A 2026 review puts muscle function alongside size, with protein-rich foods and resistance exercise central to a more individualized discussion.
On November 4, 2026, NBC News reported on a broader approach to muscle health: looking beyond muscle size to strength and everyday function. Its coverage drew on a 2026 expert review in Clinical Nutrition that proposes making muscle health a measurable target of clinical nutrition.
The review is titled Shaping the future of muscle health: A clinical nutrition perspective and research agenda. Co-authored by Nicolaas Deutz of Texas A&M University, it brings nutrition and physical performance into the same conversation. For readers interested in healthy aging, its central idea is straightforward: body size alone is an incomplete picture.
According to Texas A&M Stories, the review includes muscle quantity and composition within its definition of muscle health. It also considers strength and physical performance. Metabolism and people’s own assessment of how well they function are part of that picture too.
This changes the question from “How much muscle is there?” to “How well does that muscle work?” Muscle mass still matters within this framework. It simply does not describe every aspect of muscle health on its own.
NBC also distinguishes strength from power. Stephen J. Carter of Indiana University describes power as the ability to produce force quickly. He told NBC that power declines earlier and more rapidly with aging than strength and may be more relevant to daily life.
That distinction helps explain why the discussion extends beyond visible muscle size. The review’s proposed focus is clinical and functional, rather than appearance-led. For Younell, that is a useful way to frame healthy aging: looking and feeling well over time includes paying attention to physical capability.
The NBC report gives particular attention to substantial or rapid weight loss. Obesity medicine physician-scientist Fatima Cody Stanford identifies older adults and people with frailty as groups warranting closer attention. She also highlights people with low baseline muscle mass and those losing weight rapidly.
Stanford’s focus includes strength and function alongside protein intake and resistance exercise. NBC reports that GLP-1 medicines are linked to losses in both fat and lean mass. The review’s research agenda also identifies muscle preservation during weight loss as an important area for further study.
Yet Stanford cautions against treating every reduction in muscle mass as having the same functional meaning. She explains that losing substantial weight may reduce the muscle needed to carry body weight. At the same time, reductions in fat stored within muscle may improve muscle quality and function.
The implication is an assessment question rather than a simple verdict about weight loss. Changes in body weight and muscle quantity need to be considered alongside how a person is functioning.
Separate evidence summarized by The Conversation on October 27, 2026, helps clarify the relationship between protein and resistance exercise. Its overview describes a review of 49 trials involving 1,863 participants. Protein supplements added improvements in muscle size and strength when participants were also doing resistance training.
The same overview describes a year-long trial involving 208 healthy older adults. Protein supplementation alone did not improve muscle size or strength compared with carbohydrate supplementation. Heavy resistance training combined with whey protein produced benefits that supplementation alone did not.
These findings concern different combinations of nutrition and activity, not simply different amounts of protein. Everyday routines also differ from controlled trial conditions. The results are therefore evidence about the approaches studied rather than a forecast of an individual reader’s outcome.
The central Clinical Nutrition publication is an expert review and research agenda, not a new clinical trial. Texas A&M Stories reports that its authors call for better measurement and larger trials. They also seek personalized nutrition strategies and research into how nutrition and exercise work together across clinical conditions.
Proposing muscle health as a measurable clinical target is different from demonstrating that screening improves health outcomes. The review does not establish that a particular food or exercise plan prevents disability or extends lifespan. NBC’s discussion of longevity should not be read as proof of either claim.
Measurement also needs context. NBC describes handgrip testing with a dynamometer but notes that definitions of low strength vary with factors such as age and BMI. Thresholds from a particular analysis are not universal self-diagnostic cutoffs.
Finally, the supplement findings should remain attached to the interventions actually studied. They do not establish that supplements are necessary for everyone. Nor do they settle which food pattern or training approach is most suitable for someone with a particular medical history.
The practical discussion in NBC begins with accessible foods rather than a single product. Stanford identifies several protein-rich options that can help protect against muscle loss:
NBC also reports guidance to prioritize minimally processed protein foods at meals. The useful food-level message is that protein can come from a range of animal and plant sources. The report’s examples do not require treating one food as the defining choice for muscle health.
For related nutrition context, Younell’s discussion of protein in later adulthood offers another entry point into this topic. Here, the important distinction is between identifying protein-rich foods and setting an individual intake target. Personal targets belong in a conversation that accounts for the person’s health and circumstances.
Activity remains part of the same discussion. NBC lists body-weight exercises and resistance bands among the available approaches. It also includes machines and supervised strength work. Stanford says the appropriate option depends on mobility and fitness as well as medical history.
That supports an adaptable approach rather than a prescribed routine for every reader. Younell’s article on strength exercise and intentional rest provides related lifestyle context without replacing individual assessment.
For someone experiencing rapid weight loss or living with frailty, the source-supported next step is a discussion with a qualified health professional. The same applies when baseline muscle mass is low. Questions worth bringing into that conversation include:
These questions reflect the dimensions Stanford emphasizes. They keep the focus on nutrition and capability together rather than using scale weight as the only measure of progress.
The review’s contribution is a broader research target: muscle health that includes quantity and composition alongside performance and perceived function. Its open question is how clinicians should measure those dimensions and combine nutrition with exercise across different circumstances.
For now, the clearest takeaway is not a new supplement rule. It is a more complete conversation about healthy aging, with protein-rich foods and appropriate resistance activity considered alongside strength and everyday function.
Stay connected for research and practical guidance on skin, hair, collagen, nutrition and beauty longevity. Clear ideas for people who want to understand how appearance changes with age and make better-informed choices over time.
Understand your skin, hair and body better without chasing every new trend, treatment or promise.
explore the Blog
