A comparative intervention trial of deer milk and an oral nutritional supplement efficacy for improving older adults' nutritional status, muscle mass and physical performance.

Objectives: To compare the effectiveness of deer milk (DM) for improving nutritional status, muscle mass and physical performance with that of a commercially available oral nutritional supplement (ONS) in older women.
Methods: This study was an 11-week randomised, double-blind, parallel group study. Healthy women (N = 120) aged 65-80 years, the majority having a body mass index (BMI) < 25 kg/m ² were recruited. The women were randomly assigned to either 200 ml DM or a commercial ONS for 11 weeks. Data on habitual macronutrient intake, nutritional status (Mini Nutrition Assessment-Short Form, MNA-SF; ≤7 malnourished, 8-11 at risk of malnutrition, ≥12 normal nutrition), anthropometrics/body composition, and physical performance were collected. Blood samples were collected for metabolic markers.
Results: 102 women (DM 45, ONS 57) completed the study, of whom 29% had a dietary protein intake of <1 g/kg body weight per day, and 38% at risk of malnutrition. There were no between group differences in percentage change in MNA-SF score and body composition (P > 0.05), but a trend for a difference in handgrip strength (DM 11.7 ± 49.8% vs. ONS -2.42 ± 17.9%, P = 0.06). Further exploratory analysis showed that there was a trend for a between group difference in percentage change in MNA-SF score, favoring DM (DM 7.72 + 13.0% vs. ONS 0.63 + 9.25%, P = 0.06) only in women at risk of malnutrition. There was also a between group difference in percentage change in muscle mass (DM 1.68 ± 2.77% vs. ONS -0.18 ± 2.81%, P = 0.02) in women with BMI ≥25 kg/m ² and in handgrip strength (DM 10.6 ± 23.6% vs. ONS -5.03 ± 18.1%, P < 0.01) in women with BMI<25 kg/m ² . Total cholesterol, LDL and LDL:HDL ratio did not change over time (P > 0.05), but there was a between group difference in percentage change in these markers (total cholesterol: DM 3.01 ± 6.97% vs. ONS -2.65 ± 9.92%, P < 0.01; LDL: DM 4.22 ± 14.9% vs. ONS -6.05 ± 17.6%, P < 0.01; LDL:HDL ratio: DM: 2.27 ± 16.4% vs. ONS: -5.78 ± 18.2%, P = 0.02).
Conclusion: Baseline nutritional status and BMI may modulate nutritional status, muscle mass and physical performance response to DM (as compared with ONS), suggesting DM may improve nutritional status and physical performance in women at risk of malnutrition and/or with lower BMI, and improve muscle mass in women with a higher BMI. The study was registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry ACTRN12621000650897p.
Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest None to declare.
(Copyright © 2023 European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)