Literature DB >> 7853453

Maximal isometric force and muscle cross-sectional area of the forearm in fencers.

V Margonato1, G S Roi, C Cerizza, G L Galdabino.   

Abstract

The maximal isometric force (MIF) of a muscle is directly related to its cross-sectional area (CSA). Strength training produces an increase in muscular force while muscular hypertrophy becomes appreciable at a later time; in asymmetric sports, training causes significant increases in force and muscular mass of the dominant limb of the athlete. The aim of this study was to analyse the differences in muscular force and trophism between the dominant and non-dominant forearms in fencers and in controls. The data of 17 male distance runners (age 21.4 +/- 2.4 years, body mass 74.0 +/- 5.0 kg, height 180 +/- 6 cm) were compared with those of 58 male fencers (age 23.0 +/- 6.7 years, body mass 71.9 +/- 9.3 kg, height 178 +/- 7 cm) drawn from the ranking lists of the National Fencing Committee. They trained for a mean of 11.4 +/- 6.0 (range 2-36) years, commencing at 10.7 +/- 4.5 years of age. Cross-sectional area (muscle plus bone) was estimated in the dominant and non-dominant forearm using a simplified anthropometric method. Maximal isometric force was determined using a mechanical handgrip dynamometer. The differences in CSA and isometric force between the two limbs and between fencers and controls were tested using paired and unpaired Student's t-tests, respectively. Significant differences in CSA and maximal force were observed between the dominant and non-dominant forearm in fencers (both P < 0.001) and in controls (P < 0.005 and P < 0.001, respectively). The fencers showed a greater CSA (P < 0.001) and force (P < 0.001) in the dominant forearm compared with the control group. Furthermore, the differences between the dominant and non-dominant limb of the fencers were significantly greater than the differences between the dominant and non-dominant limb of the controls (P < 0.001 for CSA and P < 0.05 for force). No significant differences in stress ratio (force/CSA) were obtained in either group.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1994        PMID: 7853453     DOI: 10.1080/02640419408732207

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Sports Sci        ISSN: 0264-0414            Impact factor:   3.337


  3 in total

Review 1.  The science of fencing: implications for performance and injury prevention.

Authors:  Giulio S Roi; Diana Bianchedi
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 11.136

2.  Biomechanics of fencing sport: A scoping review.

Authors:  Tony Lin-Wei Chen; Duo Wai-Chi Wong; Yan Wang; Sicong Ren; Fei Yan; Ming Zhang
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-02-10       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Reliability of handgrip strength test in basketball players.

Authors:  Vassilis Gerodimos
Journal:  J Hum Kinet       Date:  2012-04-03       Impact factor: 2.193

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.