The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between field-based simplified approaches and knee extensor muscle strength/size in young men. Knee extensor muscle thickness （MT） of 104 healthy university ...The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between field-based simplified approaches and knee extensor muscle strength/size in young men. Knee extensor muscle thickness （MT） of 104 healthy university freshmen was measured at the anterior half of thigh length; maximal voluntary isometric contraction （MVIC） was measured when subjects performed knee extension. Field-based simplified approaches [sit-to-stand, standing long jump （SLJ）, handgrip and upper-leg-50% （thigh） girth] were also measured. MVIC was correlated with SLJ （r = 0.361, P 〈 0.001）, handgrip （r = 0.523, P 〈 0.001） and thigh girth （r = 0.401, P 〈 0.001）, but not with the sit-to-stand test （r = 0.126, P 〉 0.05）. MT was correlated with handgrip （r = 0.317, P 〈 0.001） and thigh girth （r = 0.632, P 〈 0.001）, but not with SLJ （r = 0.038, P 〉 0.05） or the sit-to-stand test （r = 0.145, P 〉 0.05）. A stepwise multiple-regression analysis was applied to the predictor thigh girth to predict knee extensor MT （R2 = 0.399）. To predict knee extensor MVIC, the predictor handgrip, thigh girth and SLJ were applied （R2 = 0.381）. In conclusion, knee extensor muscle strength/size could be evaluated by the field-based simplified approaches, in particular by the thigh girth measurement, which may be major determinant to maintain activities of daily living for healthy young men. However, the 4 field-based simplified approaches appear to be still not of high impact.展开更多
文摘The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between field-based simplified approaches and knee extensor muscle strength/size in young men. Knee extensor muscle thickness （MT） of 104 healthy university freshmen was measured at the anterior half of thigh length; maximal voluntary isometric contraction （MVIC） was measured when subjects performed knee extension. Field-based simplified approaches [sit-to-stand, standing long jump （SLJ）, handgrip and upper-leg-50% （thigh） girth] were also measured. MVIC was correlated with SLJ （r = 0.361, P 〈 0.001）, handgrip （r = 0.523, P 〈 0.001） and thigh girth （r = 0.401, P 〈 0.001）, but not with the sit-to-stand test （r = 0.126, P 〉 0.05）. MT was correlated with handgrip （r = 0.317, P 〈 0.001） and thigh girth （r = 0.632, P 〈 0.001）, but not with SLJ （r = 0.038, P 〉 0.05） or the sit-to-stand test （r = 0.145, P 〉 0.05）. A stepwise multiple-regression analysis was applied to the predictor thigh girth to predict knee extensor MT （R2 = 0.399）. To predict knee extensor MVIC, the predictor handgrip, thigh girth and SLJ were applied （R2 = 0.381）. In conclusion, knee extensor muscle strength/size could be evaluated by the field-based simplified approaches, in particular by the thigh girth measurement, which may be major determinant to maintain activities of daily living for healthy young men. However, the 4 field-based simplified approaches appear to be still not of high impact.
