Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

Muscle mass should be a new vital sign, research shows

Options
Packerjohn
Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
edited October 2018 in Debate Club
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

Replies

  • Rocknut53
    Rocknut53 Posts: 1,794 Member
    Options
    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
    aokoye Posts: 3,495 Member
    Options
    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.
  • fishgutzy
    fishgutzy Posts: 2,807 Member
    Options
    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. :D
  • tbright1965
    tbright1965 Posts: 852 Member
    Options
    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. :D

    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
    fishgutzy Posts: 2,807 Member
    Options
    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. :D

    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. :D
  • zyxst
    zyxst Posts: 9,134 Member
    Options
    If my GP starts using my muscle mass to determine my health, I may as well live at a funeral home.
  • tbright1965
    tbright1965 Posts: 852 Member
    Options
    fishgutzy 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. :D

    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. :D

    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
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,970 Member
    edited November 2018
    Options
    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. :smile:
  • Ed_Zilla
    Ed_Zilla Posts: 207 Member
    Options
    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.