Abstract

Background

Age-related deposition of fat in skeletal muscle is associated with functional limitations. Skeletal muscle fat may be present in people with preserved muscle mass or accompanied by muscle wasting. However, it is not clear if the association between muscle fat deposition and physical performance is moderated by muscle mass.

Objective

To determine whether the association between midthigh intermuscular fat and physical performance is moderated by muscle area.

Methods

We performed a cross-sectional analysis of the Health, Aging, and, Body Composition (ABC) study data collected in 2002–2003 (n = 1897, women: 52.2%). Midthigh muscle cross-sectional area (by computed tomography) and physical performance measures were compared across quartiles of intermuscular fat absolute area. Moderation analysis was performed to determine the conditional effect of intermuscular fat on physical performance as a function of muscle area. Conditional effects were evaluated at three levels of muscle area (mean and ± 1 standard deviation [SD]; 213.2 ± 53.2 cm2).

Results

Simple slope analysis showed that the negative association between intermuscular fat area (cm2) and leg strength (N·m) was of greater magnitude (beta coefficient [b], 95% confidence interval [CI] = −0.288 [−0.427, −0.148]) in participants with greater muscle area (ie, 1 SD above the mean) compared to those with lower muscle area (ie, at mean [b = −0.12 {−0.248, 0.008}] or 1 SD below the mean [b = 0.048 {−0.122, 0.217}]). Similarly, the negative association of intermuscular fat with 400-m walk speed (m/s) and chair stand (seconds) was greater in those with higher muscle areas (p < .001) compared to those with lower muscle areas.

Conclusions

The association between higher intermuscular fat area and impaired physical function in aging is moderated by muscle area.

Age-related declines in muscle strength and physical function are important components of frailty (1,2) and predictors of future risk of mobility disability (3,4), loss of independence, and mortality (5–9). Alterations in muscle composition, which may manifest as a combination of muscle wasting and fat deposition, are among the major contributors to muscular dysfunction in the older adults (10–13). Muscle mass decreases by ~6% per decade after midlife (14) and accelerates to 1% per year in those aged 70 and older (15). Irrespective of changes in the muscle mass or body weight, an age-related increase in muscle fat by 48.5% in men and 29.0% in women was observed over 5 years follow-up in the Health, Aging, and, Body Composition (ABC) study cohort with an average age of 74 years (16). The accumulation of fat in skeletal muscles is a manifestation of the age-related body fat redistribution from subcutaneous sites to ectopic locations (17) and affects intermuscular (ie, visible fat within the fascia and between the muscles) (18) and intramuscular (ie, fat infiltration between muscle fibers) (19) as well as intramyocellular lipid content (ie, fat stored in droplets within muscle cells) (20,21). Previous studies suggest that these fat depots are associated with higher risks of developing muscle dysfunctions and mobility disability in the older adults (22,23).

Fat infiltration of skeletal muscle is a complex pathologic condition and in addition to occurring with aging, it may occur in a variety of diseases, including in cancer cachexia (24), spinal cord injury (25), metabolic dysfunction (eg, obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus) (26,27), and muscle disuse (28). These diverse pathologic states may be associated with various levels of muscle loss. For instance, both acute (eg, short-term immobility) and chronic (eg, cancer cachexia and spinal cord injury) hypercatabolic conditions are associated with concurrent muscle wasting and muscle fat accretion (29,30). On the other hand, muscle fat accumulation in metabolic diseases is generally not associated with concurrent low muscle mass (26). While the role of age-related muscle wasting in deterioration of muscle function is extensively studied, the impact that muscle size has on the association between muscle fat depots and physical performance has not been addressed to our knowledge.

In the current study, we have examined the interaction between midthigh muscle and intermuscular fat areas with physical performance measures (gait speed, chair stand, standing balance, and leg strength) in participants of the Health ABC study to determine whether the association between intermuscular fat and physical performance varies by the amount of muscle area. We hypothesized that muscle area moderates the association between intermuscular fat and physical performance in community-dwelling older adults. Delineation of the interactions between muscle mass and fat deposition will advance our understanding of the role of muscle composition in the disablement pathway in aging and may ultimately allow for more effective interventions.

Study Participants and Methods

Participants

This study is a cross-sectional analysis of Year-6 data from the Health ABC study cohort collected in 2002–2003 (31). In the original cohort 3075 participants (women: 52% and blacks: 41%) were recruited from Memphis, Tennessee, and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Participants were eligible to enroll if they (i) had no difficulty in walking ¼ mile, climbing up 10 steps, and performing daily living activities; (ii) did not report using a walking aid; and (iii) were free of cancer. Considering that the cohort consisted of healthy and well-functioning participants at baseline, we conducted this analysis using the sixth year follow-up data to ensure relatively high prevalence of intermuscular fat infiltration and functional decline. By Year 6, 1948 participants were still alive and returned for the examination, out of which 44 participants with no midthigh muscle assessment by computed tomography (CT) scan and seven participants with intermuscular fat area ≥ 80 cm2 (ie, ≥5 standard deviation [SD]) were excluded from the analysis. The final analysis sample comprised 1897 participants (911 men, 986 women). All participants provided informed written consents. The research protocol was approved by the institutional ethics committees of the Universities of Pittsburgh and Tennessee.

Body Composition

Body composition was assessed by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) (QDR 4500A; Hologic Inc., Waltham, MA) using standard procedures, as previously reported (32). Quality assurance of the DXA measurements was performed by the use of daily and cross-calibration phantoms to ensue scanner reliability and adherence to the study protocol at both clinical centers. Appendicular lean mass was calculated as the sum of nonbone lean mass in arms and legs. Body weight (by calibrated balance-beam scale) and height (using Harpenden Stadiometer, Holtain Ltd, Crosswell, United Kingdom) were determined while participants were wearing a hospital gown and had removed their shoes. Waist circumference was measured with a flexible tape measure at the participant’s largest circumference.

Physical Performance

Average maximum isokinetic muscle torque of the knee extensors was assessed using isokinetic Kin-Com dynamometer (model 125 AP; Chattanooga, TN) on the right leg, unless contraindicated. Participants were excluded from knee extension strength test if they had stroke, uncontrolled hypertension, bilateral knee replacement, or severe bilateral knee pain (13). Lower extremity function was assessed by (i) five repeated timed chair stands (number/second, with those unable assigned a score of 0); (ii) timed standing balance (total time of all stands; 0–90 seconds); (iii) 6-m fast gait speed (m/s); (iv) time to walk 6 m with usual pace (seconds); and (v) long distance (400 m) usual walk speed (m/s), as described previously (33).

Midthigh Muscle Composition

Midthigh muscle cross-sectional area (cm2), intermuscular fat area (cm2), and muscle density (Hounsfield unit) were determined by CT, as described before (22). In brief, a single 10-mm axial image was obtained at the midpoint of the distance between the medial edge of the greater trochanter and the intercondyloid fossa. A development software (RSI Systems, Boulder, CO) was used to determine muscle and adipose tissue areas of the thigh. Intermuscular fat area was determined as the area of fat density within the deep fascial plane surrounding the thigh muscles. Muscle area was quantified as the total area of nonfat and nonbone tissues within the fascial border (16). Muscle density was determined as the skeletal muscle attenuation coefficient by averaging pixel densities in Hounsfield units within the region outlined on the images within the fascial plan (excluding intermuscular and visible intramuscular adipose tissue). A quality review was performed on each participant’s image to confirm the use of proper scan techniques and the appropriate quality of images for analysis.

Other Measures

Demographic variables, including sex, age, race, smoking history, education, and physical activity levels, were collected through questionnaires. Physical activity was assessed by self-report as total kcal/wk spent on walking and stairs (34). The presence of selected medical conditions was determined using algorithms based on physiological measures performed on participants (eg, electrocardiogram, blood pressure, ankle-arm index, spirometry), medication use, and self-report. A comorbidity index (ranging from 0 to 7) was assigned as the sum of the following conditions present in each participant: (i) chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, including chronic bronchitis, emphysema, or asthma; (ii) knee or hip arthritis; (iii) hypertension; (iv) diabetes mellitus: self-reported or physician diagnosis confirmed by the use of diabetic medications or fasting blood glucose ≥ 126 mg/dL; (v) cardiovascular disease, including stroke and coronary heart disease (myocardial infarction or angina), as assessed by the review of medical records; (vi) depression: score ≥ 10 on the modified version of the Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression scale; (vii) cognitive impairment: modified Mini-Mental State Examination score < 80 (31).

Statistical Analyses

Descriptive statistics are shown as the median (25th and 75th percentiles), mean ± SEM, or frequency according to the sex-specific quartiles of intermuscular fat area. Participants’ characteristics were compared between the groups by chi-square (for categorical variables) or Kruskal–Wallis and one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) tests (for continuous variables) to determine the statistical significance.

Next, we determined the influence of midthigh muscle area on the association, expressed as a slope, between intermuscular fat and physical function using the PROCESS macro (version 3.3) developed by Hayes (35). Moderation was tested using regression models in which the outcome (physical performance) was predicted from the predictor (intermuscular fat areas), the moderator (midthigh muscle area), and the interaction of these variables. PROCESS tool centers predictor and moderator at their mean values and shows the moderation effect in two ways; (i) simple slopes analysis and (ii) Johnson–Neyman method. Simple slope analysis shows the regression of physical function on intermuscular fat at 1 SD below, 1 SD above, and at the mean value of muscle area. Additionally, Johnson–Neyman method determines the strength of the associations between intermuscular fat area (predictor) and physical function (outcome) continuously across the values of the muscle area (moderator). The zone of significance indicates the values of the moderator at which the regression slope between predictor and outcome is significant. Statistical analyses were conducted by IBM SPSS Statistics version 26.0 for Windows. p < .05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Participants’ Characteristics

A total of 1897 participants (age: 73–85 years, women: 52%, white race: 64%, and from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: 52%) from the Year-6 follow-up of the Health ABC study were included in the analyses. The characteristics of study participants by quartiles of absolute area of intermuscular fat (cm2) are shown in Table 1. Age and sex were comparable across quartiles of intermuscular fat. Participants with higher intermuscular fat were more likely to be black, current smoker, less educated, and had higher comorbidity scores and sedentary lifestyle.

Table 1.

Descriptive Characteristic by Sex-Specific Quartile (Q) of Intermuscular Fat Area

Intermuscular fat (Q), cm2Q1 (n = 473)Q2 (n = 475)Q3 (n = 474)Q4 (n = 475)p Value
Men < 17.2Men: 17.3–23.6Men: 23.7–30.6Men ≥ 30.7
Women < 15.8Women: 15.9–21.2Women: 21.3–28.2Women: ≥ 28.3
Women, n (%)*247 (52.2%)248 (52.2%)248 (52.3%)248 (52.2%).100
Black, n (%)*119 (25.2%)138 (29.1%)182 (38.4%)238 (50.1%)<.001
Never smoker, n (%)*239 (53.3%)221 (49.3%)213 (47.1%)210 (44.2%).020
< High school, n (%)*63 (13.3%)97 (20.5%)105 (22.2%)132 (27.9%)<.001
←‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒Median (25th, 75th)‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒→
Age, y78 (76, 80)78 (76, 81)78 (76, 80)78 (76, 80).150
Comorbidity score, 0–61 (1, 2)2 (1, 3)2 (1, 3)2 (1, 3)<.001
Physical activity, kcal/kg/wk2.6 (0.3, 7.3)2.5 (0.5, 7.1)1.3 (0.1, 5.45)0.8 (0.0, 4.2)<.001
Anthropometrics
 Height, m1.6 (1.6, 1.7)1.6 (1.6, 1.7)1.7 (1.6, 1.7)1.7 (1.6, 1.7).024
 Weight, kg63.0 (54.7, 70.7)70.2 (62.3, 77.0)76.3 (68.4, 84.3)86.6 (77.2, 96.2)<.001
 BMI, kg/m223.2 (21.2, 25.3)25.6 (23.9, 27.6)27.6 (25.6, 30.4)31.2 (28.3, 34.0)<.001
 Waist circumference, cm93.4 (86.9, 99.3)100.0 (94.5, 106.8)105.2 (99.0, 112.7)114.1 (106.9, 121.6)<.001
DXA
 Fat mass, %30.5 (26.2, 36.7)34.3 (29.4, 40.4)37.1 (31.0, 42.0)39.4 (34.9, 45.0)<.001
 Appendicular lean mass, kg16.8 (13.6, 21.1)17.7 (14.7, 22.0)19.3 (15.8, 23.1)21.3 (17.9, 24.8)<.001
Midthigh CT
 Intermuscular fat, cm213.5 (11.6, 15.0)19.3 (17.9, 20.7)25.8 (24.1, 27.6)36.7 (32.6, 42.8)<.001
 Muscle CSA, cm2186.7 (155.3, 233.8)200.7 (167.3, 243.3)212.3 (178.7, 251.2)227.8 (194.5, 266.5)<.001
 Muscle density, HU40.2 (36.9, 42.9)36.8 (33.4, 40.3)34.7 (31.0, 38.6)30.8 (27.2, 35.0)<.001
Physical performance
 6-m fast walk, m/s1.2 (1.0, 1.3)1.1 (1.0, 1.3)1.1 (0.9, 1.2)1.0 (0.9, 1.2)<.001
 6-m usual walk, s5.2 (4.6, 6.0)5.3 (4.7, 6.0)5.4 (4.8, 6.3)5.9 (5.1, 6.8)<.001
 400-m usual walk, m/s1.3 (1.1, 1.4)1.2 (1.1, 1.4)1.2 (1.1, 1.3)1.1 (1.0, 1.2)<.001
 Chair stand, s0.4 (0.3, 0.4)0.4 (0.3, 0.4)0.3 (0.3, 0.4)0.3 (0.2, 0.4)<.001
 Standing balance time, 0–9069.6 (48.3, 90.0)66.1 (43.5, 79.7)64.5 (38.3, 76.7)61.9 (36.4, 70.3)<.001
 SPPB, 0.1210 (9, 11)10 (9, 11)10 (8, 11)9 (8, 10)<.001
 Maximum torque, N·m79.0 (62.0, 107.3)85.0 (65.0, 110.0)89.0 (67.0, 114.0)91.5 (70.0, 115.0)<.001
Intermuscular fat (Q), cm2Q1 (n = 473)Q2 (n = 475)Q3 (n = 474)Q4 (n = 475)p Value
Men < 17.2Men: 17.3–23.6Men: 23.7–30.6Men ≥ 30.7
Women < 15.8Women: 15.9–21.2Women: 21.3–28.2Women: ≥ 28.3
Women, n (%)*247 (52.2%)248 (52.2%)248 (52.3%)248 (52.2%).100
Black, n (%)*119 (25.2%)138 (29.1%)182 (38.4%)238 (50.1%)<.001
Never smoker, n (%)*239 (53.3%)221 (49.3%)213 (47.1%)210 (44.2%).020
< High school, n (%)*63 (13.3%)97 (20.5%)105 (22.2%)132 (27.9%)<.001
←‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒Median (25th, 75th)‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒→
Age, y78 (76, 80)78 (76, 81)78 (76, 80)78 (76, 80).150
Comorbidity score, 0–61 (1, 2)2 (1, 3)2 (1, 3)2 (1, 3)<.001
Physical activity, kcal/kg/wk2.6 (0.3, 7.3)2.5 (0.5, 7.1)1.3 (0.1, 5.45)0.8 (0.0, 4.2)<.001
Anthropometrics
 Height, m1.6 (1.6, 1.7)1.6 (1.6, 1.7)1.7 (1.6, 1.7)1.7 (1.6, 1.7).024
 Weight, kg63.0 (54.7, 70.7)70.2 (62.3, 77.0)76.3 (68.4, 84.3)86.6 (77.2, 96.2)<.001
 BMI, kg/m223.2 (21.2, 25.3)25.6 (23.9, 27.6)27.6 (25.6, 30.4)31.2 (28.3, 34.0)<.001
 Waist circumference, cm93.4 (86.9, 99.3)100.0 (94.5, 106.8)105.2 (99.0, 112.7)114.1 (106.9, 121.6)<.001
DXA
 Fat mass, %30.5 (26.2, 36.7)34.3 (29.4, 40.4)37.1 (31.0, 42.0)39.4 (34.9, 45.0)<.001
 Appendicular lean mass, kg16.8 (13.6, 21.1)17.7 (14.7, 22.0)19.3 (15.8, 23.1)21.3 (17.9, 24.8)<.001
Midthigh CT
 Intermuscular fat, cm213.5 (11.6, 15.0)19.3 (17.9, 20.7)25.8 (24.1, 27.6)36.7 (32.6, 42.8)<.001
 Muscle CSA, cm2186.7 (155.3, 233.8)200.7 (167.3, 243.3)212.3 (178.7, 251.2)227.8 (194.5, 266.5)<.001
 Muscle density, HU40.2 (36.9, 42.9)36.8 (33.4, 40.3)34.7 (31.0, 38.6)30.8 (27.2, 35.0)<.001
Physical performance
 6-m fast walk, m/s1.2 (1.0, 1.3)1.1 (1.0, 1.3)1.1 (0.9, 1.2)1.0 (0.9, 1.2)<.001
 6-m usual walk, s5.2 (4.6, 6.0)5.3 (4.7, 6.0)5.4 (4.8, 6.3)5.9 (5.1, 6.8)<.001
 400-m usual walk, m/s1.3 (1.1, 1.4)1.2 (1.1, 1.4)1.2 (1.1, 1.3)1.1 (1.0, 1.2)<.001
 Chair stand, s0.4 (0.3, 0.4)0.4 (0.3, 0.4)0.3 (0.3, 0.4)0.3 (0.2, 0.4)<.001
 Standing balance time, 0–9069.6 (48.3, 90.0)66.1 (43.5, 79.7)64.5 (38.3, 76.7)61.9 (36.4, 70.3)<.001
 SPPB, 0.1210 (9, 11)10 (9, 11)10 (8, 11)9 (8, 10)<.001
 Maximum torque, N·m79.0 (62.0, 107.3)85.0 (65.0, 110.0)89.0 (67.0, 114.0)91.5 (70.0, 115.0)<.001

Notes: p values by Kruskal–Wallis and * by chi-square. BMI = body mass index; CSA = cross-sectional area; HU = Hounsfield unit; N·m = Newton meter; s = second; SPPB = short physical performance battery; wk = week.

Table 1.

Descriptive Characteristic by Sex-Specific Quartile (Q) of Intermuscular Fat Area

Intermuscular fat (Q), cm2Q1 (n = 473)Q2 (n = 475)Q3 (n = 474)Q4 (n = 475)p Value
Men < 17.2Men: 17.3–23.6Men: 23.7–30.6Men ≥ 30.7
Women < 15.8Women: 15.9–21.2Women: 21.3–28.2Women: ≥ 28.3
Women, n (%)*247 (52.2%)248 (52.2%)248 (52.3%)248 (52.2%).100
Black, n (%)*119 (25.2%)138 (29.1%)182 (38.4%)238 (50.1%)<.001
Never smoker, n (%)*239 (53.3%)221 (49.3%)213 (47.1%)210 (44.2%).020
< High school, n (%)*63 (13.3%)97 (20.5%)105 (22.2%)132 (27.9%)<.001
←‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒Median (25th, 75th)‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒→
Age, y78 (76, 80)78 (76, 81)78 (76, 80)78 (76, 80).150
Comorbidity score, 0–61 (1, 2)2 (1, 3)2 (1, 3)2 (1, 3)<.001
Physical activity, kcal/kg/wk2.6 (0.3, 7.3)2.5 (0.5, 7.1)1.3 (0.1, 5.45)0.8 (0.0, 4.2)<.001
Anthropometrics
 Height, m1.6 (1.6, 1.7)1.6 (1.6, 1.7)1.7 (1.6, 1.7)1.7 (1.6, 1.7).024
 Weight, kg63.0 (54.7, 70.7)70.2 (62.3, 77.0)76.3 (68.4, 84.3)86.6 (77.2, 96.2)<.001
 BMI, kg/m223.2 (21.2, 25.3)25.6 (23.9, 27.6)27.6 (25.6, 30.4)31.2 (28.3, 34.0)<.001
 Waist circumference, cm93.4 (86.9, 99.3)100.0 (94.5, 106.8)105.2 (99.0, 112.7)114.1 (106.9, 121.6)<.001
DXA
 Fat mass, %30.5 (26.2, 36.7)34.3 (29.4, 40.4)37.1 (31.0, 42.0)39.4 (34.9, 45.0)<.001
 Appendicular lean mass, kg16.8 (13.6, 21.1)17.7 (14.7, 22.0)19.3 (15.8, 23.1)21.3 (17.9, 24.8)<.001
Midthigh CT
 Intermuscular fat, cm213.5 (11.6, 15.0)19.3 (17.9, 20.7)25.8 (24.1, 27.6)36.7 (32.6, 42.8)<.001
 Muscle CSA, cm2186.7 (155.3, 233.8)200.7 (167.3, 243.3)212.3 (178.7, 251.2)227.8 (194.5, 266.5)<.001
 Muscle density, HU40.2 (36.9, 42.9)36.8 (33.4, 40.3)34.7 (31.0, 38.6)30.8 (27.2, 35.0)<.001
Physical performance
 6-m fast walk, m/s1.2 (1.0, 1.3)1.1 (1.0, 1.3)1.1 (0.9, 1.2)1.0 (0.9, 1.2)<.001
 6-m usual walk, s5.2 (4.6, 6.0)5.3 (4.7, 6.0)5.4 (4.8, 6.3)5.9 (5.1, 6.8)<.001
 400-m usual walk, m/s1.3 (1.1, 1.4)1.2 (1.1, 1.4)1.2 (1.1, 1.3)1.1 (1.0, 1.2)<.001
 Chair stand, s0.4 (0.3, 0.4)0.4 (0.3, 0.4)0.3 (0.3, 0.4)0.3 (0.2, 0.4)<.001
 Standing balance time, 0–9069.6 (48.3, 90.0)66.1 (43.5, 79.7)64.5 (38.3, 76.7)61.9 (36.4, 70.3)<.001
 SPPB, 0.1210 (9, 11)10 (9, 11)10 (8, 11)9 (8, 10)<.001
 Maximum torque, N·m79.0 (62.0, 107.3)85.0 (65.0, 110.0)89.0 (67.0, 114.0)91.5 (70.0, 115.0)<.001
Intermuscular fat (Q), cm2Q1 (n = 473)Q2 (n = 475)Q3 (n = 474)Q4 (n = 475)p Value
Men < 17.2Men: 17.3–23.6Men: 23.7–30.6Men ≥ 30.7
Women < 15.8Women: 15.9–21.2Women: 21.3–28.2Women: ≥ 28.3
Women, n (%)*247 (52.2%)248 (52.2%)248 (52.3%)248 (52.2%).100
Black, n (%)*119 (25.2%)138 (29.1%)182 (38.4%)238 (50.1%)<.001
Never smoker, n (%)*239 (53.3%)221 (49.3%)213 (47.1%)210 (44.2%).020
< High school, n (%)*63 (13.3%)97 (20.5%)105 (22.2%)132 (27.9%)<.001
←‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒Median (25th, 75th)‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒→
Age, y78 (76, 80)78 (76, 81)78 (76, 80)78 (76, 80).150
Comorbidity score, 0–61 (1, 2)2 (1, 3)2 (1, 3)2 (1, 3)<.001
Physical activity, kcal/kg/wk2.6 (0.3, 7.3)2.5 (0.5, 7.1)1.3 (0.1, 5.45)0.8 (0.0, 4.2)<.001
Anthropometrics
 Height, m1.6 (1.6, 1.7)1.6 (1.6, 1.7)1.7 (1.6, 1.7)1.7 (1.6, 1.7).024
 Weight, kg63.0 (54.7, 70.7)70.2 (62.3, 77.0)76.3 (68.4, 84.3)86.6 (77.2, 96.2)<.001
 BMI, kg/m223.2 (21.2, 25.3)25.6 (23.9, 27.6)27.6 (25.6, 30.4)31.2 (28.3, 34.0)<.001
 Waist circumference, cm93.4 (86.9, 99.3)100.0 (94.5, 106.8)105.2 (99.0, 112.7)114.1 (106.9, 121.6)<.001
DXA
 Fat mass, %30.5 (26.2, 36.7)34.3 (29.4, 40.4)37.1 (31.0, 42.0)39.4 (34.9, 45.0)<.001
 Appendicular lean mass, kg16.8 (13.6, 21.1)17.7 (14.7, 22.0)19.3 (15.8, 23.1)21.3 (17.9, 24.8)<.001
Midthigh CT
 Intermuscular fat, cm213.5 (11.6, 15.0)19.3 (17.9, 20.7)25.8 (24.1, 27.6)36.7 (32.6, 42.8)<.001
 Muscle CSA, cm2186.7 (155.3, 233.8)200.7 (167.3, 243.3)212.3 (178.7, 251.2)227.8 (194.5, 266.5)<.001
 Muscle density, HU40.2 (36.9, 42.9)36.8 (33.4, 40.3)34.7 (31.0, 38.6)30.8 (27.2, 35.0)<.001
Physical performance
 6-m fast walk, m/s1.2 (1.0, 1.3)1.1 (1.0, 1.3)1.1 (0.9, 1.2)1.0 (0.9, 1.2)<.001
 6-m usual walk, s5.2 (4.6, 6.0)5.3 (4.7, 6.0)5.4 (4.8, 6.3)5.9 (5.1, 6.8)<.001
 400-m usual walk, m/s1.3 (1.1, 1.4)1.2 (1.1, 1.4)1.2 (1.1, 1.3)1.1 (1.0, 1.2)<.001
 Chair stand, s0.4 (0.3, 0.4)0.4 (0.3, 0.4)0.3 (0.3, 0.4)0.3 (0.2, 0.4)<.001
 Standing balance time, 0–9069.6 (48.3, 90.0)66.1 (43.5, 79.7)64.5 (38.3, 76.7)61.9 (36.4, 70.3)<.001
 SPPB, 0.1210 (9, 11)10 (9, 11)10 (8, 11)9 (8, 10)<.001
 Maximum torque, N·m79.0 (62.0, 107.3)85.0 (65.0, 110.0)89.0 (67.0, 114.0)91.5 (70.0, 115.0)<.001

Notes: p values by Kruskal–Wallis and * by chi-square. BMI = body mass index; CSA = cross-sectional area; HU = Hounsfield unit; N·m = Newton meter; s = second; SPPB = short physical performance battery; wk = week.

Anthropometrics and Muscle Composition

Participants in the higher quartiles of intermuscular fat area had higher body mass index, waist circumference, fat mass, and appendicular lean mass compared to those in the lower quartiles of intermuscular fat (Table 1). We observed a higher midthigh muscle cross-sectional area and a lower muscle density in participants in the higher quartiles of intermuscular fat compared to those in the lower quartiles.

Physical Performance

Table 2 shows mean ± SEM of physical performance by quartiles of intermuscular fat area adjusted for sex, race, education, smoking status, comorbidity score, age, physical activity, height, weight, and waist circumference. Participants in the higher quartiles of intermuscular fat performed worse in all mobility tests (ie, 6-m fast and usual walk and 400-m long walk), chair stand, standing balance test, and had lower leg strength compared to those in the lower quartiles of intermuscular fat both before (data not shown) and after controlling for confounding factors, Table 2.

Table 2.

Adjusted Mean ± Standard Error of Mean of Physical Performance by Quartile of Intermuscular Fat Area

Q1Q2Q3Q4p Value
6-m fast walk, m/s1.11 ± 0.021.10 ± 0.011.05 ± 0.011.00 ± 0.02<.001
6-m usual walk, s5.67 ± 0.085.68 ± 0.075.83 ± 0.076.17 ± 0.08<.001
400-m usual walk, m/s1.21 ± 0.011.18 ± 0.011.15 ± 0.011.09 ± 0.02<.001
Chair stand, s0.33 ± 0.010.33 ± 0.010.31 ± 0.010.28 ± 0.01<.001
Standing balance time, 0–9062.21 ± 1.5059.85 ± 1.3857.96 ± 1.3554.06 ± 1.50.001
SPPB, 0–129.55 ± 0.129.61 ± 0.119.13 ± 0.118.84 ± 0.12<.001
Maximum torque, N·m92.92 ± 1.4892.66 ± 1.3791.01 ± 1.3485.62 ± 1.50.001
Q1Q2Q3Q4p Value
6-m fast walk, m/s1.11 ± 0.021.10 ± 0.011.05 ± 0.011.00 ± 0.02<.001
6-m usual walk, s5.67 ± 0.085.68 ± 0.075.83 ± 0.076.17 ± 0.08<.001
400-m usual walk, m/s1.21 ± 0.011.18 ± 0.011.15 ± 0.011.09 ± 0.02<.001
Chair stand, s0.33 ± 0.010.33 ± 0.010.31 ± 0.010.28 ± 0.01<.001
Standing balance time, 0–9062.21 ± 1.5059.85 ± 1.3857.96 ± 1.3554.06 ± 1.50.001
SPPB, 0–129.55 ± 0.129.61 ± 0.119.13 ± 0.118.84 ± 0.12<.001
Maximum torque, N·m92.92 ± 1.4892.66 ± 1.3791.01 ± 1.3485.62 ± 1.50.001

Notes: p values were derived by one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), adjusted for sex, race, education, smoking status, comorbidity score, age, physical activity, height, weight, waist circumference. m = meter; N·m = Newton meter; Q = quartile; s = second; SPPB = short physical performance battery.

Table 2.

Adjusted Mean ± Standard Error of Mean of Physical Performance by Quartile of Intermuscular Fat Area

Q1Q2Q3Q4p Value
6-m fast walk, m/s1.11 ± 0.021.10 ± 0.011.05 ± 0.011.00 ± 0.02<.001
6-m usual walk, s5.67 ± 0.085.68 ± 0.075.83 ± 0.076.17 ± 0.08<.001
400-m usual walk, m/s1.21 ± 0.011.18 ± 0.011.15 ± 0.011.09 ± 0.02<.001
Chair stand, s0.33 ± 0.010.33 ± 0.010.31 ± 0.010.28 ± 0.01<.001
Standing balance time, 0–9062.21 ± 1.5059.85 ± 1.3857.96 ± 1.3554.06 ± 1.50.001
SPPB, 0–129.55 ± 0.129.61 ± 0.119.13 ± 0.118.84 ± 0.12<.001
Maximum torque, N·m92.92 ± 1.4892.66 ± 1.3791.01 ± 1.3485.62 ± 1.50.001
Q1Q2Q3Q4p Value
6-m fast walk, m/s1.11 ± 0.021.10 ± 0.011.05 ± 0.011.00 ± 0.02<.001
6-m usual walk, s5.67 ± 0.085.68 ± 0.075.83 ± 0.076.17 ± 0.08<.001
400-m usual walk, m/s1.21 ± 0.011.18 ± 0.011.15 ± 0.011.09 ± 0.02<.001
Chair stand, s0.33 ± 0.010.33 ± 0.010.31 ± 0.010.28 ± 0.01<.001
Standing balance time, 0–9062.21 ± 1.5059.85 ± 1.3857.96 ± 1.3554.06 ± 1.50.001
SPPB, 0–129.55 ± 0.129.61 ± 0.119.13 ± 0.118.84 ± 0.12<.001
Maximum torque, N·m92.92 ± 1.4892.66 ± 1.3791.01 ± 1.3485.62 ± 1.50.001

Notes: p values were derived by one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), adjusted for sex, race, education, smoking status, comorbidity score, age, physical activity, height, weight, waist circumference. m = meter; N·m = Newton meter; Q = quartile; s = second; SPPB = short physical performance battery.

Moderation Effect of Midthigh Muscle Area on the Association Between Intermuscular Fat and Physical Performance

Table 3 shows the moderation effect of midthigh muscle area on the relationship between intermuscular fat and physical function measures in final models adjusted for age, sex, race, education, physical activity, height, weight, waist circumference, and comorbidity score. Our analysis revealed that muscle area significantly moderated the association of intermuscular fat with leg strength, 400-m usual walk speed, and chair stand (Table 3). However, midthigh muscle area did not moderate the association of intermuscular fat with 6-m fast gait speed, time to walk 6 m with usual pace, and standing balance based on the statistical nonsignificance and small values of the relevant interaction terms in these models.

Table 3.

The Association Between Physical Performance Measures, Intermuscular Fat, and Midthigh Muscle Areas, Based on Moderation Analysis

Predictor*All
b (SE)p Value
Leg strength, N·m
 Intermuscular fat, cm2−0.1201 (0.0652).066
 Muscle CSA, cm20.3716 (0.0205)<.001
 Interaction−0.0032 (0.0008)<.001
400-m usual walk, m/s
 Intermuscular fat, cm2−0.0029 (0.0007)<.001
 Muscle CSA, cm20.0018 (0.0002)<.001
 Interaction−2.3 × 10−5 (9 × 10−6).008
6-m usual walk, s
 Intermuscular fat, cm20.018 (0.0038)<.001
 Muscle CSA, cm2−0.009 (0.0012)<.001
 Interaction−0.0001 (0.0000).158
6-m fast walk, m/s
 Intermuscular fat, cm2−0.0044 (0.0007)<.001
 Muscle CSA, cm20.0016 (0.0002)<.001
 Interaction1.1 × 10−5 (9 × 10−6).210
Chair stand, s
 Intermuscular fat, cm2−0.0014 (0.0004)<.001
 Muscle CSA, cm20.0017 (0.0001)<.001
 Interaction1 × 10−5 (5 × 10−6).041
Standing balance, 0–90
 Intermuscular fat, cm2−0.2109 (0.0677)<.001
 Muscle CSA, cm20.1724 (0.022)<.001
 Interaction−0.0002 (0.0009).800
Predictor*All
b (SE)p Value
Leg strength, N·m
 Intermuscular fat, cm2−0.1201 (0.0652).066
 Muscle CSA, cm20.3716 (0.0205)<.001
 Interaction−0.0032 (0.0008)<.001
400-m usual walk, m/s
 Intermuscular fat, cm2−0.0029 (0.0007)<.001
 Muscle CSA, cm20.0018 (0.0002)<.001
 Interaction−2.3 × 10−5 (9 × 10−6).008
6-m usual walk, s
 Intermuscular fat, cm20.018 (0.0038)<.001
 Muscle CSA, cm2−0.009 (0.0012)<.001
 Interaction−0.0001 (0.0000).158
6-m fast walk, m/s
 Intermuscular fat, cm2−0.0044 (0.0007)<.001
 Muscle CSA, cm20.0016 (0.0002)<.001
 Interaction1.1 × 10−5 (9 × 10−6).210
Chair stand, s
 Intermuscular fat, cm2−0.0014 (0.0004)<.001
 Muscle CSA, cm20.0017 (0.0001)<.001
 Interaction1 × 10−5 (5 × 10−6).041
Standing balance, 0–90
 Intermuscular fat, cm2−0.2109 (0.0677)<.001
 Muscle CSA, cm20.1724 (0.022)<.001
 Interaction−0.0002 (0.0009).800

Notes: b = beta coefficient; CSA = cross-sectional area; N·m = Newton meter; s = second; SE = standard error.

*Models are adjusted for age, sex, race, physical activity, height, weight, waist circumference, education level, comorbidity index, and smoking status.

Table 3.

The Association Between Physical Performance Measures, Intermuscular Fat, and Midthigh Muscle Areas, Based on Moderation Analysis

Predictor*All
b (SE)p Value
Leg strength, N·m
 Intermuscular fat, cm2−0.1201 (0.0652).066
 Muscle CSA, cm20.3716 (0.0205)<.001
 Interaction−0.0032 (0.0008)<.001
400-m usual walk, m/s
 Intermuscular fat, cm2−0.0029 (0.0007)<.001
 Muscle CSA, cm20.0018 (0.0002)<.001
 Interaction−2.3 × 10−5 (9 × 10−6).008
6-m usual walk, s
 Intermuscular fat, cm20.018 (0.0038)<.001
 Muscle CSA, cm2−0.009 (0.0012)<.001
 Interaction−0.0001 (0.0000).158
6-m fast walk, m/s
 Intermuscular fat, cm2−0.0044 (0.0007)<.001
 Muscle CSA, cm20.0016 (0.0002)<.001
 Interaction1.1 × 10−5 (9 × 10−6).210
Chair stand, s
 Intermuscular fat, cm2−0.0014 (0.0004)<.001
 Muscle CSA, cm20.0017 (0.0001)<.001
 Interaction1 × 10−5 (5 × 10−6).041
Standing balance, 0–90
 Intermuscular fat, cm2−0.2109 (0.0677)<.001
 Muscle CSA, cm20.1724 (0.022)<.001
 Interaction−0.0002 (0.0009).800
Predictor*All
b (SE)p Value
Leg strength, N·m
 Intermuscular fat, cm2−0.1201 (0.0652).066
 Muscle CSA, cm20.3716 (0.0205)<.001
 Interaction−0.0032 (0.0008)<.001
400-m usual walk, m/s
 Intermuscular fat, cm2−0.0029 (0.0007)<.001
 Muscle CSA, cm20.0018 (0.0002)<.001
 Interaction−2.3 × 10−5 (9 × 10−6).008
6-m usual walk, s
 Intermuscular fat, cm20.018 (0.0038)<.001
 Muscle CSA, cm2−0.009 (0.0012)<.001
 Interaction−0.0001 (0.0000).158
6-m fast walk, m/s
 Intermuscular fat, cm2−0.0044 (0.0007)<.001
 Muscle CSA, cm20.0016 (0.0002)<.001
 Interaction1.1 × 10−5 (9 × 10−6).210
Chair stand, s
 Intermuscular fat, cm2−0.0014 (0.0004)<.001
 Muscle CSA, cm20.0017 (0.0001)<.001
 Interaction1 × 10−5 (5 × 10−6).041
Standing balance, 0–90
 Intermuscular fat, cm2−0.2109 (0.0677)<.001
 Muscle CSA, cm20.1724 (0.022)<.001
 Interaction−0.0002 (0.0009).800

Notes: b = beta coefficient; CSA = cross-sectional area; N·m = Newton meter; s = second; SE = standard error.

*Models are adjusted for age, sex, race, physical activity, height, weight, waist circumference, education level, comorbidity index, and smoking status.

Figure 1 shows the simple slope analyses of the conditional effect of intermuscular fat on leg strength (top panel), 400-m walking speed (middle panel), and chair stand (lower panel) at three levels (mean value and ± 1 SD) of muscle area, that is, 213.2 ± 53.2 cm2. The negative association between intermuscular fat area (cm2) and leg strength (N·m) was of greater magnitude (beta coefficient [b] ± 95% confidence interval [CI] = −0.288 [−0.427, −0.148]) in participants with greater midthigh muscle area (ie, 1 SD above the mean) compared to those with lower muscle area (ie, at the mean value [b = −0.12 {−0.248, 0.008}] or 1 SD below the mean [b = 0.048 {−0.122, 0.217}]). Additionally, the negative association between intermuscular fat area and 400-m usual walk speed (m/s) was of greater magnitude in participants with higher midthigh muscle area (cm2) (ie, 1 SD above the mean [b = −0.004, 95% CI {−0.006 to −0.003}] and at the mean value [b = −0.003, 95% CI {−0.004 to −0.002}]) compared to those with lower muscle area. Likewise, moderation analysis indicated a significant association between intermuscular fat area and chair stand (seconds) in participants with greater midthigh muscle area, that is, 1 SD above the mean (b = −0.002, 95% CI [−0.003 to −0.001]) or at the mean value (b = −0.001, 95% CI [−0.002 to −0.001]), but not in those at 1 SD below the mean value of the muscle area (cm2).

Moderation effects of midthigh muscle area on the association of intermuscular fat with leg strength, 400-m usual walk, and chair stand time. Simple slopes equations of the regression for intermuscular fat as a predictor of physical function at three levels (mean value [213.2 cm2], low and high muscle areas [ie, mean ± 1 SD; 213.2 ± 53.2 cm2]). Regression models are adjusted for age, sex, race, education, physical activity, height, weight, waist circumference, and comorbidity score; b = slope; **p < .001.
Figure 1.

Moderation effects of midthigh muscle area on the association of intermuscular fat with leg strength, 400-m usual walk, and chair stand time. Simple slopes equations of the regression for intermuscular fat as a predictor of physical function at three levels (mean value [213.2 cm2], low and high muscle areas [ie, mean ± 1 SD; 213.2 ± 53.2 cm2]). Regression models are adjusted for age, sex, race, education, physical activity, height, weight, waist circumference, and comorbidity score; b = slope; **p < .001.

Figure 2 shows the regression slope estimate and 95% CI for the relationship between intermuscular fat and physical function parameters (leg strength, 400-m walk and chair stand) across different values of the moderator (ie, midthigh muscle area [cm2]). Vertical lines in each graph represent the boundaries of the significant zones of the regression coefficient (b) between intermuscular fat and physical function tests. The Johnson–Neyman technique revealed that the inverse relationship between intermuscular fat and leg strength (Figure 2, top panel) became greater as the muscle area values increases across the continuum in a coherent fashion, reaching the significance region at ≥219.1 cm2 (p < .05). The negative effect of intermuscular fat on leg strength was increasingly stronger at higher muscle areas. Similarly, the magnitude of the negative relationships between intermuscular fat and 400-m walk (Figure 2, middle panel) as well as chair stand (Figure 2, lower panel) continuously increased with higher muscle areas, reaching the significance level at ≥169.3 cm2 and ≥166.5 cm2 (p < .05), respectively. However, below these transition points, no significant relationships were observed between intermuscular fat and 400-m walk or chair stand.

Regression slope estimate and 95% confidence interval (CI) for the relationship between intermuscular fat area (X, cm2) and physical function (Y; leg strength [N·m], 400-m walk [m/s], and chair stand [seconds]) at values of muscle area (cm2) by Johnson–Neyman method. All models were adjusted for age, sex, race, education, physical activity, height, weight, waist circumference, and comorbidity score.
Figure 2.

Regression slope estimate and 95% confidence interval (CI) for the relationship between intermuscular fat area (X, cm2) and physical function (Y; leg strength [N·m], 400-m walk [m/s], and chair stand [seconds]) at values of muscle area (cm2) by Johnson–Neyman method. All models were adjusted for age, sex, race, education, physical activity, height, weight, waist circumference, and comorbidity score.

Stratified analysis by sex (Supplementary Table 1) showed similar b coefficients for the interactions between muscle area and intermuscular fat with leg strength (b = −0.0027 in both men and women) and chair stand (b = −0.000009 in men and b = −0.000017 in women), although they did not reach the statistical significance levels (p < .1). Race-stratified analysis (Supplementary Table 1) showed stronger interactions in whites compared to blacks between muscle area and intermuscular fat with leg strength (b = −0.0042 vs −0.0019) and 400-m usual walk (b = −0.000048 vs −0.000013). In contrast to intermuscular fat area, midthigh subcutaneous fat area (cm2) was not associated with physical performance and no interaction was observed between subcutaneous fat area and muscle area on physical performance (Supplementary Table 2).

Discussion

The results of the current study in community-dwelling older adults showed that muscle area moderates the association between intermuscular fat area and physical performance. Specifically, the negative association between higher intermuscular fat area with leg strength, 400-m gait speed, and chair stand time was of greater magnitude in participants with greater midthigh muscle area. Although, low midthigh muscle area was independently associated with reduced physical function, this relationship was not affected by the extent of intermuscular fat deposition in people with lower muscle area.

It has been shown that midthigh intermuscular fat area increases with aging in community-living older men and women, irrespective of changes in muscle mass and body weight (16). Age-related increase in intermuscular fat has been shown to be modified by exercise (36,37), diet (38), or both (39,40). The increase in skeletal muscle lipid content has also been observed in various pathological disorders, such as obesity, diabetes, spinal cord injury, and cancer cachexia, regardless of the presence or absence of muscle wasting (41). The increase in the intermuscular fat is associated with muscle weakness and is a significant predictor of mobility disability in aging (41). Whether the association between intermuscular fat and physical function varies in individuals with preserved or lost muscle tissue is not clear.

The current study demonstrated the presence of an interaction between muscle area and intermuscular fat with physical function. The negative association between intermuscular fat and impaired physical function was of greater magnitude in participants with higher midthigh muscle cross-sectional area. In other words, we observed that as muscle size increased, the relationship between intermuscular fat and physical function became more negative. For instance, older individuals with the same levels of intermuscular fat area (eg, 75th percentile; 49.2 cm2) but different thigh muscle areas; 187.2 cm2 (25th percentile) versus 308.2 cm2 (75th percentile) have different muscle strengths, 54.0 versus 80 N·m, respectively. This finding is similar to a previous report (16), which showed a negative association between intermuscular fat and muscle strength in participants who were weight-stable during the 5-year follow-up of the Health ABC study. Changes in the local muscle environment, due to the proximity of intermuscular fat to muscle fibers, is a potential mechanism contributing to reduced muscle strength and increased risk of physical limitation (41). The increase in the intermuscular fat may affect muscle quality and cause mechanical changes in the muscle, such as changes in the orientation of muscle fibers, leading to difficulties in functional activities (42). Additionally, intermuscular fat, similar to visceral adipose tissue, is related to an increase in proinflammatory cytokines (43,44), which are inversely associated with muscle function (45).

A novel aspect of our study is that intermuscular fat accumulation does not significantly affect physical performance in individuals with low muscle area, in whom muscle area is the main determinant of physical function. Low muscle mass is significantly associated with functional impairment (46) and is a predictor of physical disability (47) in older adults. It has been shown that age-related decline in muscle strength is predominantly related to the lower muscle mass, rather than fat mass as determined by DXA, in the Health ABC study (13). However, it is noteworthy that the relationship between skeletal muscle mass alone and physical function is complex, as there are other important factors such as low muscle strength (48) and power (49) that contribute to low physical function in aging. The increased intermuscular fat accompanied by muscle wasting is an aberrant adipogenic reparative response that is observed in degenerative conditions (eg, muscular dystrophies) (50), where adipose tissue and fibrosis “replace” the attenuated muscle. Conversely, increased intermuscular fat in metabolic diseases (eg, obesity) is generally not associated with concurrent low muscle mass, which represents adipose tissue “infiltration” of intact muscles (26). Age-related changes in muscle composition is complex and the contribution of these two mechanisms in the accumulation of muscle fat depots in older individuals remains to be fully understood.

Strength and Limitations

Recruiting of a large number of community-dwelling older adults from different sexes and racial groups increases the power and generalizability of our study. However, the inclusion of relatively healthy and well-functioning older adults limits our ability to generalize our conclusions to frail or institutionalized older individuals. Another limitation of this study is that fat accumulation and muscle area were measured at a single level of midthigh and may not incompletely reflect the whole thigh muscle composition. Nevertheless, one of the major strengths of this study is addressing the unique interconnection between muscle fat deposition and muscle mass.

In summary, this study extends the scope of the previous reports by showing that muscle area moderates the association between greater intermuscular fat levels and impaired physical performance. Further, low muscle area was associated with low physical function, and this relationship was not affected by the amount of intermuscular fat deposition in participants with low muscle area. This finding may have implications with respect to the reversibility of intermuscular fat deposition and its functional consequences in people with persevered or wasted muscle. It may be speculated that individuals with high intermuscular fat area in the presence of low muscle mass area may experience a faster and less reversible decline in physical function compared to those with higher muscle area. Understanding the key biological alterations in the muscle composition during aging will help improve targeted approaches to prevent or reverse muscle fat retention and muscle dysfunction.

Funding

This work was supported by National Institute on Aging (NIA) contracts N01-AG-6-2101; N01-AG-6-2103; N01-AG-6-2106; NIA grant R01-AG028050, and National Institute of Nursing Research grant R01-NR012459. This research was funded in part by the Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Institute on Aging. A.J.S. was supported by a career development award from the NIH/NIA (K01 AG057726) and the University of Pittsburgh Claude D. Pepper Older Americans Independence Center (5P30 AG024827). S.F. is supported by the Epidemiology of Aging training grant at the University of Pittsburgh (NIA T32-AG0001810).

Author Contributions

The authors’ contributions were as follows—S.F. and A.B.N.: designed the research; A.B.N., S.B.K., and B.H.G. designed and conducted the Health ABC study; S.F.: analyzed the data and wrote the manuscript; R.M.B. and A.J.S.: provided statistical recommendation; S.F. and A.B.N. had primary responsibility for the final content. All authors: read and approved the final manuscript.

Conflict of Interest

None declared.

References

1.

Batista
 
FS
,
Gomes
GA
,
Neri
AL
, et al.  
Relationship between lower-limb muscle strength and frailty among elderly people
.
Sao Paulo Med J
.
2012
;
130
(
2
):
102
108
. doi:10.1590/s1516-31802012000200006

2.

Peterson
 
MJ
,
Giuliani
C
,
Morey
MC
, et al. ;
Health, Aging and Body Composition Study Research Group
.
Physical activity as a preventative factor for frailty: the Health, Aging, and Body Composition Study
.
J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci
.
2009
;
64
(
1
):
61
68
. doi:10.1093/gerona/gln001

3.

Artaud
 
F
,
Singh-Manoux
A
,
Dugravot
A
,
Tzourio
C
,
Elbaz
A
.
Decline in fast gait speed as a predictor of disability in older adults
.
J Am Geriatr Soc
.
2015
;
63
(
6
):
1129
1136
. doi:10.1111/jgs.13442

4.

Legrand
 
D
,
Vaes
B
,
Matheï
C
,
Adriaensen
W
,
Van Pottelbergh
G
,
Degryse
JM
.
Muscle strength and physical performance as predictors of mortality, hospitalization, and disability in the oldest old
.
J Am Geriatr Soc
.
2014
;
62
(
6
):
1030
1038
. doi:10.1111/jgs.12840

5.

White
 
DK
,
Neogi
T
,
Nevitt
MC
, et al.  
Trajectories of gait speed predict mortality in well-functioning older adults: the Health, Aging and Body Composition Study
.
J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci
.
2013
;
68
(
4
):
456
464
. doi:10.1093/gerona/gls197

6.

Quach
 
L
,
Galica
AM
,
Jones
RN
, et al.  
The nonlinear relationship between gait speed and falls: the maintenance of balance, independent living, intellect, and Zest in the Elderly of Boston Study
.
J Am Geriatr Soc
.
2011
;
59
(
6
):
1069
1073
. doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2011.03408.x

7.

Studenski
 
S
,
Perera
S
,
Patel
K
, et al.  
Gait speed and survival in older adults
.
JAMA
.
2011
;
305
(
1
):
50
58
. doi:10.1001/jama.2010.1923

8.

Pavasini
 
R
,
Guralnik
J
,
Brown
JC
, et al.  
Short Physical Performance Battery and all-cause mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis
.
BMC Med
.
2016
;
14
(
1
):
215
. doi:10.1186/s12916-016-0763-7

9.

Newman
 
AB
,
Kupelian
V
,
Visser
M
, et al.  
Strength, but not muscle mass, is associated with mortality in the Health, Aging and Body Composition Study cohort
.
J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci
.
2006
;
61
(
1
):
72
77
. doi:10.1093/gerona/61.1.72

10.

Beavers
 
KM
,
Beavers
DP
,
Houston
DK
, et al.  
Associations between body composition and gait-speed decline: results from the Health, Aging, and Body Composition Study
.
Am J Clin Nutr
.
2013
;
97
(
3
):
552
560
. doi:10.3945/ajcn.112.047860

11.

Reinders
 
I
,
Murphy
RA
,
Koster
A
, et al.  
Muscle quality and muscle fat infiltration in relation to incident mobility disability and gait speed decline: the age, gene/environment susceptibility-Reykjavik study
.
J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci
.
2015
;
70
(
8
):
1030
1036
. doi:10.1093/gerona/glv016

12.

Therkelsen
 
KE
,
Pedley
A
,
Hoffmann
U
,
Fox
CS
,
Murabito
JM
.
Intramuscular fat and physical performance at the Framingham Heart Study
.
Age (Dordr)
.
2016
;
38
(
2
):
31
. doi:10.1007/s11357-016-9893-2

13.

Newman
 
AB
,
Haggerty
CL
,
Goodpaster
B
, et al. ;
Health Aging and Body Composition Research Group
.
Strength and muscle quality in a well-functioning cohort of older adults: the Health, Aging and Body Composition Study
.
J Am Geriatr Soc
.
2003
;
51
(
3
):
323
330
. doi:10.1046/j.1532-5415.2003.51105.x

15.

Goodpaster
 
BH
,
Park
SW
,
Harris
TB
, et al.  
The loss of skeletal muscle strength, mass, and quality in older adults: the Health, Aging and Body Composition Study
.
J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci
.
2006
;
61
(
10
):
1059
1064
. doi:10.1093/gerona/61.10.1059

16.

Delmonico
 
MJ
,
Harris
TB
,
Visser
M
, et al. ;
Health, Aging, and Body
.
Longitudinal study of muscle strength, quality, and adipose tissue infiltration
.
Am J Clin Nutr
.
2009
;
90
(
6
):
1579
1585
. doi:10.3945/ajcn.2009.28047

17.

Miljkovic
 
I
,
Kuipers
AL
,
Cvejkus
R
, et al.  
Myosteatosis increases with aging and is associated with incident diabetes in African ancestry men
.
Obesity (Silver Spring)
.
2016
;
24
(
2
):
476
482
. doi:10.1002/oby.21328

18.

Miljkovic-Gacic
 
I
,
Gordon
CL
,
Goodpaster
BH
, et al.  
Adipose tissue infiltration in skeletal muscle: age patterns and association with diabetes among men of African ancestry
.
Am J Clin Nutr
.
2008
;
87
(
6
):
1590
1595
. doi:10.1093/ajcn/87.6.1590

19.

Miljkovic
 
I
,
Zmuda
JM
.
Epidemiology of myosteatosis
.
Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care
.
2010
;
13
(
3
):
260
264
. doi:10.1097/MCO.0b013e328337d826

20.

Crane
 
JD
,
Devries
MC
,
Safdar
A
,
Hamadeh
MJ
,
Tarnopolsky
MA
.
The effect of aging on human skeletal muscle mitochondrial and intramyocellular lipid ultrastructure
.
J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci
.
2010
;
65
(
2
):
119
128
. doi:10.1093/gerona/glp179

21.

St-Jean-Pelletier
 
F
,
Pion
CH
,
Leduc-Gaudet
JP
, et al.  
The impact of ageing, physical activity, and pre-frailty on skeletal muscle phenotype, mitochondrial content, and intramyocellular lipids in men
.
J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle
.
2017
;
8
(
2
):
213
228
. doi:10.1002/jcsm.12139

22.

Goodpaster
 
BH
,
Kelley
DE
,
Thaete
FL
,
He
J
,
Ross
R
.
Skeletal muscle attenuation determined by computed tomography is associated with skeletal muscle lipid content
.
J Appl Physiol (1985)
.
2000
;
89
(
1
):
104
110
. doi:10.1152/jappl.2000.89.1.104

23.

Gueugneau
 
M
,
Coudy-Gandilhon
C
,
Théron
L
, et al.  
Skeletal muscle lipid content and oxidative activity in relation to muscle fiber type in aging and metabolic syndrome
.
J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci
.
2015
;
70
(
5
):
566
576
. doi:10.1093/gerona/glu086

24.

Stretch
 
C
,
Aubin
JM
,
Mickiewicz
B
, et al.  
Sarcopenia and myosteatosis are accompanied by distinct biological profiles in patients with pancreatic and periampullary adenocarcinomas
.
PLoS One
.
2018
;
13
(
5
):
e0196235
. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0196235

25.

Moore
 
CD
,
Craven
BC
,
Thabane
L
, et al.  
Lower-extremity muscle atrophy and fat infiltration after chronic spinal cord injury
.
J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact
.
2015
;
15
(
1
):
32
41
. http://www.ismni.org/jmni/pdf/59/04MOORE.pdf

26.

Hilton
 
TN
,
Tuttle
LJ
,
Bohnert
KL
,
Mueller
MJ
,
Sinacore
DR
.
Excessive adipose tissue infiltration in skeletal muscle in individuals with obesity, diabetes mellitus, and peripheral neuropathy: association with performance and function
.
Phys Ther
.
2008
;
88
(
11
):
1336
1344
. doi:10.2522/ptj.20080079

27.

Bittel
 
DC
,
Bittel
AJ
,
Tuttle
LJ
, et al.  
Adipose tissue content, muscle performance and physical function in obese adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus and peripheral neuropathy
.
J Diabetes Complications
.
2015
;
29
(
2
):
250
257
. doi:10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2014.11.003

28.

Manini
 
TM
,
Clark
BC
,
Nalls
MA
,
Goodpaster
BH
,
Ploutz-Snyder
LL
,
Harris
TB
.
Reduced physical activity increases intermuscular adipose tissue in healthy young adults
.
Am J Clin Nutr
.
2007
;
85
(
2
):
377
384
. doi:10.1093/ajcn/85.2.377

29.

Weber
 
MA
,
Krakowski-Roosen
H
,
Schröder
L
, et al.  
Morphology, metabolism, microcirculation, and strength of skeletal muscles in cancer-related cachexia
.
Acta Oncol
.
2009
;
48
(
1
):
116
124
. doi:10.1080/02841860802130001

30.

Gorgey
 
AS
,
Dudley
GA
.
Skeletal muscle atrophy and increased intramuscular fat after incomplete spinal cord injury
.
Spinal Cord
.
2007
;
45
(
4
):
304
309
. doi:10.1038/sj.sc.3101968

31.

Santanasto
 
AJ
,
Goodpaster
BH
,
Kritchevsky
SB
, et al.  
Body composition remodeling and mortality: the Health Aging and Body Composition Study.
 
J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci
.
2017
;
72
(
4
):
513
519
. doi:10.1093/gerona/glw163

32.

Visser
 
M
,
Fuerst
T
,
Lang
T
,
Salamone
L
,
Harris
TB
.
Validity of fan-beam dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry for measuring fat-free mass and leg muscle mass. Health, Aging, and Body Composition Study--dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and Body Composition Working Group
.
J Appl Physiol (1985)
.
1999
;
87
(
4
):
1513
1520
. doi:10.1152/jappl.1999.87.4.1513

33.

Strotmeyer
 
ES
,
de Rekeneire
N
,
Schwartz
AV
, et al.  
The relationship of reduced peripheral nerve function and diabetes with physical performance in older white and black adults. The Health, Aging, and Body Composition (Health ABC) Study
.
Diabetes Care
.
2008
;
31
(
9
):
1767
1772
. doi:10.2337/dc08-0433

34.

Brach
 
JS
,
Simonsick
EM
,
Kritchevsky
S
,
Yaffe
K
,
Newman
AB
;
Health, Aging and Body Composition Study Research Group
.
The association between physical function and lifestyle activity and exercise in the Health, Aging and Body Composition Study
.
J Am Geriatr Soc
.
2004
;
52
(
4
):
502
509
. doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2004.52154.x

35.

Hayes
 
AF.
 
Introduction to Mediation,
 
Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach
.
New York, NY: Guilford Publications
;
2013
.

36.

Goodpaster
 
BH
,
Chomentowski
P
,
Ward
BK
, et al.  
Effects of physical activity on strength and skeletal muscle fat infiltration in older adults: a randomized controlled trial
.
J Appl Physiol (1985)
.
2008
;
105
(
5
):
1498
1503
. doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.90425.2008

37.

Taaffe
 
DR
,
Henwood
TR
,
Nalls
MA
,
Walker
DG
,
Lang
TF
,
Harris
TB
.
Alterations in muscle attenuation following detraining and retraining in resistance-trained older adults
.
Gerontology
.
2009
;
55
(
2
):
217
223
. doi:10.1159/000182084

38.

Mazzali
 
G
,
Di Francesco
V
,
Zoico
E
, et al.  
Interrelations between fat distribution, muscle lipid content, adipocytokines, and insulin resistance: effect of moderate weight loss in older women
.
Am J Clin Nutr
.
2006
;
84
(
5
):
1193
1199
. doi:10.1093/ajcn/84.5.1193

39.

Englund
 
DA
,
Kirn
DR
,
Koochek
A
, et al.  
Nutritional supplementation with physical activity improves muscle composition in mobility-limited older adults, the VIVE2 study: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial
.
J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci
.
2017
;
73
(
1
):
95
101
. doi:10.1093/gerona/glx141

40.

Santanasto
 
AJ
,
Glynn
NW
,
Newman
MA
, et al.  
Impact of weight
 
loss on physical function with changes in strength, muscle mass, and muscle fat infiltration in overweight to moderately obese older adults: a randomized clinical trial
.
J Obes
.
2011
;
2011
:1–10. doi:10.1155/2011/516576

41.

Addison
 
O
,
Marcus
RL
,
Lastayo
PC
,
Ryan
AS
.
Intermuscular fat: a review of the consequences and causes
.
Int J Endocrinol
.
2014
;
2014
:
309570
. doi:10.1155/2014/309570

42.

Gerber
 
C
,
Blumenthal
S
,
Curt
A
,
Werner
CM
.
Effect of selective experimental suprascapular nerve block on abduction and external rotation strength of the shoulder
.
J Shoulder Elbow Surg
.
2007
;
16
(
6
):
815
820
. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2007.02.120

43.

Beasley
 
LE
,
Koster
A
,
Newman
AB
, et al. ;
Health ABC study
.
Inflammation and race and gender differences in computerized tomography-measured adipose depots
.
Obesity (Silver Spring)
.
2009
;
17
(
5
):
1062
1069
. doi:10.1038/oby.2008.627

44.

Lim
 
JP
,
Chong
MS
,
Tay
L
, et al.  
Inter-muscular adipose tissue is associated with adipose tissue inflammation and poorer functional performance in central adiposity
.
Arch Gerontol Geriatr
.
2019
;
81
:
1
7
. doi:10.1016/j.archger.2018.11.006

45.

Schrager
 
MA
,
Metter
EJ
,
Simonsick
E
, et al.  
Sarcopenic obesity and inflammation in the InCHIANTI study
.
J Appl Physiol (Bethesda, MD: 1985)
.
2007
;
102
(
3
):
919
925
. doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.00627.2006.

46.

Janssen
 
I
,
Heymsfield
SB
,
Ross
R
.
Low relative skeletal muscle mass (sarcopenia) in older persons is associated with functional impairment and physical disability
.
J Am Geriatr Soc
.
2002
;
50
(
5
):
889
896
. doi:10.1046/j.1532-5415.2002.50216.x

47.

Janssen
 
I
,
Baumgartner
RN
,
Ross
R
,
Rosenberg
IH
,
Roubenoff
R
.
Skeletal muscle cutpoints associated with elevated physical disability risk in older men and women
.
Am J Epidemiol
.
2004
;
159
(
4
):
413
421
. doi:10.1093/aje/kwh058

48.

McLean
 
RR
,
Shardell
MD
,
Alley
DE
, et al.  
Criteria for clinically relevant weakness and low lean mass and their longitudinal association with incident mobility impairment and mortality: the foundation for the National Institutes of Health (FNIH) sarcopenia project
.
J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci
.
2014
;
69
(
5
):
576
583
. doi:10.1093/gerona/glu012

49.

Bean
 
JF
,
Kiely
DK
,
Herman
S
, et al.  
The relationship between leg power and physical performance in mobility-limited older people
.
J Am Geriatr Soc
.
2002
;
50
(
3
):
461
467
. doi:10.1046/j.1532-5415.2002.50111.x

50.

Mann
 
CJ
,
Perdiguero
E
,
Kharraz
Y
, et al.  
Aberrant repair and fibrosis development in skeletal muscle
.
Skelet Muscle
.
2011
;
1
(
1
):
21
. doi:10.1186/2044-5040-1-21

This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://dbpia.nl.go.kr/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model)
Decision Editor: David Melzer, MBBCh, FGSA
David Melzer, MBBCh, FGSA
Decision Editor
Search for other works by this author on: