Muscle strength and its relationship with skeletal muscle mass indices as determined by segmental bio-impedance analysis
Despite increasing interest in bio-impedance analysis (BIA) for estimation of segmental skeletal muscle mass (SMM), published results have not been entirely convincing. Furthermore, a better understanding of the relationship between muscle strength and SMM will be useful in interpreting outcomes of physical/training interventions particularly in groups with diverse body sizes (e.g. men vs women). This study aimed to measure SMM in the upper body (upper extremity and torso), to determine its correlation with muscle strength and to examine the effects of gender on muscle strength–muscle mass relationship.
Segmental (upper extremity and torso) SMM and muscle strength in five distinct shoulder planes (forward flexion, abduction in scapular plane, abduction in coronal plane, internal and external rotation) were measured in 45 healthy participants (22 males, 23 females) with mean age 30.3 years. Statistical analysis included independent t tests, Pearson correlation, and multiple regression analysis.
Men and women differed significantly in body mass (BMI: 25.9 ± 4.3 vs 23 ± 3.6) and SMM (p < 0.01). A strong relationship correlation was found between the five shoulder strength measurements and upper extremity SMM (r = 0.66–0.80, p < 0.01), which was not affected by gender. There was a significant gender difference (p < 0.01) in absolute shoulder strength, but not after normalisation to the SMM.
BIA-estimated SMM of upper extremity and torso was highly correlated with upper extremity (shoulder) strength independent of gender. SMM may, therefore, be useful for the normalisation of muscle strength allowing size-independent comparisons of muscle strength in individuals with diverse physical characteristics.
KeywordsSkeletal muscle mass Segmental bio-impedance Shoulder muscle strength Muscle strength normalisation
Abduction in scapular plane
Body mass index
Magnetic resonance imaging
Skeletal muscle index
Skeletal muscle mass
The project was internally funded by the Musculoskeletal Science Research Group (Department of Molecular and Cancer Medicine), University of Liverpool. Authors have no conflict of interest. This study was funded by Musculoskeletal Science Research Group, University of Liverpool.
- Akagi R, Takai Y, Kato E, Fukuda M, Wakahara T, Ohta M, Kanehisa H, Kawakami Y, Fukunaga T (2009a) Relationships between muscle strength and indices of muscle cross-sectional area determined during maximal voluntary contraction in middle-aged and elderly individuals. J Strength Cond Res 23:1258–1262PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Elia M, Fuller NJ, Hardingham CR, Graves M, Screaton N, Dixon AK, Ward LC (2000) Modeling leg sections by bioelectrical impedance analysis, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, and anthropometry: assessing segmental muscle volume using magnetic resonance imaging as a reference. Ann NY Acad Sci 904:298–305PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Hurd WJ, Morrey BF, Kaufman KR (2011) The effects of anthropometric scaling parameters on normalized muscle strength in uninjured baseball pitchers. J Sport Rehab 20:311–320Google Scholar
- Jaric S, Ugarkovic D, Kukolj M (2002) Evaluation of methods for normalizing muscle strength in elite and young athletes. J Sport Med Phys Fit 42:141–151Google Scholar
- McMullen J (2004) Rehabilitation principles: kinetic chain therapeutic exercise application and progression. In: Garrick JG (ed) Orthopaedic knowledge update: sports medicine. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Rosemont, pp 129–136Google Scholar
- McMullen J, Uhl TL (2000) A kinetic chain approach for shoulder rehabilitation. J Athl Training 35:329–337Google Scholar
- Terry GC, Chopp TM (2000) Functional anatomy of the shoulder. J Athl Training 35:248–255Google Scholar