Low protein intake, physical activity, and physical function in European and North American community-dwelling older adults: a pooled analysis of four longitudinal aging cohorts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dietary protein may slow the decline in muscle mass and function with aging, making it a sensible candidate to prevent or modulate disability progression. At present, studies providing reliable estimates of the association between protein intake and physical function, and its interaction with physical activity (PA), in community-dwelling older adults are lacking. OBJECTIVES: We investigated the longitudinal relation between protein intake and physical function, and the interaction with PA. METHODS: We undertook a pooled analysis of individual participant data from cohorts in the PROMISS (PRevention Of Malnutrition In Senior Subjects in the European Union) consortium (the Health Aging and Body Composition Study, Quebec Longitudinal Study on Nutrition and Successful Aging, Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam, and Newcastle 85+) in which 5725 community-dwelling older adults were followed up to 8.5 y. The relation between protein intake and walking speed was determined using joint models (linear mixed-effects and Cox proportional hazards models) and the relation with mobility limitation was investigated using multistate models. RESULTS: Higher protein intake was modestly protective of decline in walking speed in a dose-dependent manner [e.g., protein intake ≥1.2 compared with 0.8 g/kg adjusted body weight (aBW)/d: β = 0.024, 95% CI: 0.009, 0.032 SD/y], with no clear indication of interaction with PA. Participants with protein intake ≥0.8 g/kg aBW/d had also a lower likelihood of incident mobility limitation, which was observed for each level of PA. This association seemed to be dose-dependent for difficulty walking but not for difficulty climbing stairs. No associations between protein intake and other mobility limitations transitions were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Higher daily protein intake can reduce physical function decline not only in older adults with protein intake below the current RDA of 0.8 g/kg BW/d, but also in those with a protein intake that is already considered sufficient. This dose-dependent association was observed for each level of PA, suggesting no clear synergistic association between protein intake and PA in relation to physical function.
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 | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".