Losses of muscle and strength are inescapable effects of the aging process. Left unchecked, these progressive losses will start to impair physical function.
Once a certain level of impairment occurs, an individual can be diagnosed with sarcopenia, which comes from the Greek words “sarco” (flesh) and “penia” (poverty).
Muscle mass losses generally occur with weight loss, and the increasing use of glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) medications may lead to greater incidence and prevalence of sarcopenia in the years to come.
A recent meta-analysis of 56 studies (mean participant age, 50 years) found a twofold greater risk for mortality in those with sarcopenia vs those without. Despite its health consequences, sarcopenia tends to be underdiagnosed and, consequently, undertreated at a population and individual level. Part of the reason probably stems from the lack of health insurance reimbursement for individual clinicians and hospital systems to perform sarcopenia screening assessments.
In aging and obesity, it appears justified to include and emphasize a recommendation for sarcopenia screening in medical society guidelines; however, individual patients and clinicians do not need to wait for updated guidelines to implement sarcopenia screening, treatment, and prevention strategies in their own lives and/or clinical practice.
Simple Prevention and Treatment Strategy
Much can be done to help prevent sarcopenia. The primary strategy, unsurprisingly, is engaging in frequent strength training. But that doesn’t mean hours in the gym every week.
With just one session per week over 10 weeks, lean body mass (LBM), a common proxy for muscle mass, increased by 0.33 kg, according to a study which evaluated LBM improvements across different strength training frequencies. Adding a second weekly session was significantly better. In the twice-weekly group, LBM increased by 1.4 kg over 10 weeks, resulting in an increase in LBM more than four times greater than the once-a-week group. (There was no greater improvement in LBM by adding a third weekly session vs two weekly sessions.)
Although that particular study didn’t identify greater benefit at three times a week, compared with twice a week, the specific training routines and lack of a protein consumption assessment may have played a role in that finding.
Underlying the diminishing benefits, a different study found a marginally greater benefit in favor of performing ≥ five sets per major muscle group per week, compared with < five sets per week for increasing muscle in the legs, arms, back, chest, and shoulders.
Expensive gym memberships and fancy equipment are not necessary. While the use of strength training machines and free weights have been viewed by many as the optimal approach, a recent systematic review and meta-analysis found that comparable improvements to strength can be achieved with workouts using resistance bands. For those who struggle to find the time to go to a gym, or for whom gym fees are not financially affordable, resistance bands are a cheaper and more convenient alternative.
Lucas, Assistant Professor of Clinical Medicine, Comprehensive Weight Control Center, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York City, disclosed ties with Measured (Better Health Labs).
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.