Benjamin H Rogers1, Justin C Brown1, David R Gater2, Kathryn H Schmitz3. 1. Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. 2. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, PA. 3. Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. Electronic address: schmitz@mail.med.upenn.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To characterize the relationship between 1-repetition maximum (1-RM) bench press strength and isometric handgrip strength among breast cancer survivors. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: Community-dwelling breast cancer survivors (N=295). INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: 1-RM bench press strength was measured with a barbell and exercise bench. Isometric handgrip strength was measured using an isometric dynamometer, with 3 maximal contractions of the left and right hands. All measures were conducted by staff with training in clinical exercise testing. RESULTS: Among 295 breast cancer survivors, 1-RM bench press strength was 18.2±6.1kg (range, 2.2-43.0kg), and isometric handgrip strength was 23.5±5.8kg (range, 9.0-43.0kg). The strongest correlate of 1-RM bench press strength was the average isometric handgrip strength of both hands (r=.399; P<.0001). Mean difference analysis suggested that the average isometric handgrip strength of both hands overestimated 1-RM bench press strength by 4.7kg (95% limits of agreement, -8.2 to 17.6kg). In a multivariable linear regression model, the average isometric handgrip strength of both hands (β=.31; P<.0001) and age (β=-.20; P<.0001) were positively correlated with 1-RM bench press strength (R2=.23). CONCLUSIONS:Isometric handgrip strength is a poor surrogate for 1-RM bench press strength among breast cancer survivors. 1-RM bench press strength and isometric handgrip strength quantify distinct components of muscular strength.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To characterize the relationship between 1-repetition maximum (1-RM) bench press strength and isometric handgrip strength among breast cancer survivors. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: Community-dwelling breast cancer survivors (N=295). INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: 1-RM bench press strength was measured with a barbell and exercise bench. Isometric handgrip strength was measured using an isometric dynamometer, with 3 maximal contractions of the left and right hands. All measures were conducted by staff with training in clinical exercise testing. RESULTS: Among 295 breast cancer survivors, 1-RM bench press strength was 18.2±6.1kg (range, 2.2-43.0kg), and isometric handgrip strength was 23.5±5.8kg (range, 9.0-43.0kg). The strongest correlate of 1-RM bench press strength was the average isometric handgrip strength of both hands (r=.399; P<.0001). Mean difference analysis suggested that the average isometric handgrip strength of both hands overestimated 1-RM bench press strength by 4.7kg (95% limits of agreement, -8.2 to 17.6kg). In a multivariable linear regression model, the average isometric handgrip strength of both hands (β=.31; P<.0001) and age (β=-.20; P<.0001) were positively correlated with 1-RM bench press strength (R2=.23). CONCLUSIONS: Isometric handgrip strength is a poor surrogate for 1-RM bench press strength among breast cancer survivors. 1-RM bench press strength and isometric handgrip strength quantify distinct components of muscular strength.
Authors: Dong-Il Seo; Eonho Kim; Christopher A Fahs; Lindy Rossow; Kaelin Young; Steven L Ferguson; Robert Thiebaud; Vanessa D Sherk; Jeremy P Loenneke; Daeyeol Kim; Man-Ki Lee; Kyung-Hoon Choi; Debra A Bemben; Michael G Bemben; Wi-Young So Journal: J Sports Sci Med Date: 2012-06-01 Impact factor: 2.988
Authors: Minna-Liisa Luoma; Liisa Hakamies-Blomqvist; Carl Blomqvist; Riku Nikander; Mila Gustavsson-Lilius; Tiina Saarto Journal: Anticancer Res Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 2.480
Authors: Roberta De Angelis; Andrea Tavilla; Arduino Verdecchia; Steve Scoppa; Mark Hachey; Eric J Feuer; Angela B Mariotto Journal: Cancer Date: 2009-05-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Daniel Y T Fong; Judy W C Ho; Bryant P H Hui; Antoinette M Lee; Duncan J Macfarlane; Sharron S K Leung; Ester Cerin; Wynnie Y Y Chan; Ivy P F Leung; Sharon H S Lam; Aliki J Taylor; Kar-keung Cheng Journal: BMJ Date: 2012-01-30
Authors: Justin C Brown; Elizabeth Brighton; Nancy Campbell; Nadine J McCleary; Thomas A Abrams; James M Cleary; Peter C Enzinger; Kimmie Ng; Douglas Rubinson; Brian M Wolpin; Matthew B Yurgelun; Jeffrey A Meyerhardt Journal: BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med Date: 2022-05-30
Authors: Vitor A Marques; João B Ferreira-Junior; Thiago V Lemos; Rafael F Moraes; José Roberto de S Junior; Rafael R Alves; Maria S Silva; Ruffo de Freitas-Junior; Carlos A Vieira Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-10-06 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: María Jesús Muñoz-Fernández; Esther M Medrano-Sánchez; Beatriz Ostos-Díaz; Rocío Martín-Valero; Carmen Suárez-Serrano; María Jesús Casuso-Holgado Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-01-31 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Darpan I Patel; Angela Gonzalez; Crisann Moon; Monica Serra; Preston Blake Bridges; Daniel Hughes; Geoffrey Clarke; Lisa Kilpela; Rozmin Jiwani; Nicolas Musi Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2022-04-01
Authors: Beatriz Ostos-Díaz; María Jesús Casuso-Holgado; María Jesús Muñoz-Fernández; Ana F Carazo; Rocío Martín-Valero; Esther M Medrano-Sánchez Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-11-12 Impact factor: 3.390