Are Canadian protein and physical activity guidelines optimal for sarcopenia prevention in older adults?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aging is characterized by physiological and morphological changes that affect body composition, strength, and function, ultimately leading to sarcopenia. This condition results in physical disability, falls, fractures, poor quality of life, and increased health care costs. Evidence suggests that increased consumption of dietary protein and physical activity levels, especially resistance exercise, can counteract the trajectory of sarcopenia. Canadian guidelines for protein intake and physical activity were last updated in 2005 and 2011, respectively, and new evidence on sarcopenia diagnosis, prevention, and treatment is rapidly evolving. Protein recommendations are set as "one-size-fits-all" for both young and older adults. Recent evidence demonstrates that current recommendations are insufficient to meet the minimum protein requirement to counteract muscle loss and to stimulate hypertrophy in healthy older adults. Beyond quantity, protein quality is also essential to benefit muscle anabolism in older adults. In terms of physical activity, resistance exercise training is a potential strategy to counteract age-related effects, as it can elicit muscle hypertrophic response in addition to increases in muscle strength and function in older adults. Canadian physical activity guidelines lack details on how this modality of training should be performed. Current guidelines for protein intake and physical activity do not reflect recent knowledge on sarcopenia prevention. The gap between guidelines and the latest evidence on the maintenance and promotion of older adult's health highlight the need for updated protein and physical activity recommendations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".