Advertisement

European Journal of Applied Physiology

, Volume 114, Issue 1, pp 177–185 | Cite as

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

  • Omid Alizadehkhaiyat
  • David H. Hawkes
  • Graham J. Kemp
  • Anthony Howard
  • Simon P. Frostick
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusion

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.

Keywords

Skeletal muscle mass Segmental bio-impedance Shoulder muscle strength Muscle strength normalisation 

Abbreviations

ABD

Abduction

ABD.SP

Abduction in scapular plane

BIA

Bio-impedance analysis

BMI

Body mass index

EXT.ROT

External rotation

F.FLEX

Forward flexion

FFM

Fat-free mass

INT.ROT

Internal rotation

MRI

Magnetic resonance imaging

SMI

Skeletal muscle index

SMM

Skeletal muscle mass

Notes

Acknowledgments

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.

References

  1. Abe T, Kearns CF, Fukunaga T (2003) Sex differences in whole body skeletal muscle mass measured by magnetic resonance imaging and its distribution in young Japanese adults. Br J Sports Med 37:436–440PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Akagi R, Takai Y, Ohta M, Kanehisa H, Kawakami Y, Fukunaga T (2009b) Muscle volume compared to cross-sectional area is more appropriate for evaluating muscle strength in young and elderly individuals. Age Ageing 38:564–569PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bamman MM, Newcomer BR, Larson-Meyer DE, Weinsier RL, Hunter GR (2000) Evaluation of the strength-size relationship in vivo using various muscle size indices. Med Sci Sports Exerc 32:1307–1313PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bazett-Jones DM, Cobb SC, Joshi MN, Cashin SE, Earl JE (2011) Normalizing hip muscle strength: establishing body-size-independent measurements. Arch Phys Med Rehab 92:76–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bishop P, Cureton K, Collins M (1987) Sex difference in muscular strength in equally-trained men and women. Ergonomics 30:675–687PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bohannon RW (1997) Reference values for extremity muscle strength obtained by hand-held dynamometry from adults aged 20 to 79 years. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 78:26–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bracco D, Thiebaud D, Chiolero RL, Burckhardt P, Schutz Y (1996) Segmental body composition assessed by bioelectrical impedance analysis and DEXA in humans. J Appl Physiol 81:2580–2587PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Chien MY, Huang TY, Wu YT (2008) Prevalence of sarcopenia estimated using a bioelectrical impedance analysis prediction equation in community-dwelling elderly people in Taiwan. J Am Geriatr Soc 56:1710–1715PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chien MY, Kuo HK, Wu YT (2010) Sarcopenia, cardiopulmonary fitness, and physical disability in community-dwelling elderly people. Phys Ther 90:1277–1287PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cornish BH, Jacobs A, Thomas BJ, Ward LC (1999) Optimizing electrode sites for segmental bioimpedance measurements. Physiol Meas 20:241–250PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Fukunaga T, Roy RR, Shellock FG, Hodgson JA, Day MK, Lee PL, Kwong-Fu H, Edgerton VR (1992) Physiological cross-sectional area of human leg muscles based on magnetic resonance imaging. J Orthop Res 10:928–934PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fukunaga T, Miyatani M, Tachi M, Kouzaki M, Kawakami Y, Kanehisa H (2001) Muscle volume is a major determinant of joint torque in humans. Acta Physiol Scand 172:249–255PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fuller NJ, Fewtrell MS, Dewit O, Elia M, Wells JC (2002) Segmental bioelectrical impedance analysis in children aged 8–12 y: 2. The assessment of regional body composition and muscle mass. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 26:692–700PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gadeberg P, Andersen H, Jakobsen J (1999) Volume of ankle dorsiflexors and plantar flexors determined with stereological techniques. J Appl Physiol 86:1670–1675PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Gallagher D, Heymsfield SB (1998) Muscle distribution: variations with body weight, gender, and age. Appl Radiat Isotopes 49:733–734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gallagher D, Visser M, De Meersman RE, Sepulveda D, Baumgartner RN, Pierson RN, Harris T, Heymsfield SB (1997) Appendicular skeletal muscle mass: effects of age, gender, and ethnicity. J Appl Physiol 83:229–239PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Hortobagyi T, Katch FI, Katch VL, LaChance PF, Behnke AR (1990) Relationships of body size, segmental dimensions, and ponderal equivalents to muscular strength in high-strength and low-strength subjects. Int J Sports Med 11:349–356PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hosler WW, Morrow JR Jr (1982) Arm and leg strength compared between young women and men after allowing for differences in body size and composition. Ergonomics 25:309–313PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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
  22. Ishiguro N, Kanehisa H, Miyatani M, Masuo Y, Fukunaga T (2006) Applicability of segmental bioelectrical impedance analysis for predicting trunk skeletal muscle volume. J Appl Physiol 100:572–578PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Janssen I, Heymsfield SB, Baumgartner RN, Ross R (2000a) Estimation of skeletal muscle mass by bioelectrical impedance analysis. J Appl Physiol 89:465–471PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Janssen I, Heymsfield SB, Wang ZM, Ross R (2000b) Skeletal muscle mass and distribution in 468 men and women aged 18-88 yr. J Appl Physiol 89:81–88PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Janssen I, Heymsfield SB, Ross R (2002) Low relative skeletal muscle mass (sarcopenia) in older persons is associated with functional impairment and physical disability. J Am Geriatr Soc 50:889–896PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Janssen I, Baumgartner RN, Ross R, Rosenberg IH, Roubenoff R (2004) Skeletal muscle cutpoints associated with elevated physical disability risk in older men and women. Am J Epidemiol 159:413–421PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jaric S (2002) Muscle strength testing: use of normalisation for body size. Sports Med 32(10):615–631PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jaric S (2003) Role of body size in the relation between muscle strength and movement performance. Exercise Sport Sci Rev 31:8–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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
  30. Keating JL, Matyas TA (1996) The influence of subject and test design on dynamometric measurements of extremity muscles. Phys Ther 76:866–889PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Kraemer WJ, Mazzetti SA, Nindl BC, Gotshalk LA, Volek JS, Bush JA, Marx JO, Dohi K, Gomez AL, Miles M, Fleck SJ, Newton RU, Hakkinen K (2001) Effect of resistance training on women’s strength/power and occupational performances. Med Sci Sports Exerc 33:1011–1025PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kyle UG, Genton L, Hans D, Pichard C (2003) Validation of a bioelectrical impedance analysis equation to predict appendicular skeletal muscle mass (ASMM). Clin Nutr 22:537–543PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. LaForgia J, Gunn S, Withers RT (2008) Body composition: validity of segmental bioelectrical impedance analysis. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr 17:586–591PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Ling CH, de Craen AJ, Slagboom PE, Gunn DA, Stokkel MP, Westendorp RG, Maier AB (2011) Accuracy of direct segmental multi-frequency bioimpedance analysis in the assessment of total body and segmental body composition in middle-aged adult population. Clin Nutr 30:610–615PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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
  36. McMullen J, Uhl TL (2000) A kinetic chain approach for shoulder rehabilitation. J Athl Training 35:329–337Google Scholar
  37. Metter EJ, Lynch N, Conwit R, Lindle R, Tobin J, Hurley B (1999) Muscle quality and age: cross-sectional and longitudinal comparisons. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Ser A 54:B207–B218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Miller AE, MacDougall JD, Tarnopolsky MA, Sale DG (1993) Gender differences in strength and muscle fiber characteristics. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol 66:254–262PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Miyatani M, Kanehisa H, Fukunaga T (2000) Validity of bioelectrical impedance and ultrasonographic methods for estimating the muscle volume of the upper arm. Eur J Appl Physiol 82:391–396PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Miyatani M, Kanehisa H, Masuo Y, Ito M, Fukunaga T (2001) Validity of estimating limb muscle volume by bioelectrical impedance. J Appl Physiol 91:386–394PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Murray MP, Gore DR, Gardner GM, Mollinger LA (1985) Shoulder motion and muscle strength of normal men and women in two age groups. Clin Orthop Relat Res 192:268–273PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Salinari S, Bertuzzi A, Mingrone G, Capristo E, Pietrobelli A, Campioni P, Greco AV, Heymsfield SB (2002) New bioimpedance model accurately predicts lower limb muscle volume: validation by magnetic resonance imaging. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 282:E960–E966PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Schantz P, Randall-Fox E, Hutchison W, Tyden A, Astrand PO (1983) Muscle fibre type distribution, muscle cross-sectional area and maximal voluntary strength in humans. Acta Physiol Scand 117:219–226PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schlussel MM, dos Anjos LA, de Vasconcellos MT, Kac G (2008) Reference values of handgrip dynamometry of healthy adults: a population-based study. Clin Nutr 27:601–607PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Shafer KJ, Siders WA, Johnson LK, Lukaski HC (2009) Validity of segmental multiple-frequency bioelectrical impedance analysis to estimate body composition of adults across a range of body mass indexes. Nutrition 25:25–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Shephard RJ (2000) Exercise and training in women, Part I: influence of gender on exercise and training responses. Can J Appl Physiol 25:19–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sinaki M, Nwaogwugwu NC, Phillips BE, Mokri MP (2001) Effect of gender, age, and anthropometry on axial and appendicular muscle strength. Am J Phys Med Rehab 80:330–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stahn A, Terblanche E, Strobel G (2007) Modeling upper and lower limb muscle volume by bioelectrical impedance analysis. J Appl Physiol 103:1428–1435PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tanaka NI, Miyatani M, Masuo YT, Kanehisa H (2007) Applicability of a segmental bioelectrical impedance analysis for predicting the whole body skeletal muscle volume. J Appl Physiol 103:1688–1695PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Terry GC, Chopp TM (2000) Functional anatomy of the shoulder. J Athl Training 35:248–255Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Omid Alizadehkhaiyat
    • 1
  • David H. Hawkes
    • 2
  • Graham J. Kemp
    • 3
  • Anthony Howard
    • 2
  • Simon P. Frostick
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Health SciencesLiverpool Hope UniversityLiverpoolUK
  2. 2.Musculoskeletal Science Research Group, Institute of Translational MedicineUniversity of LiverpoolLiverpoolUK
  3. 3.Department of Musculoskeletal Biology II, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Institute of Ageing and Chronic DiseaseUniversity of LiverpoolLiverpoolUK

Personalised recommendations