OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effectiveness of computing body-size-independent hip strength measures using muscle-specific allometric scaling and ratio standard normalization methods. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: University laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: A convenience sample of healthy participants (N=113; 42 men, 71 women). INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Anthropometric measurements of the leg and thigh were obtained, and maximal hip strength was tested (medial and lateral rotation, abduction, adduction, flexion, extension). Strength was measured isometrically as force (kg) and then converted to torque (Nm). RESULTS: The allometric scaling analysis resulted in exponents for normalizing body mass (BM) in each muscle group assessed. In addition, a 6-muscle average exponent was also computed (bavg) for force (men, .554; women, .335) and torque (men, .792; women, .482). The nonsignificant results of the linear regression analysis revealed that normalizing hip strength to BM(bavg) (hip strength/BM(bavg)) effectively removed the influence of BM on force and torque. However, sex should be factored into analyses of allometric scaling because men have higher b-values than women for both force and torque. The linear regression analyses also demonstrated that force normalized to BM (P=.162-.895) and torque normalized to BM × Height (P=.146-.889) were body-size-independent measures. Force normalized to BM⁰·⁶⁷ (P=.001-.191) and body mass index (BMI) (P=<.001-.066), and torque normalized to BM (P=.004-.415) and BMI (P<.001) were significantly related to BM and therefore were not body-size independent. CONCLUSIONS: Normalizing force and torque to BM(bavg) is the most effective method of removing body-size dependence and allowing comparisons of persons with differing body sizes.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effectiveness of computing body-size-independent hip strength measures using muscle-specific allometric scaling and ratio standard normalization methods. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: University laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: A convenience sample of healthy participants (N=113; 42 men, 71 women). INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Anthropometric measurements of the leg and thigh were obtained, and maximal hip strength was tested (medial and lateral rotation, abduction, adduction, flexion, extension). Strength was measured isometrically as force (kg) and then converted to torque (Nm). RESULTS: The allometric scaling analysis resulted in exponents for normalizing body mass (BM) in each muscle group assessed. In addition, a 6-muscle average exponent was also computed (bavg) for force (men, .554; women, .335) and torque (men, .792; women, .482). The nonsignificant results of the linear regression analysis revealed that normalizing hip strength to BM(bavg) (hip strength/BM(bavg)) effectively removed the influence of BM on force and torque. However, sex should be factored into analyses of allometric scaling because men have higher b-values than women for both force and torque. The linear regression analyses also demonstrated that force normalized to BM (P=.162-.895) and torque normalized to BM × Height (P=.146-.889) were body-size-independent measures. Force normalized to BM⁰·⁶⁷ (P=.001-.191) and body mass index (BMI) (P=<.001-.066), and torque normalized to BM (P=.004-.415) and BMI (P<.001) were significantly related to BM and therefore were not body-size independent. CONCLUSIONS: Normalizing force and torque to BM(bavg) is the most effective method of removing body-size dependence and allowing comparisons of persons with differing body sizes.
Authors: Omid Alizadehkhaiyat; David H Hawkes; Graham J Kemp; Anthony Howard; Simon P Frostick Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2013-11-01 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: Stephen C Cobb; David M Bazett-Jones; Mukta N Joshi; Jennifer E Earl-Boehm; C Roger James Journal: J Athl Train Date: 2014-02-25 Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: Brian Noehren; Anne Schmitz; Ross Hempel; Carolyn Westlake; William Black Journal: J Orthop Sports Phys Ther Date: 2014-01-22 Impact factor: 4.751
Authors: Kathryn L Bacon; Neil A Segal; Britt Elin Øiestad; Cora E Lewis; Michael C Nevitt; Carrie Brown; Michael P LaValley; Charles E McCulloch; David T Felson Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2019-08-06 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: Dana L Judd; Joshua D Winters; Jennifer E Stevens-Lapsley; Cory L Christiansen Journal: Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) Date: 2015-12-31 Impact factor: 2.063