Why Your Strongest, Fastest Muscle Fibers Age and Decay First

News
#1

MuscleAgingGrip
MuscleAgingGrip2752×1536 271 KB

In this comprehensive narrative review, researchers from Newcastle University dissect the “selective vulnerability” of aging skeletal muscle, challenging the simplistic view that muscles just “shrink” with age. Instead, they present a precise, hierarchical decay: Type II (fast-twitch) glycolytic fibers—the engines of power and speed—are decimated by aging, while Type I (slow-twitch) oxidative fibers remain relatively preserved. The authors identify a “denervation-reinnervation” cycle as a primary driver, where motor neurons detach from fast fibers, forcing them to atrophy or be “rescued” by slow motor neurons, creating “hybrid fibers” (co-expressing Type I/II myosin). This structural chaos is underpinned by a paradox: older muscles exhibit hyperactive basal mTOR signaling yet fail to respond to anabolic stimuli (“anabolic resistance”), effectively locking the muscle in a state of decay despite nutrient availability.

Source:

  • Open Access Paper: Ageing of human myofibres in the Vastus Lateralis muscle: A narrative review
  • Context: Institution: Newcastle University, UK Journal: Ageing Research Reviews
  • Impact Evaluation: The impact score of this journal is 12.4-13.1 (JIF 2024/2025), evaluated against a typical high-end range of 0–60+ for top general science. Therefore, this is an Elite/High impact journal, ranking Q1 in Geriatrics & Gerontology.

Part 2: The Biohacker Analysis

Study Design Specifications

  • Type: Narrative Review (Synthesis of historical histology, recent multi-omics, and imaging data).

  • Subjects: Human cohorts (aggregated data). Focuses on Vastus Lateralis (VL) biopsies from healthy young (18-49y) vs. older (>60y) adults.

  • Mechanistic Deep Dive:

    • The mTOR Paradox: The review highlights that while mTORC1 is essential for hypertrophy, it is constitutively hyperactive in aging muscle (basal elevation). This chronic “on” switch may drive insensitivity to actual anabolic signals (exercise/protein), creating a feedback loop of atrophy—a phenomenon termed “anabolic resistance.”
    • Neuro-Aging (The Denervation Cycle): The degradation of the Neuromuscular Junction (NMJ) is not a byproduct but a driver of sarcopenia. Fast motor units die off; surviving slow motor units sprout axons to “adopt” the orphaned fast fibers. This converts them to slow or “hybrid” fibers (Type I/II co-expression), preserving mass but sacrificing explosive power.
    • Mitochondrial Fragmentation: Type II fibers, which have fewer mitochondria to begin with, suffer disproportionate mitochondrial dysfunction and ROS accumulation compared to the dense, reticular networks in Type I fibers.

  • Novelty:

    • Identifies “Hybrid Fibers” (co-expressing MyHC isoforms) not just as anomalies, but as a defining biomarker of the aging muscle’s desperate attempt to re-innervate.
    • Challenges the efficacy of antioxidant supplementation, noting that low-level ROS is necessary for adaptation, and exogenous antioxidants may exacerbate atrophy.

  • Critical Limitations:

    • Survivor Bias: Most data relies on cross-sectional biopsies (healthy survivors) rather than longitudinal tracking, potentially underestimating fiber loss in frail populations.
    • The “Female Gap”: The authors explicitly flag a paucity of data on female muscle aging, despite clear sexual dimorphism in fiber distribution.
    • Methodological Noise: Aggregates studies using different typing methods (ATPase vs. Immunofluorescence), creating noise in “hybrid fiber” quantification.
2 Likes
#2

AgingMuscle
AgingMuscle2222×1276 240 KB

Part 3: Claims & Verification

Claim 1: Type II (Fast-Twitch) fibers atrophy significantly more than Type I fibers with age.

  • Support: Level A (Meta-Analyses)
  • Verification: Confirmed. A 2024 systematic review and meta-analysis (Lee et al., Am J Physiol Cell Physiol) analyzing 27 studies confirmed significant age-related atrophy in Type II fibers, while Type I size remained largely preserved.
  • Confidence: [High]

Claim 2: Aging muscle exhibits “Anabolic Resistance”—a blunted protein synthesis response to nutrients/exercise.

  • Support: Level B (Human RCTs/Mechanistic)
  • Verification: Confirmed. Numerous tracer studies (e.g., Phillips et al., Nutr Metab) demonstrate that older adults require significantly higher protein doses (>40g/meal) to trigger MPS compared to young controls.
  • Confidence: [High]

Claim 3: Denervation and NMJ instability are primary upstream causes of muscle fiber atrophy.

  • Support: Level C (Human Observational) / Level D (Murine Mechanistic)
  • Verification: Confirmed. Human cadaveric studies (Tomlinson et al.) show massive motor unit loss (>50%) in aging. Murine models (Hepple et al.) confirm denervation precedes atrophy.
  • Confidence: [Medium-High]

Claim 4: Basal mTORC1 signaling is hyperactive in aging muscle, contributing to dysfunction.

  • Support: Level D (Murine/Pre-clinical) / Level C (Human Biopsy)
  • Verification: Plausible but complex. Mouse models (Sandri et al.) show chronic mTORC1 activation induces atrophy via feedback inhibition of autophagy. Human data is less consistent; some show elevated p70S6K, others show blunting.
  • Translational Gap: Human data often shows blunted signaling post-exercise, but elevated basal signaling is a specific nuance supported by murine data.
  • Confidence: [Medium] - “Hyperactive basal” claim relies heavily on rodent data extrapolation.

Claim 5: NAD+ levels are depleted in sarcopenic muscle and linked to mitochondrial defects.

  • Support: Level C (Human Observational)
  • Verification: Confirmed. Metabolomic profiling (Janssens et al., Nat Aging) shows NAD+ is one of the most depleted metabolites in aging human muscle, correlating with step count and mitochondrial function.
  • Confidence: [Medium-High]

Part 4: Actionable Intelligence

The Translational Protocol (Rigorous Extrapolation)

  • 1. Combat Anabolic Resistance (Protein Pulse):
    • Protocol: To overcome the blunted mTOR sensitivity, simply “eating protein” is insufficient. You need a leucine threshold trigger.
    • Dose: Aim for 30-40g high-quality protein per meal (containing ~3-4g Leucine).
    • Timing: Post-resistance training is the critical window where sensitivity is temporarily restored.
    • Safety: Monitor eGFR if you have pre-existing kidney disease (Data Absent for healthy adults showing harm).
  • 2. NAD+ Restoration (Mitochondrial Support):
    • Compound: Nicotinamide Riboside (NR) or Nicotinamide Mononucleotide (NMN).
    • Human Equivalent Dose (HED): Most human trials use 300mg - 1000mg daily.
    • Biomarker Verification: Unlike generic energy levels, efficacy should be tracked via PBMC NAD+ levels(blood test available) or indirectly via GDF-15 (marker of mitochondrial stress).
    • Safety: Generally safe (GRAS). No severe adverse effects in Phase I trials up to 2000mg.
  • 3. Power Training (Save the Type IIs):
    • The Logic: Since Type II fibers atrophy from disuse and denervation, high-velocity loading is non-negotiable.
    • Protocol: Incorporate high-velocity concentric movements (e.g., jump squats, kettlebell swings, or intent-to-move-fast lifts).
    • ROI: High. This directly targets the specific fiber type identified in the paper as the “first to fail.”
  • 4. Rapamycin (The mTOR Modulator):
    • The Strategy: Pulsed dosing (e.g., weekly) to inhibit the maladaptive basal hyper-mTOR signaling without preventing the acute exercise-induced spikes needed for growth.
    • Contraindications: Active infections, wound healing, or planned surgery.

Feasibility & ROI:

  • Protein/Creatine/Training: [Elite ROI]. Low cost, massive structural benefit.
  • NAD+ Boosters: [Medium ROI]. High cost (~$60-100/mo), evidence for reversal of human atrophy is weaker than protein/exercise.
  • Rapamycin: [High Risk/High Reward]. Requires prescription, cheap generic, but complex regulatory biology.

Part 5: The Strategic FAQ

1. If Type II fibers atrophy first, shouldn’t I focus exclusively on HIT/Power training rather than Zone 2?

  • Answer: Not exclusively, but prioritarily. While Zone 2 (endurance) improves mitochondrial health (addressing the metabolic defect in aging fibers), it does not recruit the high-threshold Type II motor units. To rescue Type II fibers from denervation, you must lift heavy or move fast. A polarized approach (80% Zone 2 / 20% High-Velocity/Heavy) covers both the metabolic and structural defects.

2. The paper claims mTOR is “hyperactive” in aging, but bodybuilders take leucine to activate mTOR. Isn’t this contradictory?

  • Answer: This is the “mTOR Paradox.” Aging muscle has chronically elevated low-level mTOR (like a leaky faucet), which desensitizes the system and blocks autophagy (clean-up). You want pulsatile mTOR: low at rest (to allow autophagy) and extremely high post-exercise (to drive synthesis). Chronic elevation is bad; acute spikes are good.

3. Does this confirm that “Sarcopenia” is actually a neurological disease?

  • Answer: Increasingly, yes. The review explicitly links fiber loss to motor unit loss and NMJ fragmentation. Muscle tissue itself might remain viable, but if the nerve disconnects, the fiber dies (or is converted). This suggests neuroprotective strategies (e.g., BDNF upregulation via exercise/sauna) are muscle-protective.

4. Can I use antioxidants (Vitamin C/E) to fix the mitochondrial dysfunction mentioned?

  • Answer: No. The review cites evidence that antioxidant supplementation can exacerbate muscle dysfunction or blunt exercise adaptations. Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS) are signaling molecules for repair. Blunting them kills the signal.

5. What is the “Hybrid Fiber” and is it good or bad?

  • Answer: It’s generally a sign of remodeling or stress. A hybrid fiber co-expresses slow and fast myosin (e.g., Type I/IIA). In aging, it often represents a fiber that has been denervated and is in the process of being re-innervated by a different motor neuron type. It’s a “transitional state” of survival, not a functional optimization.

6. Is there a gender difference in this decay?

  • Answer: Yes. The review notes that older males tend to have a higher proportion of Type I fibers (due to massive Type II atrophy), while females may have different trajectories, though data is scarce. Estrogen plays a major role in satellite cell function, suggesting women might need distinct HRT strategies to preserve mass.

7. Does Creatine help with the “Type II” specific atrophy?

  • Answer: Likely yes. Creatine primarily fuels the phosphocreatine system used by Type II fibers. While not explicitly the focus of this review’s mechanism section, maintaining energetic flux in glycolytic fibers is mechanically sound to prevent disuse atrophy.

8. Is the “Anabolic Resistance” permanent?

  • Answer: No, it is surmountable. Resistance training sensitizes the muscle to protein. The review notes that sedentary behavior accelerates this resistance. You can’t just eat your way out of it; you must mechanically stress the tissue to lower the threshold for protein synthesis.

9. How does fibrosis (ECM) affect my gains?

  • Answer: The review highlights that aging ECM becomes “stiff” due to collagen cross-linking (glycation). This mechanical stiffness impairs force transmission—meaning even if your fibers contract, the force isn’t efficiently transferred to the tendon. This supports the use of anti-glycation agents (e.g., potentially Carnosine/Beta-Alanine or checking HbA1c).

10. What is the single most validated intervention mentioned?

  • Answer: Resistance Exercise. It hits almost every pathway: it creates the mechanical signal to override mTOR resistance, it forces Type II recruitment preventing denervation, and it improves mitochondrial dynamics. No drug mentioned (statins, glucocorticoids, etc.) had a positive effect; in fact, many were detrimental.
3 Likes
#3

Follow-on Prompt:

Have there been any peptides, chemicals, supplements or drugs that show evidence of protecting or slowing aging of Type II (fast-twitch) glycolytic fibers?

Gemini Pro Response:

Based on your request, here is a critical analysis of the chemical landscape for protecting Type II (fast-twitch/glycolytic) fibers.

Executive Summary: The “Fast-Twitch” Pharmacopeia

Type II fibers are the “canary in the coal mine” of aging. They do not merely shrink; they are actively denervated and undergo apoptosis due to oxidative stress and mitochondrial failure. Most “general” muscle supplements fail here because they target general protein synthesis rather than the specific failure modes of glycolytic fibers (neuromuscular junction instability and phosphocreatine deficits).

Below is the hierarchy of agents categorized by their mechanism of action on Type II fibers.

Tier 1: The Validated Foundation (High Confidence)

These agents have Level A/B human evidence specifically for Type II fiber hypertrophy or preservation.

1. Creatine Monohydrate

  • Mechanism: Type II fibers rely exclusively on the Phosphocreatine (PCr) system for energy. Aging reduces intramuscular PCr stores. Creatine supplementation saturates these stores, increasing the hydration and mechanotransduction signals specifically in Type II fibers.
  • Evidence: Level A (Meta-Analysis). Confirmed to increase Type II fiber cross-sectional area (CSA) in older adults, even without exercise (though effect is tripled with resistance training).
  • Protocol: 5g daily. No cycling.
  • Type II Specificity: High.

2. Vitamin D3 (Cholecalciferol)

  • Mechanism: The Vitamin D Receptor (VDR) is expressed almost exclusively on Type II fibers. Deficiency leads to selective Type II atrophy (Type II fibers literally shrink when VDR is not activated).
  • Evidence: Level A (Systematic Review). Correction of deficiency (<30 ng/mL) restores Type II fiber size and improves explosive power (a Type II proxy).
  • Target: Maintain serum 25(OH)D at 40–60 ng/mL.
  • Type II Specificity: Very High.

3. Leucine (The Trigger)

  • Mechanism: Aging Type II fibers exhibit “anabolic resistance”—they ignore normal protein signals. Leucine is the only amino acid capable of activating mTORC1 directly to override this resistance.
  • Evidence: Level B (RCTs). Older muscle requires ~3-4g of Leucine per meal to trigger the same synthesis response as young muscle.
  • Protocol: Whey protein isolate or EAA blends spiked with extra Leucine.

Tier 2: The Mitochondrial Rescue Agents (Peptides & Postbiotics)

Type II fibers have fewer mitochondria and are uniquely vulnerable to “garbage accumulation” (defective organelles) which triggers cell death. 1

4. Urolithin A (The “Trash Compactor”)

  • Mechanism: Induces Mitophagy (selective recycling of damaged mitochondria).2 Aging Type II fibers die because they choke on metabolic waste; Urolithin A clears this waste.
  • Evidence: Level B (RCTs). Recent human trials (Singh et al., JAMA Netw Open) show improved strength/endurance in older adults.
  • Status: Commercially available (Mitopure).
  • Type II Specificity: Medium. (Benefits all fibers, but Type IIs are most sensitive to mitochondrial ROS).

5. SS-31 (Elamipretide)

  • Type: Peptide.
  • Mechanism: Binds to cardiolipin on the inner mitochondrial membrane, stabilizing the electron transport chain.3 It rapidly reverses mitochondrial deficits in aged skeletal muscle.
  • Evidence: Level D (Murine/Mechanistic) → Level B (Human Clinical Trials in other indications). In old mice, it restores redox status and prevents disuse atrophy.
  • Status: Investigational/Research Chemical.
  • Translational Gap: Human data for sarcopenia specifically is still emerging, but mechanism is solid.

Tier 3: The “Nuclear Option” (High Risk / High Efficacy)

Pharmacological agents that force Type II growth but carry significant systemic risks.

6. Beta-2 Adrenergic Agonists (Clenbuterol, Formoterol)

  • Mechanism: These drugs bind to beta-2 receptors on muscle, potently stimulating hypertrophy and actively shifting fibers from Slow (Type I) to Fast (Type II) .4
  • Evidence: Level D (Animal) / Level E (Bodybuilding Anecdote). The most potent chemical inducers of Type II hypertrophy known.
  • Safety Warning: High Risk. Causes cardiac hypertrophy, tachycardia, and potential necrosis. NOT recommended for longevity, but medically relevant to understanding Type II biology.
  • Type II Specificity: Extreme.

7. Androgens (Testosterone / SARMs)

  • Mechanism: Androgen receptors are dense in skeletal muscle. Testosterone increases satellite cell replication.
  • Evidence: Level A (RCT). Increases lean mass.5
  • Nuance: While it increases size, it does not always linearly increase power (the functional output of Type II fibers) without concurrent training.

Tier 4: The Frontier (Emerging Science)

Cutting-edge compounds with high theoretical promise but limited human data.

8. Prostaglandin E2 (PGE2)

  • Source: Stanford Medicine (2025/2026).
  • Mechanism: A “Geroprotector” for muscle stem cells. A single dose in aged mice restored muscle stem cell function and strength. It rejuvenates the “memory” of the stem cells.6
  • Status: Pre-clinical (Level D). Keep a close watch on this pathway (15-PGDH inhibitors).

Related Reading: The Culprit of Aging - Helen Blau's work at Stanford / PGE2, 15-PDGH
and Longevity Summit 2025 Reporting - Helen Blau PGDH Presentation

9. Bimagrumab (Myostatin/Activin Inhibitor)

  • Mechanism: Monoclonal antibody blocking Type II activin receptors.
  • Evidence: Level B (RCT). Profound increases in lean mass and loss of fat.
  • Caveat: Some trials failed to show functional improvement (strength) commensurate with the size gains (“dysfunctional hypertrophy”), though recent data in obesity/sarcopenia is promising.

The “Type II Defense” Protocol

If your goal is specifically to save fast-twitch fibers, this is the evidence-based stack:

  1. Mechanical Signal (Non-Negotiable): Heavy Resistance or High-Velocity training (creates the demand).
  2. Fuel (The Foundation): Creatine (5g/day) + Leucine-rich Protein (>40g post-workout).
  3. Permissive Signal: Vitamin D3 (keep levels >50 ng/mL).
  4. Cellular Cleanup: Urolithin A (500mg-1g/day) to prevent mitochondrial necrosis.
  5. Experimental Add-on: SS-31 (Peptide) cycles if access/budget permits.
3 Likes
#4

It is functional if you are into ultra-endurance, especially cycling long mountain events where you need to be able to produce (relatively) high torque for many hours…

2 Likes
#5

I think the research should look at the use it or lose context. Fast twitch movements are primarily dependent on strong ligament/tendon and cartilage maintenance for proper joint movement. Those deteriorate with half-life of elastin. So movement to use type 2 fibers deteriorates and movement to maintain type 2 muscle fibers deteriorates ad finium.

A landmark study published in the Journal of Applied Physiology (2023) compared older men who were lifelong strength-trained athletes with sedentary peers and endurance athletes.

  • Finding: Strength-trained master athletes preserved the neural innervation of Type 2 fibers. Their muscle fiber distribution and “grouping” (a sign of nerve death) were similar to those of young, active adults.
  • Significance: This suggests that chronic use of high contractile force generation (lifting heavy) prevents the “re-wiring” of muscles that typically happens in old age.
  • Source: The impact of life-long strength versus endurance training on muscle fiber morphology… (2023)
1 Like
#6

What is the fast twitch fallacy here? I don’t understand the ai-generated title

#7

I edit any title that AI generates for me. By “fallacy” I meant counter to expectation (which for me was that the strongest muscle fibers would decay more slowly).

1 Like
#8

Ah, got it. Yes, type 2 fibers are usually the first ones to be affected by aging.

1 Like
#9

Hmm. Is “strongest” the right concept? What does that mean? Type II/III are fast twitch, but… that’s all it means, it can generate energy faster, but that’s not the same as strongest, because one could argue that longer lasting is “stronger” (type I endurance), as fast twich poops out very quickly, and endurance just keeps going on. But regardless, assuming fast twich is “stronger”, my expectation is exactly the opposite to yours. I expect the “strongest” and “fastest” to go first, weaken first with aging. In athletes, you expect the speed to drop first, and endurance later. Fast reflexes slow down first - a boxer loses reflexes first before conditioning. This seems a general rule - the “top”, or “elite” capability is the first to go - in intellectual ability, it’s the speed of reasoning, reaction time and processing speed that drops first and fastest with age, while wisdom, judgment and global thinking drops off much slower. Fast and strong goes down first, slow and endurance last. When thinking of old people - say an 80 year old, you don’t think “fast”, “strong” (that would be completely absurd!), but you may think “slow, but still durable and long lasting”.

This is why I too found the title very confusing, as my expectations are the polar opposite: speed (fast twitch = speed!) and strong are the first to deteriorate, but slow and long is slower and longer to deteriorate. Of course, YMMV.

1 Like
#10

Related new “muscle” focused paper:

This analysis provides a structured report on the research article **"Exercise suppresses DEAF1 to normalize mTORC1 activity and reverse muscle aging"** (Choy et al., PNAS, 2025).

The Exercise Switch: How a Forgotten Transcription Factor Resets the Clock on Muscle Aging

Sarcopenia—the progressive loss of muscle mass and function—has long been associated with a biological paradox: while the growth regulator mTORC1 is required for building muscle, it becomes chronically hyperactivated in aging tissues, leading to protein imbalance, suppressed autophagy, and muscle wasting. Until now, the “hard-wiring” that maintains this persistent, maladaptive anabolic state was unknown.

In a new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), researchers from Duke-NUS Medical School (Singapore) have identified the transcription factor DEAF1 (Deformed Epidermal Autoregulatory Factor 1) as the missing link. The study demonstrates that as muscles age, DEAF1 levels rise, directly binding to the mTOR promoter to drive transcription and subsequent mTORC1 overactivation. This “stuck throttle” prevents the muscle from entering the necessary catabolic/repair phases (autophagy), leading to the accumulation of cellular “trash” and functional decline.

Critically, the team discovered that physical exercise acts as a master reset for this pathway. Endurance exercise (treadmill running in mice) activates FOXO, a well-known longevity factor, which in turn suppresses DEAF1 expression. This normalization of DEAF1 restores mTORC1 to youthful levels, re-enabling autophagy and reversing muscle atrophy. The researchers validated these findings across evolutionary lines, showing identical mechanisms in Drosophila (fruit flies) and human myotubes. The study suggests that the “exercise-mimetic” of the future may not be a simple mTOR inhibitor like rapamycin, but a more upstream regulator of the FOXO-DEAF1 axis.

Impact Evaluation: The impact score (JIF) of this journal is 9.1 (2024/2025), evaluated against a typical high-end range of 0–60+ for top general science; therefore, this is an Elite impact journal. PNAS remains a premier tier-one multidisciplinary publication with rigorous peer review.

Part 2: The Biohacker Analysis

Study Design Specifications:

  • Type: In vivo (Drosophila, Mouse) and In vitro (C2C12, human iPSCs).
  • Subjects (Mouse): C57BL/6J, Aged (18–24 months) and Young (3 months). Sex-balanced cohorts were used. N-numbers: typically 6–10 per experimental group (consistent with PNAS standards).
  • Lifespan Analysis: This study was primarily a healthspan and functional reversal study rather than a terminal lifespan study.
  • Lifespan Data: N/A (Survival was not the primary endpoint; however, Drosophila survival was improved in DEAF1-knockdown groups vs. aged controls).

Mechanistic Deep Dive: The paper establishes the FOXO-DEAF1-mTORC1 axis.

  1. Transcription Control: DEAF1 binds to TTCG motifs on the mTOR promoter.
  2. Autophagy Brake: By elevating mTORC1, DEAF1 suppresses ULK1-mediated autophagy.
  3. Exercise-FOXO Link: Exercise-induced FOXO activation leads to the transcriptional repression of DEAF1, effectively “lifting the brake” on autophagy and “releasing the gas” on chronic mTOR transcription.

Novelty: While we knew exercise inhibits mTORC1 in aged muscle, we did not know how it was transcriptionally “hard-wired” into the nucleus. DEAF1 is now identified as the specific “gatekeeper” that maintains the aged muscular phenotype.

Critical Limitations:

  • Translational Uncertainty: While human sarcopenia patients show elevated DEAF1, the specific FOXO-DEAF1 repression via exercise has not yet been confirmed in a human clinical trial.
  • Systemic Risk: DEAF1 is critical for brain development (mutations cause DAND/Vulto-van Silfhout-de Vries syndrome). Systemic DEAF1 inhibition could be neurotoxic.
  • Hypertrophy Conflict: mTORC1 is needed for acute muscle growth. Chronic DEAF1 inhibition might impair the “pump” or recovery from resistance training. [Confidence: High]
1 Like
#11

Stumbled upon this related article (from October, 2024) in Outside Magazine:

Aging Athletes Need to Stay Explosive. Here’s How.

We lose power more quickly than strength as we get older. Researchers are trying to understand why—and how to fight back.

The smoking gun, for me, is the hill sprint at the end of the workout. I can still keep up with some of my younger training partners in tempo runs and mile reps, but when it comes to blasting uphill, I get left in the dust. That sort of explosive muscle power used to be right in my wheelhouse, but now that I’m in my late 40s, those gears are missing.

I’m hardly alone. The decline of muscle power is one of the hallmarks of aging in your 40s and beyond. That’s a problem, because power is one of the best predictors of how well you’ll be able to handle the typical activities of daily living, like climbing stairs and hoisting yourself out of a chair, in your later years. But scientists aren’t sure why power declines so quickly and inexorably with age. A new study in the Journal of Applied Physiology digs into this mystery, and its findings offer some clues about how to fight back against this loss of power.

Why Muscle Power Matters

Let’s start with a definition: power is equal to force times velocity. When we talk about muscle strength, we’re referring to how much force a muscle can exert. When we talk about muscle power, we’re talking about the combination of how much force we can exert and how quickly we can exert it. To bound up a hill, leap onto a box, or get up from the couch, you need to deliver force explosively rather than gradually. And sure enough, research over the years has found that power is more important than strength for predicting whether older people are able to successfully navigate the activities of daily living.

The problem is that power starts dropping earlier than strength, and proceeds to drop more steeply. A typical estimate is that you lose 0.5 to 1 percent of your muscle mass per year once you’re on the wrong side of 40. Strength generally follows a similar trajectory. In contrast, muscle power drops by 2 to 4 percent per year. It’s not clear where the additional losses come from: it could be that our brains send weaker signals to the muscles; the signals might get disrupted as they’re being transmitted through the nervous system; or something in the muscles themselves might change how they contract.

Full article: Aging Athletes Need to Stay Explosive. Here’s How. (Outside Magazine)