Muscle Strength Testing (original) (raw)
Related papers
Human muscle strength definitions, measurement, and usage: Part I – Guidelines for the practitioner
International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 1998
The recommendations provided in this guide are based on numerous published and unpublished scientific studies and are intended to enhance worker safety and productivity. These recommendations are neither intended to replace existing standards, if any, nor should be treated as standards. Furthermore, this document should not be construed to represent institutional policy. S 0 1 6 9 -8 1 4 1 ( 9 7 ) 0 0 0 7 0 -X
International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 1998
The recommendations provided in this guide are based on numerous published and unpublished scientific studies and are intended to enhance worker safety and productivity. These recommendations are neither intended to replace existing standards, if any, nor should be treated as standards. Furthermore, this document should not be construed to represent institutional policy. The following individuals participated in the discussion of the earlier version of this guide. Their suggestions (written or verbal
Considerations and Practical Options for Measuring Muscle Strength: A Narrative Review
BioMed Research International
Muscle strength impairments are related to mobility limitations and other untoward outcomes. This narrative review, therefore, describes considerations relative to the definition and measurement of muscle strength. Thereafter, practical options for measuring muscle strength are described and their clinimetric properties are delineated. Information provided herein may help students, clinicians, and researchers select the strength tests best suited to their research needs and limitations.
Leyton M, Luis-del-Campo V, Morenas J, Roldán A. Assessment of the level of muscular strength and volume in physically active English adults. . The aim of this study is to describe the muscular volume and strength of different body segments from a sample of 19 English male participants, with a mean age of 43.84 (±11.62). An isometric dynamometer (Standard type S) has been used for the strength measurements, as well as an isokinetic device (Cibex Norm, Ronkonkama, New York, U.S.A.) and a M.R.I scanner (Esaote G-Scan biomedical, Milan, Italy) for measuring the muscular volume. The Baecke Questionnaire (1982) helped to determine the participants habitual level of physical activity. The results reveal an inverse relationship between age and isometric strength of the biceps muscle (r=-0.518; p<0.05). In addition, there exists a correlation between the handgrip of the right hand and the left hand (r=0.788; p<0.001); torque of the knee extensor muscles and the ankle extensor muscles (r=0.712; p<0.01); time of torque of the knee flexor and extensor muscles (r=0.773; p<0.001) volume of the biceps and triceps muscles (r=0.849; p<0.001), as well as several correlations between the different volumes of the quadriceps muscles. As a conclusion, age has a negative influence on the production of isometric strength of the biceps muscle, but not of the knee extensor muscles. As expected, the antagonistic muscle groups actuating around the knee, i.e. the extensor and flexor groups seem to be adapted to each other in terms of volume, strength and rate of force development.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2016
The muscle strength capacities to exert force under various movement conditions have been indiscriminately assessed from various strength tests and variables applied on different muscles. We tested the hypotheses that the distinctive strength capacities would be revealed (H1) through different strength tests, and (H2) through different strength variables. Alternatively, (H3) all strength variables independently of the selected test could depict the same strength capacity of the tested muscle. Sixty subjects performed both the standard strength test and the test of alternating contractions of 6 pairs of antagonistic muscles acting in different leg and arm joints. The dependent variables obtained from each test and muscle were the maximum isometric force and the rate of force development. A confirmatory principle component analysis set to 2 factors explained 31.9% of the total variance. The factor loadings discerned between the tested arm and leg muscles, but not between the strength tests and variables. An exploratory analysis applied on the same data revealed 6 factors that explained 60.1% of the total variance. Again, the individual factors were mainly loaded by different tests and variables obtained from the same pair of antagonistic muscles. Therefore, a comprehensive assessment of the muscle strength capacity of the tested individual should be based on a single strength test and variable obtained from a number of different muscles, rather than on a single muscle tested through different tests and variables. The selected muscles should act in different limbs and joints, while the maximum isometric force should be the variable of choice.
Relationships among the muscle strength properties as assessed through various tests and variables
Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology, 2013
We tested the hypotheses that the individual strength properties depend on the applied test and the variable extracted, rather than on the muscle group tested. Flexor and extensor muscles acting in the knee and elbow joint were tested in 58 participants. The standard strength test (SST; based on sustained maximum contraction) and alternating consecutive maximum contractions (ACMC; alternating contractions of antagonistic muscles) performed under static conditions were separately applied to provide the maximum force (F) and the rate of force development (RFD) of each tested muscle. The principal component analysis applied on all 16 variables revealed 3 factors that explained 85.5% of the total variance. Contrary to our hypotheses, the individual factors were loaded with the variables recorded from individual muscles, rather than with either the particular variables or tests. The present findings suggest that recording both F and RFD in routine strength testing procedures could be redundant since they may assess the same strength property of the tested muscle. In addition, ACMC may be a feasible alternative to SST since it could assess the same strength properties from two antagonist muscles through a single trial, while being based on relatively low and transient forces.
British Journal of Sports Medicine, 1984
This study has examined muscle strength and cross-sectional area in a group of 35 healthy untrained male subjects and 8 subjects who had been engaged in a strenuous weight-training programme. The maximum voluntary knee extension force which could be produced by the untrained subjects was 742 ± 100 N (mean ± SD). The trained subjects could produce a significantly (p < 0.001) greater force (992 ± 162 N). Cross-sectional area of the knee-extensor muscle group was 81.6 ± 11.8 cm2 in the untrained subjects and 104.1 ± 12.3 cm2 in the trained subjects (p < 0.001). In the untrained subjects, a significant correlation existed between strength and muscle cross-sectional area (r = 0.56, p < 0.001). In the same group of subjects, there was a significant inverse relationship between muscle cross-sectional area and the ratio of strength to cross-sectional area (r =-0.55, p < 0.001). The mean ratio of strength to cross-sectional area was 9.20 ± 1.29 for the untrained group whereas for the trained group this ratio was 9.53 ± 1.01. It is suggested that the inverse relationship between strength per unit cross-sectional area and cross-sectional area results in part from an increased angle of pennation in the larger muscles.
Normalizing Physical Performance Tests for Body Size
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2005
Jaric, S., D. Mirkov, and G. Markovic. Normalizing physical performance tests for body size: A proposal for standardization. J. Strength Cond. Res. 19(2):467-474. 2005.-There is a lack of standardized methodology for normalizing various indices of muscle strength and movement performance tests for differences in body size in human movement-related disciplines. Most of the data presented in the literature have been body size dependent, which precludes both comparisons between subjects and establishment of standards for specific subject populations. The goal of the present review was to propose standardized tests that normalize physical performance tests to body size. Specifically, we propose (a) using an allometric normalization based on theoretical models that presume geometric similarity, (b) using classification of performance tests based on particular values of the allometric parameters required for normalization, and (c) using a simple ''performance index'' that represents an individual or group performance relative to a reference population. Correspondences between theory and experimental findings and limitations are discussed.