight so the stick with the standard which I was already over at that point.

The Army taped as well. I was 5'11" and 195#, but would max the PT test running 2 miles in 13:02 or faster, 70+ pushups and 80+ situps in 2 minutes for each event.

But I'd get taped and my 19" neck and at the time 32" waist ensured I wasn't on a weight management program.

I think they wanted me to weight about 20-25# less than I did.

My nieces husband is an E8 in the army. First Sergeant. He leads by example.
He was a skinny teenager. But now his a massive muscular soldier. Gets taped every time. Passes. His biceps are bigger than many adult necks.

And my goal is to get back down to that 195. About 20# to go.

I'll probably only be able to do the situps. Arthritis in my knees and shoulder will probably prevent the same running and pushup performances some 30 years later.

But I expect I can maintain 20MPH+ on my bicycle for 13 minutes

NorthCascades

Rocknut53 wrote: »

Interesting article even though it seems intuitive that muscle mass would equate to better health. My husband has health issues (all 4 requiring surgeries, one coming up soon) that I'm certain would have had shorter recovery periods had he had some level of overall fitness beforehand.

It doesn't seem intuitively obvious to me. It seems like more muscle would translate into fewer injuries and a higher quality of life. I'm happily surprised that it seems to be much more than that.

Ed_Zilla

As I watch all of my friends gain significant weight, get bad knees - feet - ankles because of it, become borderline or full on diabetic, I guess I always intuitively knew that a healthy lifestyle (less fat, more muscle) was the way to go.

I also thought the points about lesser Alzheimers, faster recovery, better chance of recovery, lower mortality rate were also interesting.

GaleHawkins

Ed_Zilla wrote: »

As I watch all of my friends gain significant weight, get bad knees - feet - ankles because of it, become borderline or full on diabetic, I guess I always intuitively knew that a healthy lifestyle (less fat, more muscle) was the way to go.

I also thought the points about lesser Alzheimers, faster recovery, better chance of recovery, lower mortality rate were also interesting.

@Ed_Zilla I wish I had learned the points in that article and had acted on them years ago but at least I did at the age of 63 four years ago.

As the article below points out what we are talking about is increasing the health and number of our mitochondria to decrease the risk of premature death when we increase our muscle mass especially in our senior years.

https://mangomannutrition.com/mitochondrial-biogenesis-part1/

"Mitochondrial Dysfunction is a Hallmark of Insulin Resistance
Insulin resistance starts in the muscle and liver tissues as a result of excess fatty acid accumulation. When muscle accumulates excess fatty acids over time, the muscle loses it’s ability to respond to insulin effectively. Extensive scientific studies have shown that muscle tissue from subjects with type 2 diabetes is deficient in many crucial aspects of mitochondrial biology, including the following:

Reduced quantity of mitochondria (7,8)
Reduced ability to burn fatty acids and glucose for energy (4,9,10)
Impaired mitochondrial electron transport chain protein function (11)
Improper distribution of mitochondria within the muscle tissue (3)
Impaired mitochondrial gene expression (12)
Insulin resistance and diabetes are metabolic disasters for muscle tissue unless specific steps are taken to counteract mitochondrial dysfunction.

Since muscle tissue occupies more than 40% of the human body by mass, a reduced ability of muscle mitochondria to burn fatty acids and glucose for energy is partly responsible for feelings of low energy and sluggishness that many people with diabetes feel. More importantly, defective muscle mitochondrial function often induces a mild inflammatory state within the muscle tissue that results in the production of blood borne cytokines that signal a state of stress to circulating immune cells.

Specific measures must be taken in order to counteract mitochondrial dysfunction due to insulin resistance, and in next week’s article we will explore how exercise can induce mitochondrial biogenesis extremely effectively. Since mitochondria are responsive to the demand for energy created by exercise and the type of fuel available from the diet, a 2-pronged approach to eliminating insulin resistance is often the most effective way to restore muscle mitochondrial function and restore blood glucose values to normal."