Hostname: page-component-857557d7f7-ms8jb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-11-23T20:40:26.022Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Three-year trends in protein intake and grip strength in older adults: an evaluation of an over 60’s exercise programme

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 October 2025

I. Lafford
Affiliation:
Faculty of Health, Social Care and Medicine, Edge Hill University, Ormskirk, UK
N. Power
Affiliation:
Faculty of Health, Social Care and Medicine, Edge Hill University, Ormskirk, UK
L. Easby
Affiliation:
Faculty of Health, Social Care and Medicine, Edge Hill University, Ormskirk, UK
G. Stone
Affiliation:
Faculty of Health, Social Care and Medicine, Edge Hill University, Ormskirk, UK
C. Blennerhassett
Affiliation:
Faculty of Health, Social Care and Medicine, Edge Hill University, Ormskirk, UK
T. Butler
Affiliation:
Faculty of Health, Social Care and Medicine, Edge Hill University, Ormskirk, UK
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Over the next four decades, the most substantial population growth is projected to occur among individuals aged 65 and above(1). The ageing process is associated with physiological alterations that adversely affect body systems(2). Evidence supports the recommendation for higher protein intake in older adults to mitigate musculoskeletal deterioration(3). Physical activity programmes offer a valuable means of enhancing physical function in older individuals, providing a strategic setting for delivering interventions for healthy ageing(4). The aim of this investigation was to examine changes in protein intake and handgrip strength over 3 years in a population of adults attending a community exercise programme.

This is a rolling study, recruiting participants from an over 60s exercise class in the North West of the UK. Dietary intake assessed using multiple 24 hour recalls and analysed using Nutritics™ software. Grip strength was assessed using a Takei-5401 digital dynamometer. Grip strength was assessed with participants seated, maintaining a 90- degree angle at the elbow and a neutral forearm position. Mean grip strength was compared to age- and sex-matched 50th centile values(5) using a Wilcoxon Signed-Rank tests. Protein intake (g/d) was compared against calculated recommended amounts based on recommended intakes of 0.75 g/kg bodyweight(6), and higher values of 1.0 g/kg(7) and 1.2 g/kg(8) bodyweight using Wilcoxon Signed-Rank tests.

From a total of 60 participants, 20 individuals participated in year 1, 24 in year 2, and 28 in year 3. Mean grip strength in years 1, 2 and 3 was 19.7 ± 7.1 kg, 21.9 ± 7.6 kg, and 18.6 ± 6.2 kg, respectively, with no significant differences between years (p = 0.242). Mean grip strength in year 3 was significantly lower than the age- and sex-matched values (19.1 ± 7.0 kg vs. 25.0, p < 0.001, respectively). Mean daily protein intake in year 1, year 2 and year 3 was 64.5 ± 31.1 g, 64.9 ± 23.5 g and 63.7 ± 27.6 g, respectively with no significant difference between years (p = 0.472). There was no significant difference between current protein intake and calculated amounts using 0.75 g/kg bodyweight (63.7 ± 27.6 g/d vs. 48.2 ± 6.6 g/d, p = 0.064, respectively). Similarly, current intake did not significantly differ compared to calculated amounts using 1.0 g/kg bodyweight (63.7 ± 27.6 g/d vs. 64.3 ± 8.7, p= 0.469, respectively). Protein intake was significantly below the amount calculated based on 1.2 g/kg bodyweight (63.7 ± 27.6 g/d vs. 77.2 ± 10.5, p = 0.027, respectively).

Grip strength values were significantly below average for participants age and sex, and protein intake is significantly below calculated values for older adults engaging in physical activity. Future initiatives should reinforce the importance of strength training in this group, in addition to improving protein intake.

Information

Type
Abstract
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Nutrition Society

References

Centre for Ageing Better, Our Ageing Population | The State of Ageing 2025. [Available at https://ageing-better.org.uk/our-ageing-population-state-ageing-2025].Google Scholar
Nie, C, Li, Y, Rui, Li et al. (2022) Cell Reports 38, 110459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Layman, DK (2024). Front Nutr 11, 1388986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinheiro, MB, Oliveira, JS, Baldwin, JN et al. (2022) Int. j. behav. nutr. phys. act. 19, 87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dodds, RM, Syddall, HE, Cooper, R et al. (2014) Plos one 9, e113637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
British Nutrition Foundation. Nutrition Requirements. [Available at https://www.nutrition.org.uk/nutritional-information/protein/].Google Scholar
Volkert, D, Beck, AM, Cederholm, T et al. (2019) Clin Nutr 38, 1047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deutz, NEP, Bauer, J, Barazzoni, R et al. (2014). Clin Nutr 33, 929936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar