Literature DB >> 2262226

Relationships of body size, segmental dimensions, and ponderal equivalents to muscular strength in high-strength and low-strength subjects.

T Hortobágyi1, F I Katch, V L Katch, P F LaChance, A R Behnke.   

Abstract

There are conflicting results in prior studies concerning the relationships among body size, muscle size, and muscular strength. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate how body size, body shape, and segmental dimensions related to individual differences in muscular strength. Subjects were tested on four dynamic measures of strength and then classified into one of two groups as high strength (HS; N = 21) and low strength (LS; N = 21). Individual differences in strength were then related to body composition and segmental anthropometry. Strength was assessed during high-resistance, low-velocity standing squat and supine bench press with an isokinetic dynamometer, and during seated bench press and knee extension with a hydraulic resistance dynamometer. Anthropometry and body composition included 11 girths, six fatfolds, predicted fat-free mass (FFM), thigh and upper arm volume, muscle + bone cross-sectional area (CSA), and the Behnke Ponderal Somatogram (PSom) body profiling system. There was a 21.3% difference in strength between HS and LS (p less than 0.05), but no significant differences in age, stature, and fatfolds. MANOVA revealed that seven of 11 girth components of PSom were larger for HS (p less than 0.05). The correlations between strength vs body mass, FFM, thigh and upper arm volume, and CSA and fatfolds in HS and LS ranged from r = -0.52 to 0.56 (r = -0.70 to 0.70 when corrected for restriction of range). We conclude that individual differences in muscular strength are poorly related to various measures of body size and segmental body dimensions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1990        PMID: 2262226     DOI: 10.1055/s-2007-1024817

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Sports Med        ISSN: 0172-4622            Impact factor:   3.118


  10 in total

Review 1.  Muscle strength testing: use of normalisation for body size.

Authors:  Slobodan Jaric
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 11.136

2.  Muscle strength and its relationship with skeletal muscle mass indices as determined by segmental bio-impedance analysis.

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

3.  Effects of a combined essential amino acids/carbohydrate supplementation on muscle mass, architecture and maximal strength following heavy-load training.

Authors:  Stéphanie Vieillevoye; Jacques R Poortmans; Jacques Duchateau; Alain Carpentier
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2010-06-03       Impact factor: 3.078

4.  The effects of anthropometric scaling parameters on normalized muscle strength in uninjured baseball pitchers.

Authors:  Wendy J Hurd; Bernard F Morrey; Kenton R Kaufman
Journal:  J Sport Rehabil       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 1.931

5.  Residual and sound limb hip strength distinguish between sedentary and nonsedentary adults with transtibial amputation.

Authors:  Mayank Seth; Ryan T Pohlig; Emma H Beisheim-Ryan; Samantha J Stauffer; John R Horne; Gregory E Hicks; Jaclyn Megan Sions
Journal:  Int J Rehabil Res       Date:  2022-02-07       Impact factor: 1.832

6.  Relationships between physical activity and muscular strength among healthy adults across the lifespan.

Authors:  Allie Leblanc; Linda S Pescatello; Beth A Taylor; Jeffrey A Capizzi; Priscilla M Clarkson; C Michael White; Paul D Thompson
Journal:  Springerplus       Date:  2015-09-28

7.  Novel strength test battery to permit evidence-based paralympic classification.

Authors:  Emma M Beckman; Peter Newcombe; Yves Vanlandewijck; Mark J Connick; Sean M Tweedy
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 1.889

8.  Association of handgrip strength with the prevalence of hypertension in a Chinese Han population.

Authors:  Manthar Ali Mallah; Min Liu; Yu Liu; Hai-Feng Xu; Xiao-Jun Wu; Xiao-Tian Chen; Hui Wang; Chun-Lan Liu; Yuan-Rui Tian; Meng-Xia Li; Qun Li; Jun Fu; Chong Shen
Journal:  Chronic Dis Transl Med       Date:  2019-06-24

9.  Single- and Multi-Joint Maximum Weight Lifting Relationship to Free-Fat Mass in Different Exercises for Upper- and Lower-Limbs in Well-Trained Male Young Adults.

Authors:  Danilo A Massini; Anderson G Macedo; Tiago A F Almeida; Mário C Espada; Fernando J Santos; Eliane A Castro; Daniel C P Ferreira; Cassiano M Neiva; Dalton M Pessôa Filho
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-03-28       Impact factor: 3.390

10.  Relationship between hamstring length and gluteus maximus strength with and without normalization.

Authors:  Dong-Kyu Lee; Jae-Seop Oh
Journal:  J Phys Ther Sci       Date:  2018-01-27
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.