Gender differences in strength and muscle fiber characteristics

  • A. E. J. Miller
  • J. D. MacDougall
  • M. A. Tarnopolsky
  • D. G. Sale
Article

Summary

Strength and muscle characteristics were examined in biceps brachii and vastus lateralis of eight men and eight women. Measurements included motor unit number, size and activation and voluntary strength of the elbow flexors and knee extensors. Fiber areas and type were determined from needle biopsies and muscle areas by computerized tomographical scanning. The women were approximately 52% and 66% as strong as the men in the upper and lower body respectively. The men were also stronger relative to lean body mass. A significant correlation was found between strength and muscle cross-sectional area (CSA; P≤0.05). The women had 45, 41, 30 and 25% smaller muscle CSAs for the biceps brachii, total elbow flexors, vastus lateralis and total knee extensors respectively. The men had significantly larger type I fiber areas (4597 vs 3483 μm2) and mean fiber areas (6632 vs 3963 μm2) than the women in biceps brachii and significantly larger type II fiber areas (7700 vs 4040 μm2) and mean fiber areas (7070 vs 4290 μm2) in vastus lateralis. No significant gender difference was found in the strength to CSA ratio for elbow flexion or knee extension, in biceps fiber number (180 620 in men vs 156 872 in women), muscle area to fiber area ratio in the vastus lateralis 451 468 vs 465 007) or any motor unit characteristics. Data suggest that the greater strength of the men was due primarily to larger fibers. The greater gender difference in upper body strength can probably be attributed to the fact that women tend to have a lower proportion of their lean tissue distributed in the upper body. It is difficult to determine the extent to which the larger fibers in men represent a true biological difference rather that a difference in physical activity, but these data suggest that it is largely an innate gender difference.

Key words

Fiber area Fiber number Muscle crosssectional area 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alway SE, Grumbt WH, Gonyea WJ, Stay-Gundersen J (1989) Contrasts in muscle and myofibers of elite male and female bodybuilders. J Appl Physiol 67:24–31Google Scholar
  2. Belanger AY, McComas AJ (1981) Extent of motor unit activation during effort. J Appl Physiol 51:1131–1135Google Scholar
  3. Blimkie CJR, Ebbesen B, MacDougall D, Bar-Or O, Sale D (1989) Voluntary and electrically evoked strength characteristics of obese and nonobese preadolescent boys. Hum Biol 61:515–532Google Scholar
  4. Brooke MH, Engel WK (1969) The histographic analysis of human muscle biopsies with regard to fiber types. Adult male and female. Neurology 19:221–233Google Scholar
  5. Brozek J, Grande F, Anderson JT, Keys A (1963) Densiometric analysis of body composition: Revision of some quantitative assumptions. Ann NY Acad Sci 110:113–140Google Scholar
  6. Costill DL, Daniels J, Evans W, Fink W, Krahenbuhl G, Saltin B (1976) Skeletal muscle enzymes and fiber composition in male and female track athletes. J Appl Physiol 40:149–154Google Scholar
  7. Davies J, Parker DF, Rutherford OM, Jones DA (1988) Changes in strength and cross-sectional area of the elbow flexors as a result of isometric strength training. Eur J Appl Physiol 57:667–670Google Scholar
  8. Galea V, Debruin H, Cavasin R, McComas AJ (1991) The numbers and relative sizes of motor units estimated by computer. Muscle Nerve 14:1123–1130Google Scholar
  9. Gomori GA (1950) A rapid one-step trichrome stain. Am J Clin Pathol 20:661–664Google Scholar
  10. Haan A de, Rexwinkel R, Doorn JE van, Westra HG, Hollander AP, Huijing PA, Woittiez RD, Sargeant AJ (1988) Influence of muscle dimensions on economy of isometric exercise in rat medial gastrocnemius muscles in situ. Eur J Appl Physiol 57:64–69Google Scholar
  11. Henriksson-Larsen K (1985) Distribution, number and size of different types of fibres in whole cross-sections of female m tibialis anterior. An enzyme histochemical study. Acta Physiol Scand 123:229–235Google Scholar
  12. Heyward VH, Johannes-Ellis SM, Romer JF (1986) Gender differences in strength. Res Q 57:154–159Google Scholar
  13. Komi PV, Karlsson J (1978) Skeletal muscle fibre types, enzyme activities and physical performance in young males and females. Acta Physiol Scand 103:210–218Google Scholar
  14. Laubach LL (1976) Comparative muscular strength of men and women: a review of the literature. Aviat Space Environ Med 47:534–542Google Scholar
  15. Levine L, Falkel JE, Sawka MN (1984) Upper to lower body strength ratio comparisons between men and women. Med Sci Sports Exerc 16:125Google Scholar
  16. MacDougall JD, Elder GCB, Sale DG, Moroz JR, Sutton JR (1980) Effects of strength training and immobilization on human muscle fibres. Eur J Appl Physiol 43:25–34Google Scholar
  17. MacDougall JD, Sale DG, Alway SE, Sutton JR (1983) Differences in muscle fibre number in biceps brachii between males and females. Can J Appl Sport Sci 8:221Google Scholar
  18. MacDougall JD, Sale DG, Alway SE, Sutton JR (1984) Muscle fiber number in biceps brachii in bodybuilders and control subjects. J Appl Physiol Respir Environ Exerc Physiol 57:1399–1403Google Scholar
  19. Maughan RJ, Nimmo MA (1984) The influence of variations in muscle fibre composition on muscle strength and cross-sectional area in untrained males. J Physiol (Lond) 351:299–311Google Scholar
  20. Maughan RJ, Watson JS, Weir J (1983) Strength and cross-sectional area of human skeletal muscle. J Physiol (Lond) 338:37–49Google Scholar
  21. Maughan RJ, Harmon M, Leiper JB, Sale D, Delman A (1986) Endurance capacity of untrained males and females in isometric and dynamic muscular contractions. Eur J Appl Physiol55:395–400Google Scholar
  22. Merton PA (1954) Voluntary strength and fatigue. J Physiol (Lond) 123:553–564Google Scholar
  23. Mitchell JH, Payne FC, Saltin B, Schibye B (1980) The role of muscle mass in the cardio-vascular response to static contractions. J Physiol (Lond) 309:45–54Google Scholar
  24. Nygaard E (1981) Skeletal muscle fibre characteristics in young women. Acta Physiol Scand 112:299–304Google Scholar
  25. Padykula HA, Herman E (1955) The specificity of the histochemical method of adenosinetriphosphatase. J Histochem Cytochem 3:170–195Google Scholar
  26. Prince FP, Hikida RS, Hagerman FC (1977) Muscle fiber types in women athletes and non-athletes. Pflügers Arch 371:161–165Google Scholar
  27. Ryushi T, Hakkinen K, Kauhanen H, Komi PV (1988) Muscle fiber characteristics, muscle cross-sectional area and force production in strength athletes, physically active males and females. Scand J Sports Sci 10:7–15Google Scholar
  28. Sale DG, MacDougall JD, Alway SE, Sutton JR (1987) Voluntary strength and muscle characteristics in untrained men and women and male bodybuilders. J Appl Physiol 62:1786–1793Google Scholar
  29. Schantz P, Randall-Fox E, Norgren P, Tyden A (1981) The relationship between the mean muscle fibre area and the muscle cross-sectional area of the thigh in subjects with large differences in thigh girth. Acta Physiol Scand 113:537–539Google Scholar
  30. 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 117:219–226Google Scholar
  31. Simoneau JA, Bouchard C (1989) Human variation in skeletal muscle fiber-type proportion and enzyme activities. Am J Physiol 257:E567-E572Google Scholar
  32. Van DeGraaff KM (1984) Human anatomy. Brown, Dubuque, IowaGoogle Scholar
  33. Warren GL, Cureton KJ, Dengel DR, Graham RE, Ray CA (1990) Is the gender difference in peak V2 greater for arm than leg exercise? Eur J Appl Physiol 60:149–154Google Scholar
  34. Weibel ER (1972) A stereological method for estimating volume and surface of sarcoplasmic reticulum. J Microsc 95:229–242Google Scholar
  35. Wilmore JH (1974) Alterations in strength, body composition and anthropometric measurements consequent to a 10-week weight training program. Med Sci Sports 6:133–138Google Scholar
  36. Young A, Stokes M, Crowe M (1985) The size and strength of the quadriceps muscles of old and young men. Clin Physiol 5:145–154Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Spinger-Verlag 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. E. J. Miller
    • 1
  • J. D. MacDougall
    • 1
  • M. A. Tarnopolsky
    • 1
  • D. G. Sale
    • 1
  1. 1.Departments of Physical Education and MedicineMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada

Personalised recommendations