Association Between Protein Intake and Sarcopenia-Related Indicators Among Korean Older Adults: A Scoping Review

Abstract

Protein intake has been identified as a key modifiable factor in preventing and managing sarcopenia, a common age-related condition characterized by the loss of muscle mass, strength, and function. This scoping review aimed to summarize the available literature on the association between protein intake and sarcopenia-related outcomes among Korean older adults and identify current research trends and gaps in this field. The review followed the 5-step methodological framework developed by Arksey and O'Malley for scoping reviews and adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews checklist to ensure a comprehensive search strategy. Protein intake was assessed using various methods, including grams per day, grams per kilogram of body weight per day, and intake quartiles. Sarcopenia-related outcomes were categorized into 3 domains as follows: muscle mass, strength, and physical performance. Although most intervention studies demonstrated improvements in muscle mass following protein supplementation, findings on muscle strength and physical function were inconsistent. Cross-sectional studies generally reported better sarcopenia-related outcomes with higher protein intake, particularly when the intake was expressed relative to body weight or analyzed according to quartiles. However, heterogeneity in protein intake assessments and variations in sarcopenia definitions could have contributed to the inconsistent findings across studies. This review highlights the need for applying standardized approaches for protein intake measurement and sarcopenia diagnosis. Future studies should consider the quantity, quality, and timing of protein intake while also focusing on the implementation of integrated, multidisciplinary intervention strategies to promote healthy aging among Korean older adults.

Keywords: Aged; Korea; Protein; Sarcopenia; Scoping review.

Figure 1. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 flow diagram for study selection.