Advertisement

Determinants of isometric muscle strength in men of different ages

  • P. Era
  • A. L. Lyyra
  • J. T. Viitasalo
  • E. Heikkinen
Article

Summary

Values of maximal isometric strength of five muscle groups and associated factors including occupational status, life style and health were studied in three groups of men aged from 31 to 35, 51 to 55, and 71 to 75 years. The results indicated significant differences between the age groups in isometric handgrip, elbow flexion, knee extension, trunk extension and trunk flexion strength. In the youngest group, the manual workers tended to have higher strength values in all muscle groups than the lower and higher status white collar workers; whereas among the middle-aged and oldest men the manual workers tended to have the poorest performance. Good self-rated health and the intensity of physical exercise during leisure were positively associated with muscle strength in the youngest and middle-aged groups whereas in the oldest group the most important variable was home gymnastics. The multivariate structural equation models of isometric strength differed somewhat among the age groups and in these models the above-mentioned variables accounted for from 33% to 43% of the variance in isometric strength within the age groups. The results illustrated the most important factors associated with isometric strength in samples of men of different ages and also provided suggestions as to how these determinants might influence comparisons between different age groups in respect of muscle strength.

Key words

Isometric muscle strength Aging Physical activity Occupational background 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bassey EJ (1985) Benefits of exercise in the elderly. In: Isaacs B (ed) Recent advances in geriatric medicine. Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh, pp 91–112Google Scholar
  2. Cauley JA, LaPorte RE, Black Sandler R, Schramm MM, Kriska AM (1987) Comparison of methods to measure physical activity in postmenopausal women. Am J Clin Nutr 45:14–22Google Scholar
  3. Clement FJ (1974) Longitudinal and cross-sectional assessment of age changes in physical strength as related to sex, social class, and mental ability. J Gerontol 29:423–429Google Scholar
  4. Heikkinen E, Arajärvi RL, Era P, Jylhä M, Kinnunen V, Leskinen AL, Leskinen E, Mässeli E, Pohjolainen P, Rahkila P, Suominen H, Turpeinen P, Väisänen M, Österback L (1984) Functional capacity of men born in 1906–1910, 1926–30 and 1946–50. A basic report. Scand J Soc Med [Suppl] 33:1–93Google Scholar
  5. Jöreskog KG, Sörbom D (1986) LISREL VI: analysis of linear structural relationships by the method of maximum likelihood. User's guide. University of Uppsala, Department of Statistics, UppsalaGoogle Scholar
  6. Jylhä M, Leskinen E, Alanen E, Leskinen AL, Heikkinen E (1986) Self-rated health and associated factors among men of different apes. J Gerontol 41:710–717Google Scholar
  7. Kilbom A (1988) Isometric strength and occupational muscle disorders. Eur J Appl Physiol 57:322–326Google Scholar
  8. Kuta I, Parizkova J, Dycka J (1970) Muscle strength and lean body mass in old men of different physical activity. J Appl Physiol 29:168–171Google Scholar
  9. LaPorte RE, Montoye HJ, Caspersen CJ (1985) Assessment of physical activity in epidemiologic research: problems and prospects. Public Health Rep 100:131–146Google Scholar
  10. Larsson L (1982) Aging in mammalian skeletal muscle. In: Mortimer JA, Pirozzolo FJ, Maletta GJ (eds) Advances in neurogerontology. Praeger Publishers, New York, pp 60–97Google Scholar
  11. Mälkiä E (1983) Muscular performance as a determinant of physical ability in Finnish adult population (in Finnish, English summary). Publications of the Social Insurance Institution, AL 23, Turku, Finland, pp 1–148Google Scholar
  12. 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 Physiol 55:395–400Google Scholar
  13. North Karelia Project (1981) Community control of cardiovascular diseases. World Health Organisation. Regional office for Europe, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  14. Nygård CH, Luopajärvi T, Cedercreutz G, Ilmarinen J (1987) Musculoskeletal capacity of employees aged 44 to 58 years in physical, mental and mixed types of work. Eur J Appl Physiol 56:555–561Google Scholar
  15. Nygård CH, Luopajärvi T, Suurnäkki T, Ilmarinen J (1988) Muscle strength and muscle endurance of middle-aged women and men associated to type, duration and intensity of muscular load at work. Int Arch Environ Health 60:291–297Google Scholar
  16. Pérusse L, Lortie G, Leblanc C, Tremblay A, Thériault G, Bouchard C (1987) Genetic and environmental sources of variation in physical fitness. Ann Hum Biol 14:425–434Google Scholar
  17. Petrofsky JS, Lind AR (1975) Isometric strength, endurance and the blood pressure and heart rate responses during isometric exercise in healthy men and women with special reference to age and body fat content. Eur J Appl Physiol 360:49–61Google Scholar
  18. Pope MH, Bevins T, Wilder DG, Frymoyer JW (1985) The relationship between anthropometric, postural, muscular, and mobility characteristics of males ages 18–55. Spine 10:644–648Google Scholar
  19. Rikli R, Busch S (1986) Motor performance of women as a function of age and physical activity level. J Gerontol 41:645–649Google Scholar
  20. Shock NW (1981) Indices of functional age. In: Danon D, Shock NW, Marois M (eds) Aging: a challenge to science and society, vol. 1. Biology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 270–286Google Scholar
  21. Solonen KA, Nummi J (1971) Nivelten liikkeiden mittaaminen [The assessment of the flexibility of the joints (in Finnish)]. Finn Med J 26:1953–1974Google Scholar
  22. Svanborg A (1988) Practical and functional consequences of aging. Gerontology 34 [Suppl] 1:11–15Google Scholar
  23. Valkenburg HA (1988) Epidemiologic considerations of the geriatric population. Gerontology 34 [Suppl] 1:2–10Google Scholar
  24. Viitasalo JT, Saukkonen S, Komi PV (1980) Reproducibility of measurements of selected neuromuscular performance variables in man. Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol 20:487–501Google Scholar
  25. Viitasalo JT, Era P, Leskinen AL, Heikkinen E (1985) Muscular strength profiles and anthropometry in random samples of men aged 31–35, 51–55 and 71–75 years. Ergonomics 28:1563–1574Google Scholar
  26. Young A, Stokes M, Walker ICR, Newham D (1981) The relationship between quadriceps size and strength in normal young adults. Ann Rheum Dis 40:619–620Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. Era
    • 1
  • A. L. Lyyra
    • 2
  • J. T. Viitasalo
    • 3
  • E. Heikkinen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Health SciencesUniversity of JyväskyläJyväskyläFinland
  2. 2.Department of StatisticsUniversity of JyväskyläJyväskyläFinland
  3. 3.Department of Biology of Physical ActivityUniversity of JyväskyläJyväskyläFinland

Personalised recommendations