After the age of 50, there's a marked and steady yearly loss of muscle mass. This is a huge driver of morbidity in older folks. This has been studied extensively and isn't particularly controversial. [1]
I would expect the proportion of people > 50 that perform resistance based weight training to be small. Adding a drug that diminishes your muscle mass when you can least afford to lose it sounds like it could be terrible for that aging population.
> I would expect the proportion of people > 50 that perform resistance based weight training to be small. Adding a drug that diminishes your muscle mass when you can least afford to lose it sounds like it could be terrible for that aging population.
Then prescribe weight training in addition to it. This isn't rocket science. Older folks should be doing exercise to offset the potential loss in muscle and bone mass anyway. It works. We've proven it works. We've proven it improves health outcomes and quality of life long-term going into old age. This isn't just something that should be waved away with "ah, well, we've proven people lose muscle mass, nothing we can do about it".
At 63, I have gained about 4 kilos of muscle mass and lost about two kilos of abdominal fat in three months by doing more rucking (backpacking, up hills).
Older people need a high protein diet, but muscle gain isn't impossible, nor is muscle loss inevitable.
Absolutely. That’s my plan as well. I never said this was inevitable, but it is a well established pattern. Even with weight training, it’s harder than it would be when you’re younger to pack on the pounds of muscle.
I would expect the proportion of people > 50 that perform resistance based weight training to be small. Adding a drug that diminishes your muscle mass when you can least afford to lose it sounds like it could be terrible for that aging population.
1: https://generic.wordpress.soton.ac.uk/mrclec/research/muscul...