Maximal exercise performance and lean leg volume in men and women
|
 |
|
Post a Comment
|
|
|
|
|
CONTRIBUTORS:
|
|
|
JOURNAL:
|
|
|
YEAR:
|
1991
|
|
PUB TYPE:
|
Journal Article
|
|
SUBJECT(S):
|
EXERCISE; BICYCLE-ERGOMETRY; COMPARATIVE-STUDY; SEX-FACTOR; MAN; WOMAN; ACHIEVEMENT; STRENGTH
|
|
DISCIPLINE:
|
No discipline assigned
|
|
HTTP:
|
|
|
LANGUAGE:
|
English
|
|
PUB ID:
|
103-366-317
(Last edited on
2002/02/27 18:45:01 US/Mountain)
|
|
SPONSOR(S):
|
|
|
ABSTRACT:
The purpose of this study was to compare the maximal exercise performance during cycle ergometry of 34 men and 47 women. External peak power output (OPP) and optimized pedalling rate (ORPM) were calculated from data gathered during and optimization procedure performed on a friction braked cycle ergometer. In addition, lean leg volume (LLV) and lean upper leg volume (LULV) were determined using an anthropometric technique. Both OPP and ORPM were greater in men than in women (1007 plus/minus 135 vs 673 plus/minus 109W and 119.5 plus/minus 7.0 vs 104.5 plus/minus 8.4 rev min-1, respectively. The LLV and LULV were also greater in men than in women (7.41 plus/minus 0.82 vs 5.19 plus/minus 0.851 and 4.96 plus/minus 0.63 vs 3.35 plus/minus 0.62 1, respectively. The ratio standards OPP/LLV and OPP/LULV did not differ significantly between men and women (136.3 plus/minus 14.7 vs 131.0 plus/minus 20.6 W1-1 and 204.4 plus/minus 27.1 vs 204.4 plus/minus 37.9 W1-1, respectively. Peak power output was related to each of the anthropometric indices in both men and women (LLV: r=0.614 and 0.527, P less than 0.001; LULV: r=0.489 and 0.396, P less than 0.01). Analysis of covariance revealed no significant differences between the groups in the variance about regression and the regression coefficients, but the elevation of the regression lines did differ. The results suggest that there are differences between maximal exercise performance in men and women that are independent of estimated lean leg volume. They also demonstrate that, in this case, consideration of ratio standards is misleading and that a comparison of regression standards is more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
STATISTICS
|
|
Click on # to view
|
|
Citations
|
|
0
|
|
References
|
|
0
|
|
Comments
|
|
0
|
|
Quality
|
|
0/0.00
|
|
Interest
|
|
0/0.00
|
|
View(er)s
|
|
2/489
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Prev |
Next |
|