Prospective associations of protein intake parameters with muscle strength and physical performance in community-dwelling older men and women from the Quebec NuAge cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dietary protein has been related to muscle function in aging. Beyond total intake, parameters such as protein distribution across meals might also be important. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to examine prospective associations of different protein intake parameters with muscle strength and physical performance in community-dwelling older men and women. METHODS: In total, 524 men and 574 women aged 67-84 y at baseline (T1) were followed annually for 3 y (T2, T3, T4). Outcomes included handgrip strength (kPa), knee extensor strength (kg), and physical performance (Timed Up and Go, s) at T4, and their 3-y changes (T4 minus T1). Protein intake parameters were assessed using nine 24-h recalls collected over 3 y (T1, T2, T3) and included daily total intake (g/d), number of protein-providing meals and snacks, and protein distribution across meals (expressed as CV). Associations were examined by multivariable linear regression models including all protein intake parameters simultaneously. Also, the optimal protein dose (g) per meal for the maximum effect size of total daily intake was determined. RESULTS: Higher daily protein intake was associated with better knee extensor strength and physical performance at T4 in both sexes and less physical performance decline in women. Optimal protein doses per meal were 30-35 g in men and 35-50 g in women for these outcomes. In men, more uneven protein distribution was associated with better physical performance at T4 and less handgrip strength decline. In women, a higher number of protein-providing snacks was associated with better handgrip strength and knee extensor strength at T4 and less handgrip strength decline. In neither sex was number of protein-providing meals associated with outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Higher daily protein intake, up to 30-50 g protein/meal, may contribute to better knee extensor strength and physical performance in generally well-functioning older men and women. More aspects of protein intake may contribute to muscle strength and physical performance than solely the daily quantity, notably the protein dose per meal.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".