Muscle strength testing - Use of normalisation for body size

被引:303
作者
Jaric, S
机构
[1] Natl Inst Working Life, Ctr Musculoskeletal Res, S-90713 Umea, Sweden
[2] Inst Med Res, Belgrade, Yugoslavia
关键词
D O I
10.2165/00007256-200232100-00002
中图分类号
G8 [体育];
学科分类号
04 [教育学]; 0403 [体育学];
摘要
Assessment of muscle strength tests has been a popular form of testing muscle function in sports and exercises, as well as in other movement-related sciences for several decades. Although the relationship between muscle strength and body size has attracted considerable attention from researchers, this relationship has been often either neglected or incorrectly taken into account when presenting the results from muscle strength tests. Two specific problems have been identified. First, most of the studies have presented strength data either non-normalised for body size, or normalised using inappropriate methods, or even several different normalisations have been applied on the same sets of data. Second, the role of body size in various movement performances has been neglected when functional movement performance was assessed by muscle strength. As a consequence, muscle function, athletic profiles, or functional movement performance assessed by tested muscle strength have been often confounded by the effect of body size. Differences in the normalisation methods applied also do not allow for comparison of the data obtained in different studies. Using the following allometric formula for obtaining index of muscle strength, S, independent of body size (assessed by body mass, m) should be recommended in routine strength testing procedures: S-n = S / m(b) The allometric parameter should be either b = 0.67 for muscle force (recorded by a dynamometer), or b = 1 for muscle torque (recorded by an isokinetic apparatus). We also recommend using body size-independent indices of both muscle strength and movement performance when assessing functional performance from recorded muscle strength or vice versa.
引用
收藏
页码:615 / 631
页数:17
相关论文
共 108 条
[1]
ABE T, 1992, J SPORT MED PHYS FIT, V32, P353
[2]
STRENGTH AND POWER ASSESSMENT - ISSUES, CONTROVERSIES AND CHALLENGES [J].
ABERNETHY, P ;
WILSON, G ;
LOGAN, P .
SPORTS MEDICINE, 1995, 19 (06) :401-417
[3]
ACUTE AND CHRONIC RESPONSE OF SKELETAL-MUSCLE TO RESISTANCE EXERCISE [J].
ABERNETHY, PJ ;
JURIMAE, J ;
LOGAN, PA ;
TAYLOR, AW ;
THAYER, RE .
SPORTS MEDICINE, 1994, 17 (01) :22-38
[4]
AGRE JC, 1988, ARCH PHYS MED REHAB, V69, P188
[5]
Quantifying work load in neck, shoulders and wrists in female dentists [J].
Akesson, I ;
Hansson, GA ;
Balogh, I ;
Moritz, U ;
Skerfving, S .
INTERNATIONAL ARCHIVES OF OCCUPATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH, 1997, 69 (06) :461-474
[6]
Akima H, 2001, MED SCI SPORT EXER, V33, P220
[7]
ANDERSSON E, 1988, MED SCI SPORT EXER, V20, P587
[8]
Normative values for isometric muscle force measurements obtained with hand-held dynamometers [J].
Andrews, AW ;
Thomas, MW ;
Bohannon, RW .
PHYSICAL THERAPY, 1996, 76 (03) :248-259
[9]
[Anonymous], 1991, PHYSL TESTING HIGH P
[10]
Astrand P. O., 1986, TXB WORK PHYSL