Journal of Applied Physiology AJP: Gastrointestinal and Liver Physiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


J Appl Physiol 43: 834-838, 1977;
8750-7587/77 $5.00
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Watson, A. W.
Right arrow Articles by O'Donovan, D. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Watson, A. W.
Right arrow Articles by O'Donovan, D. J.

Journal of Applied Physiology, Vol 43, Issue 5 834-838, Copyright © 1977 by American Physiological Society


ARTICLES

Factors relating to the strength of male adolescents

A. W. Watson and D. J. O'Donovan

Factors relating to the strength of 53 postpubertal adolescent males have been examined. A strength index, composed of left and right handgrip and back strengths, was related to the following: anthropometric measurements and their derivatives; level of habitual activity; body shape as characterized by Heath-Carter and Sheldonian somatotype ratings; and anthropometric ratios. Strength was found to be positively related to all anthropometric measurements with the exception of skinfold thicknesses. When body weight was held constant, strength was positively related to arm circumference, bicondylar diameters of the humerus and femur, thigh volume, and biacromial diameter, and negatively related to percentage of fat. Strength was not related to the level of habitual activity. The relative contributions of overall body size and body shape to predictions of strength are approximately 57 and 47%. Measures of overall size appear to make no independent contribution to strength, beyond that contributed by limb segment volumes, or a combination of linear limb dimensions and measures of body shape.





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Visit Other APS Journals Online