How your muscle strength declines with the years: as a line and in steps – Knowledge

1. What this article is about

Your muscle strength changes throughout your life. It rises until about 30, stays level for a while and declines from about 50. This article describes the shape of that course. It shows how much strength is lost per year, which ability fades first and why strength declines faster than visible muscle mass.

The second part deals with something many people have observed in themselves. Strength rarely declines evenly. Often it slips slowly over years and then drops within a few days: after a flu spent in bed, an operation, a hospital stay or a broken bone. Specialists therefore distinguish two courses. One is a sloping line. The other is a staircase. This article explains both, says what research knows about them and describes how you can flatten the line and shrink the steps.

The article is written for patients of every age. Most of the numbers come from studies of people over 65. Where a number was measured only in young people or only in a few people, the text says so at that point.

Three articles on this website complement this one. Muscle weakness in older age explains the causes of muscle loss. Muscle: more than a powerhouse describes what muscle does for metabolism and organs. Leaving hospital weaker deals with the hospital stay in detail. This article joins the pieces into one course.

2. How strong you are over the course of life

2.1 The peak comes around 30

The largest study of grip strength combines twelve British studies with 49,964 people aged 4 to 90 [1]. It shows three periods. Strength rises into early adulthood. It then stays roughly level until midlife. From midlife it declines.

Men reached their peak between 29 and 39 with a median grip strength of 51 kilograms. Women reached theirs between 26 and 42 with 31 kilograms [1]. By age 80, about a quarter of men and women had a grip strength far below the peak value for their sex [1].

Muscle mass follows a similar pattern. A study of 468 men and women aged 18 to 88 measured total muscle in a magnetic resonance scanner [2]. The share of muscle in body weight fell from the third decade onwards. Muscle mass itself only declined noticeably towards the end of the fifth decade, that is around age 50. The loss mainly affected the legs.

2.2 From 50 it goes downhill, from 75 faster

How steeply the line falls depends on age. In the Baltimore Longitudinal Study, arm strength and arm power declined from age 40 [3]. In the legs, the same study showed a steady decline in knee extension strength in 654 people aged 20 to 93, in women and men alike [4].

The most informative studies follow the same people for years. One such study measured the strength of 120 people aged 46 to 78 and repeated the measurement after about ten years [5]. The knee extensors lost 14 percent per decade, the knee flexors 16 percent. Older participants lost faster than younger ones. In nine healthy men first measured at 65, 20 to 30 percent of knee and elbow strength was gone twelve years later [6]. The cross-section of the thigh extensor was 16 percent smaller.

Between 70 and 79 the line gets steeper. The Health ABC study followed 1,880 people of that age for three years [7]. White men lost 3.4 percent of their leg strength per year, white women 2.6 percent. Men lost almost twice as much as women.

Two things go with these numbers. First, in one study, measurements in the same people showed losses about 60 percent larger than a comparison of different age groups at the same point in time [5]. Older generations were often stronger as young people than today's young, and the weakest die earlier. Both make the decline look flatter in a comparison than it is. Second, the numbers are averages. Between people of the same age there are large differences. Section 7 shows what they depend on.

2.3 Strength fades faster than mass, power fastest of all

Muscle gets weak faster than it gets small. In the Health ABC study, participants lost about 1 percent of their leg muscle mass per year but about 3 percent of their leg strength [7]. Those who gained muscle mass in those three years still lost strength. In the same study, strength fell over five years by 16 percent in men and 13 percent in women, two to five times faster than muscle cross-section [8]. At the same time more fat was deposited between the muscles, regardless of whether someone gained or lost weight.

Power fades even faster than strength. Power means strength times speed, that is the ability to produce a lot of force in a fraction of a second. You need it when rising from a low armchair, when climbing stairs and for the recovery step after a stumble. In 100 healthy people aged 65 to 89, the age difference in strength corresponded to a loss of 1 to 2 percent per year, in leg power to about 3.5 percent per year [9]. Power relative to body weight determined in this study how fast someone rose from a chair and how high a step someone could climb unaided [9]. Power declines earlier and more steeply than strength and predicts everyday limitations better [10].

So the order is: power goes first, then strength, mass last. For you this means: a muscle can still look large on a scan and yet be too slow for the stumble. Training must therefore also practise speed, with a light weight and brisk movement.

3. Why strength declines

Our guide Muscle weakness in older age describes the causes in a chapter of its own. Here is only what matters for the shape of the course.

First, nerve cells are lost. Every muscle is controlled by nerve cells in the spinal cord. By about age 71, healthy people have around 40 percent fewer of these controlling units than younger people [11]. The remaining nerve cells take over some of the orphaned muscle fibres. They control them more coarsely and more slowly. That explains why power goes first.

Second, muscle responds more weakly to protein. After a protein-rich meal, the body builds muscle protein. In 44 young and older men, this build-up was smaller in the older men even though they received the same amount of protein [12]. Specialists call this anabolic resistance. It explains why rebuilding after a step takes longer in older age.

Third, fat is deposited in and between the muscles [8]. That explains why mass reveals less than strength. The European expert group therefore puts strength first in the diagnosis of muscle loss, ahead of mass [13].

4. Line and steps: two courses laid over each other

If you plot your strength over the years, a picture with two shapes appears. One is a line that slopes gently downwards. The other is a staircase that drops steeply at individual points. In reality the two lie on top of each other. This section explains both shapes in plain words.

4.1 What "line" means

Line means: every year a little is missing. In healthy people over 65 that is 1 to 2 percent of strength per year [9], between 70 and 79 about 3 percent [7]. From one year to the next you hardly notice this share. Over a decade it adds up to 15 to 30 percent [5], [6].

The line is the sum of the causes in section 3. It is present in everyone, including athletes who train all their lives (section 7.2). How steep it is differs from person to person.

4.2 What "step" means: what a few days cost

Step means: within days a lot is missing. The trigger is almost always a period in which you hardly use your muscles. Research has reproduced such periods under controlled conditions.

• Five days with one leg immobilised. In 24 healthy young men, the thigh muscle was 3.5 percent thinner and 9.0 percent weaker after five days in a cast [14]. After 14 days, 8.4 percent of thickness and 22.9 percent of strength were missing.
• Ten days of bed rest at 67. Twelve healthy older people lost about 0.95 kilograms of lean mass in the legs alone [15]. In a second group of eleven people of the same age, 13 percent of knee extension strength, 14 percent of stair-climbing power and 12 percent of endurance were missing after ten days [16]. After the bed rest, participants moved less of their own accord than before.
• Seven days of bed rest at 23. Ten young men lost 1.4 kilograms of lean mass, 3.2 percent of thigh cross-section and 6.9 percent of leg strength in one week [17]. The body's sensitivity to insulin fell by 29 percent.
• Fourteen days of fewer steps at 72. Ten healthy older people walked about 1,400 steps a day instead of about 6,000 [18]. They were not in bed. After two weeks, lean mass in the legs was 3.9 percent smaller and the muscle's response to protein was blunted.

A calculation makes the size of a step tangible. Ten days of bed rest cost the older people 13 percent of their leg strength [16]. On the line, about 3 percent per year is lost between 70 and 79 [7]. Ten days in bed therefore correspond to roughly four years of the usual decline. This calculation draws on two different studies and is an approximation. The order of magnitude is right.

The last point of the list shows: a step needs no bed. Two weeks with very few steps are enough. Such weeks happen with a cold, after a sprained ankle, during bereavement or in a month of bad weather.

4.3 The step down is fast, the way up slow

After a step, the question is whether strength comes back by itself. A Danish research group studied this in nine men aged 61 to 74 and eleven men aged 21 to 27 [19]. All wore a leg brace for two weeks and then trained for four weeks under supervision.

The results show three differences between young and old. First, immobilisation hit the older men in a different place. In the young, mainly the muscle shrank. In the older men, mainly the ability to fully activate the muscle through the nerves declined [19]. Second, the older men lost more power: 20 to 37 percent compared with 13 to 16 percent in the young [20]. Third, both groups regained their maximal strength with four weeks of training, but only the young also fully regained their muscle mass and their power [19], [20]. In the older men, the area of the muscle fibres was still smaller after four weeks of training than before the brace [21].

These studies are small, and they were done in healthy men. But they show the pattern that matters for the whole article. Two weeks down, four weeks up, and in older age four weeks are not enough for power. The step down is steep. The way up is a ramp, and it gets flatter with age.

4.4 Steps add up: what researchers suspect

From this pattern follows a hypothesis that has been discussed in research for some years [22], [23]. It says: a considerable part of what we take for muscle ageing is the sum of many short steps, each of which was only partly made up.

The reasoning goes like this. A 75-year-old may have had three bouts of flu, one operation, one fall and two hospital stays in the past ten years. Each of these events cost strength within days. After each, part came back and part did not. Laid on top of each other, the steps form a staircase, and from a distance the staircase looks like a steep line.

This hypothesis has not yet been proven. Nobody has so far measured the same people over decades often enough to separate every step from the line. The researchers who propose it say so themselves [22]. What is proven is in the next section: in older people, most new everyday limitations are indeed preceded by events.

4.5 What large observational studies show

The studies that best answer this question measure independence in daily life instead of strength: whether someone bathes, dresses, walks around the home and rises from a chair without help. Strength is a prerequisite for that. That is why these studies belong in this article.

An American study followed 6,640 older people for six to seven years [24]. During that time, 439 of them became severely dependent, meaning they needed help with three or more activities of daily living. In 227, the limitation appeared from one year to the next, with no prior limitation. In 212 it came gradually. At ages 70 to 74, less than a quarter of severe limitations had developed gradually; over 85, more than half. The researchers call the first form "catastrophic" and the second "progressive". In the language of this article: step and line both occur, and with increasing age the line gains weight.

Where the steps come from is shown by a second study from the same research group. 754 people over 70 who could manage all activities of daily living without help at the start were interviewed every month for five years [25]. During that time, 417 of them came to need help with at least one activity. In the month after a hospital stay, the risk of this was about 60 times higher than in other months. In the month after an episode of illness at home, with at least half a day in bed or markedly less activity, it was about 5 times higher. Of 100 new limitations, about 48 could be attributed to a hospital stay in the previous month and about 19 to an episode of illness at home. Hospital admissions after falls led to a limitation most often. The association held for frail and for robust people alike.

The same group later studied the last year of life of 552 people [26]. 71 percent had at least one hospital stay in that year. The course of limitations followed the hospital stays month by month. The jump was largest in people who had been independent before: a hospital stay cost them on average 1.9 points on a scale of 0 to 4.

How large the step in hospital itself is was shown by a study of 2,293 people over 70 admitted with a medical illness [27]. 35 of 100 left hospital with less independence than two weeks before admission. At ages 70 to 74 this affected 23 of 100, at 90 and over 63 of 100. A further 20 of 100 had lost abilities before admission and regained them by discharge. What helps in hospital and what you can do yourself is in our guide Leaving hospital weaker.

5. What happens after a step

5.1 Many recover, many only partly

After a step, most people get part of their strength back. This is shown by the same 754 people over 70 who were interviewed monthly [28]. 420 of them came to need help with at least one activity of daily living within a good four years. 81 of 100 of these people managed everything on their own again within a year. Of these 81, 57 kept their independence for at least six months. Those who had been limited for three months or longer recovered less often: 60 of 100, and of these only a third for at least six months. People with a memory disorder, with slow walking or with severe limitation recovered less often than the others. But in each of these groups, too, the majority recovered.

After a hospital stay the balance is worse. Of 100 people over 70 who left hospital with a new limitation, one year later 41 had died, 29 were living with the limitation and 30 were back at their previous level [29]. Of 100 people who left hospital without a new limitation, 18 had died, 15 had deteriorated and 67 were at their previous level.

A smaller British study measured strength and frailty in 80 people with an average age of 79 before and after a hospital stay [30]. Seven days after admission, more people were frail than before. After 13 weeks the values were back close to baseline. Of those who had no muscle loss before, 20 of 100 met the criteria for it after hospital. The researchers conclude that frailty acquired in hospital is largely reversible.

5.2 Hip fracture as the biggest step

Hip fracture is the biggest step that older people commonly experience. A review of 38 studies summarises the course [31]. Of 100 people, 40 to 60 regained their previous walking ability. 40 to 70 of 100 became as independent as before in washing and dressing. In Western countries, 10 to 20 of 100 moved into a care home after the fracture.

The way up takes a long time. In 674 people followed for two years after a hip fracture, leg function reached its highest level only after about eleven months [32]. Most of the recovery took place in the first six months [31]. Stair climbing was affected most: of the people who had climbed five stairs unaided before, 90 of 100 needed help with it after the fracture [32].

5.3 Why recovery takes longer in older age

Three reasons are documented. First, the blunted response to protein from section 3: older muscle builds less after each meal [12]. Two weeks with few steps blunt this response further [18]. Second, the repair cells: muscles regrow with the help of satellite cells. In the older men in the Danish study, these cells hardly multiplied after immobilisation; in the young they clearly did [21]. Third, the nerves: immobilisation hit muscle activation in the older men, and power only partly returned in four weeks [19], [20].

In practice this means: at 30 you often make up a step without a plan. At 75 you need time, protein and training that practises speed. Section 8.4 describes this.

6. Reserve and threshold: why the same step weighs differently

So far it has been about percentages. In everyday life, however, something else counts: whether you can still manage a particular task or not. This difference is explained by an idea the British geriatrician Archie Young described in 1997 [33].

Every task requires a certain minimum strength. To rise from a low chair without using your hands, your leg muscles need a certain power per kilogram of body weight. If your strength is above that, you manage. If it is below, you need your hands or help. This minimum strength is called the threshold. The distance between your strength and the threshold is called the reserve [33]. In youth the reserve is large. With every year on the line it shrinks. The loss only becomes noticeable when strength drops below the threshold.

For the threshold of rising from a chair there are measured values. In over 9,000 people aged 60 and over, the risk of mobility limitation was strongly increased when sit-to-stand power was below 2.1 watts per kilogram of body weight in women and below 2.6 watts per kilogram in men [36]. Women below the threshold had about an 11 times higher risk of limitations than women above it, men about a 14 times higher risk. In this study, sit-to-stand power fell by 0.10 to 0.13 watts per kilogram per year from age 50.

Now it becomes clear why the same step weighs differently. Two women of 75 spend ten days in bed with pneumonia and both lose 13 percent of their leg strength. One had a sit-to-stand power of 3.0 watts per kilogram before. After the step she is at 2.6 and still rises without her hands. The other had 2.3 watts per kilogram. After the step she is at 2.0, below the threshold, and needs her hands to get up. Both have lost the same amount. Only the second notices. This calculation is an invented example. The principle behind it has been measured [9], [36].

From this idea follows the most important point of this article. The reserve you have before a step decides whether the step takes you below the threshold. Whoever raises the line has more reserve. Ageing research calls the ability to withstand a stressor or recover from it physical resilience [34], [35]. Reserve is one of its building blocks. How resilience can be measured is still open; research on this is in its infancy [35].

7. What raises the line and flattens it

7.1 What made the difference over 22 years

A Finnish study measured the grip strength of 963 people aged 30 to 73 and repeated the measurement after 22 years [37]. Strength had declined faster in people who smoked in midlife, were overweight or did physically heavy work. Likewise in people with cardiovascular disease, high blood pressure, diabetes or asthma. The researchers conclude: how steeply the line falls in old age is decided to a good extent in midlife.

A British birth cohort of about 2,400 people born in 1946 was asked about their leisure-time physical activity at 36, 43 and 53 [38]. At 53, those who had been active at all three ages rose faster from a chair. Each age counted on its own, and the effect accumulated. In this study, activity had no measurable influence on grip strength in women.

7.2 What older athletes show

People who train into old age show what the line looks like without the steps of inactivity. In 40 endurance athletes aged 40 to 81 who trained four to five times a week, thigh muscle cross-section did not decline with age, and neither did knee extension strength [39]. This study is small and compares different people at the same point in time. In 125 cyclists aged 55 to 79, many bodily functions were related to age, but weakly, and the differences between people were larger than the influence of age [41].

The line remains in them too. The world records of older athletes fall evenly with age at first and more steeply from about 70 [40]. The researchers read from this the shape of ageing without the influence of inactivity. Their conclusion: training keeps the line high and flat. Ageing itself remains.

7.3 Strength training works at any age

The line can be raised at any age. In a nursing home, 100 people aged 72 to 98 trained with weights for ten weeks [42]. Their strength rose by 113 percent, in the comparison group without training by 3 percent. A review of 121 studies with 6,700 older people confirms the effect: strength training two to three times a week clearly increased strength, improved rising from a chair and speeded up walking by 0.08 metres per second [43]. Serious adverse events were rare.

Because power goes first, speed belongs in training. How that works, what dose is effective and how you control effort is in our guides Strength training, Building muscle and Repetitions in reserve.

7.4 Protein with every meal

Because older muscle responds more weakly to protein, expert societies recommend that healthy people over 65 eat 1.0 to 1.2 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight per day, spread over the meals [44]. For periods of bed rest, researchers suggest 25 to 30 grams of high-quality protein per meal, close in time to an exercise [23]. Someone weighing 70 kilograms thus comes to 70 to 84 grams a day. If you have kidney disease, discuss the amount with your doctor.

8. What makes the steps smaller

Steps can rarely be avoided altogether. Flu, operations and falls happen. What can be influenced is how deep a step goes and how quickly the way up begins. There are four moments for this.

8.1 Before a planned operation

Whoever goes into an operation with more reserve has more distance to the threshold. In a study of 251 people with bowel cancer, average age 69, half trained three times a week under supervision in the four weeks before surgery, with dietary advice and support to stop smoking [45]. Severe complications after surgery occurred in 17 of 100 in the training group and 30 of 100 in the group with usual preparation. In the walking test four weeks after surgery, the groups did not differ measurably. The study was stopped early because of the pandemic. It is one of several on this approach, which specialists call prehabilitation.

For you this means: if an operation is planned, the weeks before are an opportunity. Talk to us about it.

8.2 In hospital

Whether training during a hospital stay makes the step smaller is disputed. A Spanish study randomly divided 370 people with an average age of 87, in hospital for an acute illness, into two groups [46]. One practised strength, balance and walking twice a day, on average for five days. At discharge, the group with usual care had lost 5 points on the 100-point independence scale; the training group had gained 1.9 points. There were no adverse effects.

A Cochrane review of 24 studies with 7,511 people reaches a more cautious conclusion [47]. Across all studies, training made hardly any difference to independence at discharge. The certainty of this result is low because the studies contradict each other strongly. What is certain is that training in hospital did not increase the number of falls. Both results belong together: a well-designed daily programme worked strongly in one study, and across all programmes the effect is uncertain. What you and your relatives can do in hospital is in our guide Leaving hospital weaker.

8.3 Ill at home

The most common step takes place at home. Of 754 people over 70, in 15 months 77 of 100 had at least one month in which, because of an illness or injury, they stayed in bed for at least half a day or markedly cut down their activities [48]. The most common reason was fatigue. Most of these people did not see a doctor about it. Nobody sees these weeks, and they cost strength [18].

What helps in these weeks is based on the bed rest studies and on the experience of specialists [23], [49]. According to our search, there are no studies that compared different approaches to a flu at home. The recommendations are:

• As long as you have a fever, rest is right. As soon as it is gone, every day counts.
• Sitting loads the legs more than lying, standing more than sitting. Stand up once every hour.
• Several times a day, rise from a chair five to ten times without using your hands, if you can.
• Eat protein with every meal, even if you have no appetite: an egg, quark, pulses, fish or meat [23].
• If an arm or a leg is immobilised, keep training the other side and the trunk. The cast affects one body part; otherwise the loss affects the whole body.

8.4 After the step: rebuild early and deliberately

The way up is best begun immediately. In the Danish study, the older men too regained their maximal strength with four weeks of supervised training [19]. Power took longer, which is why it belongs in the programme [20]. After a hospital stay, training at home or in the practice clearly improved physical function in a review of 17 studies with 1,458 people [52]. The effect on other goals, such as readmission to hospital, is still unclear.

The study on recovery from limitations contains a clue that matters for how long to keep rebuilding [28]. Of 100 people who had recovered, 43 lost their independence again within six months. Recovery was often brief. For you this means: rebuilding after a step is complete when the reserve is back, with distance to the threshold. Regained strength alone is only half the way.

9. How to know your own line

The line and the steps can only be recognised if you measure your strength from time to time. Two measurements are enough. We measure grip strength with a hand dynamometer; the reference values by age and sex come from the study in section 2.1 [1]. We calculate sit-to-stand power from a chair-rise test; the threshold values come from section 6 [36].

Grip strength also says something about health as a whole. In 139,691 people aged 35 to 70 from 17 countries, the risk of dying within four years was 16 percent higher per 5 kilograms less grip strength [50]. A review of 14 studies with 53,476 people found a 1.7 times higher risk of death for the weakest quarter than for the strongest [51]. Whether more strength lowers this risk is not proven by these studies. They show that strength is a good measure of overall condition.

Two moments are especially useful for a measurement. The first is a quiet moment when you are healthy. That value is your baseline, against which every later measurement can be compared. The second is before a planned operation. Then you and we know after the operation how deep the step was and when you are back on top.

10. When to get in touch

Contact us or your family doctor if any of the following applies:

• After an illness, an operation or a hospital stay you can only get up from a chair using your hands, although you managed without before.
• You newly need the handrail or a pause when climbing stairs.
• You have been markedly less active than usual for more than two weeks, with no improvement in sight.
• You have fallen in the past year, or you newly hold on to furniture when walking.
• An operation is planned and is more than three weeks away.
• A jar or a lid has newly become hard for you to open.

The first two points are the threshold from section 6. Whoever falls below it has little reserve, and rebuilding then pays off most.

11. What you should know

• Strength rises until about 30, holds until midlife and declines from about 50 [1], [2].
• From 65, 1 to 2 percent per year is missing, between 70 and 79 about 3 percent [7], [9]. Measurements in the same people show larger losses than comparisons between age groups [5].
• Power goes first, then strength, mass last [7], [9], [10]. A muscle can look large and still be too slow for the stumble.
• A step costs in days what the line costs in years. Ten days of bed rest at 67: 13 percent less leg strength [16], roughly four years of the line. Two weeks with few steps are enough for a step [18].
• Down is steep, up is a ramp. After two weeks of immobilisation, older men regained strength in four weeks, but power and muscle mass only partly [19], [20], [21].
• Researchers suspect that many small steps add up to the steep line [22]. This is not yet proven.
• In older people, most new limitations are preceded by events. Of 100 new limitations, 48 followed a hospital stay and 19 an episode of illness at home in the month before [25].
• Many recover, often only partly and often only briefly [28], [29], [31].
• Reserve decides whether a step takes you below the threshold [33]. Threshold for rising from a chair: 2.1 watts per kilogram in women, 2.6 in men [36].
• Smoking, excess weight and disease in midlife make the line steeper [37]. Physical activity at every stage of life makes it flatter [38], [39]. Ageing itself remains [40].
• Strength training raises the line at any age, even at 98 [42], [43]. Speed is part of it.
• Four moments for smaller steps: before the operation [45], in hospital [46], [47], ill at home [23] and immediately afterwards [52].
• Measure your strength when you are healthy and before an operation. Only then can you see the line and the steps [1], [36].

References

All Digital Object Identifiers (DOI) were checked against the Crossref register. The links in the reference list lead via the DOI service to the publishers' pages. Some of these are located outside Switzerland and the EU. When you click, your IP address is transmitted to the respective provider. This does not happen on our site itself.

[1] Dodds RM, Syddall HE, Cooper R, et al. Grip strength across the life course: normative data from twelve British studies. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(12):e113637. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0113637

[2] Janssen I, Heymsfield SB, Wang ZM, Ross R. Skeletal muscle mass and distribution in 468 men and women aged 18–88 yr. Journal of Applied Physiology. 2000;89(1):81–88. https://doi.org/10.1152/jappl.2000.89.1.81

[3] Metter EJ, Conwit R, Tobin J, Fozard JL. Age-associated loss of power and strength in the upper extremities in women and men. The Journals of Gerontology Series A. 1997;52(5):B267–76. https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/52a.5.b267

[4] Lindle RS, Metter EJ, Lynch NA, et al. Age and gender comparisons of muscle strength in 654 women and men aged 20–93 yr. Journal of Applied Physiology. 1997;83(5):1581–1587. https://doi.org/10.1152/jappl.1997.83.5.1581

[5] Hughes VA, Frontera WR, Wood M, et al. Longitudinal muscle strength changes in older adults: influence of muscle mass, physical activity, and health. The Journals of Gerontology Series A. 2001;56(5):B209–17. https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/56.5.b209

[6] Frontera WR, Hughes VA, Fielding RA, Fiatarone MA, Evans WJ, Roubenoff R. Aging of skeletal muscle: a 12-yr longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Physiology. 2000;88(4):1321–1326. https://doi.org/10.1152/jappl.2000.88.4.1321

[7] 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. The Journals of Gerontology Series A. 2006;61(10):1059–1064. https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/61.10.1059

[8] Delmonico MJ, Harris TB, Visser M, et al. Longitudinal study of muscle strength, quality, and adipose tissue infiltration. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2009;90(6):1579–1585. https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.2009.28047

[9] Skelton DA, Greig CA, Davies JM, Young A. Strength, power and related functional ability of healthy people aged 65–89 years. Age and Ageing. 1994;23(5):371–377. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/23.5.371

[10] Reid KF, Fielding RA. Skeletal muscle power: a critical determinant of physical functioning in older adults. Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews. 2012;40(1):4–12. https://doi.org/10.1097/jes.0b013e31823b5f13

[11] Piasecki M, Ireland A, Jones DA, McPhee JS. Age-dependent motor unit remodelling in human limb muscles. Biogerontology. 2016;17(3):485–496. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10522-015-9627-3

[12] Cuthbertson D, Smith K, Babraj J, et al. Anabolic signaling deficits underlie amino acid resistance of wasting, aging muscle. The FASEB Journal. 2005;19(3):422–424. https://doi.org/10.1096/fj.04-2640fje

[13] Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Bahat G, Bauer J, et al. Sarcopenia: revised European consensus on definition and diagnosis. Age and Ageing. 2019;48(1):16–31. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afy169

[14] Wall BT, Dirks ML, Snijders T, Senden JM, Dolmans J, van Loon LJ. Substantial skeletal muscle loss occurs during only 5 days of disuse. Acta Physiologica. 2014;210(3):600–611. https://doi.org/10.1111/apha.12190

[15] Kortebein P, Ferrando A, Lombeida J, Wolfe R, Evans WJ. Effect of 10 days of bed rest on skeletal muscle in healthy older adults. JAMA. 2007;297(16):1772–1774. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.297.16.1772-b

[16] Kortebein P, Symons TB, Ferrando A, et al. Functional impact of 10 days of bed rest in healthy older adults. The Journals of Gerontology Series A. 2008;63(10):1076–1081. https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/63.10.1076

[17] Dirks ML, Wall BT, van de Valk B, et al. One Week of Bed Rest Leads to Substantial Muscle Atrophy and Induces Whole-Body Insulin Resistance in the Absence of Skeletal Muscle Lipid Accumulation. Diabetes. 2016;65(10):2862–2875. https://doi.org/10.2337/db15-1661

[18] Breen L, Stokes KA, Churchward-Venne TA, et al. Two weeks of reduced activity decreases leg lean mass and induces «anabolic resistance» of myofibrillar protein synthesis in healthy elderly. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism. 2013;98(6):2604–2612. https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2013-1502

[19] Suetta C, Hvid LG, Justesen L, et al. Effects of aging on human skeletal muscle after immobilization and retraining. Journal of Applied Physiology. 2009;107(4):1172–1180. https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00290.2009

[20] Hvid L, Aagaard P, Justesen L, et al. Effects of aging on muscle mechanical function and muscle fiber morphology during short-term immobilization and subsequent retraining. Journal of Applied Physiology. 2010;109(6):1628–1634. https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00637.2010

[21] Suetta C, Frandsen U, Mackey AL, et al. Ageing is associated with diminished muscle re-growth and myogenic precursor cell expansion early after immobility-induced atrophy in human skeletal muscle. The Journal of Physiology. 2013;591(15):3789–3804. https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.2013.257121

[22] Wall BT, Dirks ML, van Loon LJ. Skeletal muscle atrophy during short-term disuse: implications for age-related sarcopenia. Ageing Research Reviews. 2013;12(4):898–906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arr.2013.07.003

[23] English KL, Paddon-Jones D. Protecting muscle mass and function in older adults during bed rest. Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition and Metabolic Care. 2010;13(1):34–39. https://doi.org/10.1097/mco.0b013e328333aa66

[24] Ferrucci L, Guralnik JM, Simonsick E, Salive ME, Corti C, Langlois J. Progressive versus catastrophic disability: a longitudinal view of the disablement process. The Journals of Gerontology Series A. 1996;51(3):M123–30. https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/51a.3.m123

[25] Gill TM, Allore HG, Holford TR, Guo Z. Hospitalization, restricted activity, and the development of disability among older persons. JAMA. 2004;292(17):2115–2124. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.292.17.2115

[26] Gill TM, Gahbauer EA, Han L, Allore HG. The role of intervening hospital admissions on trajectories of disability in the last year of life: prospective cohort study of older people. BMJ. 2015;350:h2361. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h2361

[27] Covinsky KE, Palmer RM, Fortinsky RH, et al. Loss of independence in activities of daily living in older adults hospitalized with medical illnesses: increased vulnerability with age. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 2003;51(4):451–458. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1532-5415.2003.51152.x

[28] Hardy SE, Gill TM. Recovery from disability among community-dwelling older persons. JAMA. 2004;291(13):1596–1602. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.291.13.1596

[29] Boyd CM, Landefeld CS, Counsell SR, et al. Recovery of activities of daily living in older adults after hospitalization for acute medical illness. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 2008;56(12):2171–2179. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2008.02023.x

[30] Welch C, Greig C, Majid Z, et al. Induced frailty and acute sarcopenia are overlapping consequences of hospitalisation in older adults. Journal of Frailty, Sarcopenia and Falls. 2022;7(3):103–116. https://doi.org/10.22540/jfsf-07-103

[31] Dyer SM, Crotty M, Fairhall N, et al. A critical review of the long-term disability outcomes following hip fracture. BMC Geriatrics. 2016;16:158. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-016-0332-0

[32] Magaziner J, Hawkes W, Hebel JR, et al. Recovery from hip fracture in eight areas of function. The Journals of Gerontology Series A. 2000;55(9):M498–507. https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/55.9.m498

[33] Young A. Ageing and physiological functions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. 1997;352(1363):1837–1843. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.1997.0169

[34] Whitson HE, Duan-Porter W, Schmader KE, Morey MC, Cohen HJ, Colón-Emeric CS. Physical Resilience in Older Adults: Systematic Review and Development of an Emerging Construct. The Journals of Gerontology Series A. 2016;71(4):489–495. https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/glv202

[35] Hadley EC, Kuchel GA, Newman AB, Workshop Speakers and Participants. Report: NIA Workshop on Measures of Physiologic Resiliencies in Human Aging. The Journals of Gerontology Series A. 2017;72(7):980–990. https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/glx015

[36] Alcazar J, Alegre LM, Van Roie E, et al. Relative sit-to-stand power: aging trajectories, functionally relevant cut-off points, and normative data in a large European cohort. Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle. 2021;12(4):921–932. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcsm.12737

[37] Stenholm S, Tiainen K, Rantanen T, et al. Long-term determinants of muscle strength decline: prospective evidence from the 22-year mini-Finland follow-up survey. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 2012;60(1):77–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2011.03779.x

[38] Cooper R, Mishra GD, Kuh D. Physical activity across adulthood and physical performance in midlife: findings from a British birth cohort. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2011;41(4):376–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2011.06.035

[39] Wroblewski AP, Amati F, Smiley MA, Goodpaster B, Wright V. Chronic exercise preserves lean muscle mass in masters athletes. The Physician and Sportsmedicine. 2011;39(3):172–178. https://doi.org/10.3810/psm.2011.09.1933

[40] Lazarus NR, Harridge SDR. Declining performance of master athletes: silhouettes of the trajectory of healthy human ageing? The Journal of Physiology. 2017;595(9):2941–2948. https://doi.org/10.1113/jp272443

[41] Pollock RD, Carter S, Velloso CP, et al. An investigation into the relationship between age and physiological function in highly active older adults. The Journal of Physiology. 2015;593(3):657–680. https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.2014.282863

[42] Fiatarone MA, O'Neill EF, Ryan ND, et al. Exercise training and nutritional supplementation for physical frailty in very elderly people. New England Journal of Medicine. 1994;330(25):1769–1775. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199406233302501

[43] Liu CJ, Latham NK. Progressive resistance strength training for improving physical function in older adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2009;(3):CD002759. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd002759.pub2

[44] Bauer J, Biolo G, Cederholm T, et al. Evidence-based recommendations for optimal dietary protein intake in older people: a position paper from the PROT-AGE Study Group. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association. 2013;14(8):542–559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2013.05.021

[45] Molenaar CJL, Minnella EM, Coca-Martinez M, et al. Effect of Multimodal Prehabilitation on Reducing Postoperative Complications and Enhancing Functional Capacity Following Colorectal Cancer Surgery: The PREHAB Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Surgery. 2023;158(6):572–581. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2023.0198

[46] Martínez-Velilla N, Casas-Herrero A, Zambom-Ferraresi F, et al. Effect of Exercise Intervention on Functional Decline in Very Elderly Patients During Acute Hospitalization: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Internal Medicine. 2019;179(1):28–36. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.4869

[47] Hartley P, Keating JL, Jeffs KJ, Raymond MJ, Smith TO. Exercise for acutely hospitalised older medical patients. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2022;11:CD005955. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd005955.pub3

[48] Gill TM, Desai MM, Gahbauer EA, Holford TR, Williams CS. Restricted activity among community-living older persons: incidence, precipitants, and health care utilization. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2001;135(5):313–321. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-135-5-200109040-00007

[49] Nunes EA, Stokes T, McKendry J, Currier BS, Phillips SM. Disuse-induced skeletal muscle atrophy in disease and nondisease states in humans: mechanisms, prevention, and recovery strategies. American Journal of Physiology – Cell Physiology. 2022;322(6):C1068–C1084. https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpcell.00425.2021

[50] Leong DP, Teo KK, Rangarajan S, et al. Prognostic value of grip strength: findings from the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study. The Lancet. 2015;386(9990):266–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(14)62000-6

[51] Cooper R, Kuh D, Hardy R, Mortality Review Group, FALCon and HALCyon study teams. Objectively measured physical capability levels and mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2010;341:c4467. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c4467

[52] Etayo-Urtasun P, Izquierdo M, Sáez de Asteasu ML. Effectiveness of post-discharge exercise interventions in older adults following acute hospitalisation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet Healthy Longevity. 2025;6(7):100730. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lanhl.2025.100730

Transparency

• Authorship: Roger Hilfiker
• AI assistance: the literature search and the draft text were produced with Claude (Anthropic). Roger Hilfiker checked all statements, figures and sources and revised the text.
• Created: 5 September 2026
• Last updated: 5 September 2026
• Sources: the 52 papers in the reference list. All DOIs were checked against the Crossref register.
• How the sources were found: searches of the Europe PMC and Crossref databases in September 2026 on the course of muscle strength, muscle mass and power over life, on bed rest and immobilisation, on recovery after immobilisation in older age, on hospital stays and episodes of illness as triggers of limitations, on reserve and resilience, and on prehabilitation, training in hospital and training after discharge. Where this article says that no study exists on a question, this refers to that search.
• Conflict of interest: our practice offers strength measurements, strength training and rebuilding programmes after illness and surgery and earns from the treatment. This article says that the effect of training in hospital is uncertain across all studies, that the hypothesis of accumulated steps is unproven and that the recovery studies were done in healthy men.
• Funding: Physiotherapie Tschopp & Hilfiker, 3902 Glis. The article was produced from the practice's own resources.
• Next review: 5 September 2028. We will also revise this article as soon as studies appear that separate line and steps in the same people over years.