Abstract Aim: Anthropometry represents an alternative to the evaluation of nutritional status and screening of events related to muscle fitness. Therefore, this study aimed to compare anthropometric indicators of postmenopausal women with and without dynapenia and to identify the predictive capacity of these indicators to screen the respective outcome in this population. Methods: Cross-sectional epidemiological study, conducted with postmenopausal women. Dynapenia was diagnosed by handgrip strength < 20 kgf. Arm (AC), abdominal (AbC), hip (HC) and calf circumferences (CC), triceps, biceps, subscapular, supraspinatus and thigh skinfolds were analyzed. Body Mass Index, Conicity Index (CI), Body Adiposity Index (BAI), Waist to Hip and Waist to Height Ratio (WHtR), Corrected Arm Muscle Area (CAMA) and Arm Muscle Circumference (AMC) were calculated. Results: A total of 273 women participated in the study. The BAI, WHtR, and CI did not present significant differences between the groups. For the other indicators, the dynapenic group obtained significantly lower values compared to the non-dynapenic. AC was the indicator with the highest sensitivity to screen for postmenopausal dynapenia (79.8%). While CAMA and AMC were the indicators with the best specificity (86.2%). However, CC showed the best balance between sensitivity (67.5%) and specificity (63.0%). Conclusion: The indicators AC, CAMA, and/or the AMC can be used together, or CC alone, to predict postmenopausal women with dynapenia. Therefore, these indicators can be used as important epidemiological tools to improve women's health surveillance actions.

Abstract Aim: This study aimed to identify the prevalence and factors associated with dynapenia in older women, considering different cutoff points as diagnostic criteria. Methods: This epidemiological study was conducted with 205 older women (72.7 ± 7.1 years). Dynapenia was diagnosed using the handgrip strength test (HGS) using two cutoff points (< 16 or < 20 kgf). Socio-demographic, behavioral, and health status information was obtained from a specific form; nutritional status was assessed by body mass index, and the International Physical Activity Questionnaire identified the level of physical activity. Results: The prevalence of dynapenia was 14.1% (HGS < 16 kgf) and 46.3% (HGS < 20 kgf) (p < 0.001). It was also observed that older women with family income ≤ 1 minimum wage and those with low weight presented, respectively, 2.22 (95%CI: 1.12-4.39) and 4.72 (95%CI: 1.64-13.58) times higher probability of dynapenia identified by HGS < 16 kgf. Moreover, for the cutoff point < 20 kgf, the probability of dynapenia was higher in women aged ≥ 80 years (PR:1.91; 95%CI: 1.23-2.95), in insufficiently active women (PR: 1.34; 95%CI: 1.01-2.57), among those with low weight (PR: 1.61; 95%CI: 1.01-2.57), and in those who reported falls (PR:1.42; 95%CI: 1.04-1.96). Conclusion: Therefore, it is concluded that there is a difference between the prevalence and factors associated with dynapenia when different cutoff points are adopted.

RESUMO Objetivo Comparar a composição corporal de mulheres na pós-menopausa com e sem dinapenia a partir de diferentes pontos de corte. Métodos A composição corporal foi avaliada por bioimpedância elétrica e o estado nutricional pelo índice de massa corporal. A dinapenia foi diagnosticada por meio da força de preensão manual, utilizando-se os seguintes pontos de corte: força de preensão manual <16kgf e <20kgf. Resultados Participaram da pesquisa 171 mulheres (50 a 92 anos). A média de idade das não dinapênicas e das dinapênicas (força de preensão manual <20 kgf) foi 69,4±8,2 e 74,5±8,2 anos, respectivamente. As mulheres com dinapenia pela força de preensão manual <16kgf apresentaram média de idade de 75,0±10,1 anos e as não dinapênicas tinham, em média, 71,1±8,2 anos. Verificou-se que as mulheres dinapênicas, com força de preensão manual <20 e <16kgf, tinham em média 2,38 e 2,47kg a menos de massa muscular quando comparadas às não dinapênicas (p<0,05). Contudo, não foi observada diferença na massa muscular entre os diferentes grupos dinapênicos. As mulheres não dinapênicas (força de preensão manual ≥20kgf) apresentaram maior gordura total (3,55kg) e central (1,47kg) (p<0,05). Conclusão As mulheres dinapênicas, diagnosticadas por ambos os pontos de corte, apresentaram menor massa muscular total e por segmento em relação às não dinapênicas. Ademais, as dinapênicas com força de preensão manual <20kgf possuíam menor adiposidade total e no tronco.

ABSTRACT Objective To compare body composition of postmenopausal women with and without dynapenia, defined by different cut-off points. Methods Body composition was assessed by electrical bioimpedance and the nutritional status by the body mass index. Dynapenia was diagnosed according to handgrip strength, using the following cut-off points: handgrip strength <16kgf and <20 kgf. Results A total of 171 women (50 to 92 years of age) participated in the investigation. The mean age of non-dynapenic and dynapenic women (handgrip strength <20kgf) was 69.4±8.2 and 74.5±8.2 years, respectively. The mean age of women with dynapenia (handgrip strength <16kgf) was 75.0±10.1 years and non-dynapenic women, 71.1±8.2 years. It was found that dynapenic women, with handgrip strength <20 and <16kgf, had an average of 2.38 and 2.47kg less muscle mass respectively, when compared to non-dynapenic women (p<0.05). However, there was no difference in muscle mass between the different dynapenic groups. Non-dynapenic women (handgrip strength ≥20kgf) had more total (3.55kg) and central fat (1.47kg) (p<0.05). Conclusion Dynapenic women, diagnosed considering both cutoff points, had less total and segmental muscle mass compared to non-dynapenic women. In addition, dynapenic women with handgrip strength <20kgf had lower total and trunk adiposity.