Journal of Applied Physiology Fuel your research with LabChart
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


J Appl Physiol (February 16, 2006). doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.01213.2005
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
100/6/1851    most recent
01213.2005v1
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 HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Tolfrey, K.
Right arrow Articles by Batterham, A. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Tolfrey, K.
Right arrow Articles by Batterham, A. M.
Submitted on September 22, 2005
Accepted on February 10, 2006

Scaling of Maximal Oxygen Uptake by Lower Leg Muscle Volume in Boys and Men

Keith Tolfrey1*, Alan Barker1, Jeanette M. Thom1, Christopher I. Morse1, Marco V. Narici1, and Alan M. Batterham2

1 Department of Exercise and Sport Science, IRM, Manchester Metropolitan University, Alsager, Cheshire, United Kingdom
2 Centre for Food, Physical Activity, and Obesity Research, School of Health and Social Care, University of Teesside, Middlesbrough, North Riding, United Kingdom

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: k.tolfrey{at}mmu.ac.uk.

The aim of this study was to critically examine the influence of body size on maximal oxygen uptake (VO2 max) in boys and men using body mass (BM), estimated fat free mass (FFM), and estimated lower leg muscle volume (VOL) as the separate scaling variables. VO2 max and an in-vivo measurement of VOL were assessed in 15 boys and 14 men. The FFM was estimated after percentage body fat had been predicted from population specific skinfold measurements. Using nonlinear allometric modeling, common body size exponents for BM, FFM, and VOL were calculated. The point estimates for the size exponent (95% CI) from the separate allometric models were: BM 0.79 (0.53 to 1.06), FFM 1.00 (0.78 to 1.22), and VOL 0.64 (0.40 to 0.88). For the boys, substantial residual size correlations were observed for VO2 max/BM0.79 and VO2 max/FFM1.00, indicating that these variables did not correctly partition out the influence of body size. In contrast, scaling by VOL0.64 led to no residual size correlation in boys or men. Scaling by BM is confounded by heterogeneity of body composition, and potentially substantial differences in the mass exponent between boys and men. The FFM is precluded as an index of involved musculature because VOL did not represent a constant proportion of FFM (VOL proportional to FFM1.45 (95% CI, 1.13 to 1.77) in the boys (unlike the men). We conclude that VOL, as an indicator of the involved muscle mass, is the most valid allometric denominator for the scaling of VO2 max in a sample of boys and men heterogeneous for body size and composition.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J. Appl. Physiol.Home page
K. Tolfrey, A. Barker, J. M Thom, C. I. Morse, M. V. Narici, and A. M. Batterham
REPLY TO BAKER AND DAVIES
J Appl Physiol, November 1, 2006; 101(5): 1535 - 1535.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Appl. Physiol.Home page
A. Nevill, R. Holder, G. Markovic, K. Tolfrey, A. Barker, J. M. Thom, C. I. Morse, M. V. Narici, and A. M. Batterham
Scaling maximum oxygen uptake using lower leg muscle volume provides further insight into the pitfalls of whole body-mass power laws
J Appl Physiol, September 1, 2006; 101(3): 1006 - 1007.
[Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
Visit Other APS Journals Online
Copyright © 1948 by the American Physiological Society.