Comparison of the Relationship between Lying and Standing Ultrasonography Measures of Muscle Morphology with Isometric and Dynamic Force Production Capabilities.

John Wagle,Alexander Wetmore,Garett Bingham,Kimitake Sato,Kevin Carroll,Brad Deweese,Christopher Taber,Charles Stuart,Michael Stone,Aaron Cunanan

doi:10.3390/sports5040088

John Wagle, Alexander Wetmore + Show 8 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.3390/sports5040088

Copy DOI

Journal: Sports	Publication Date: Nov 21, 2017
Citations: 20	License type: CC BY 4.0

Affiliation: East Tennessee State University, Sacred Heart University

Abstract

The purpose of the current study was (1) to examine the differences between standing and lying measures of vastus lateralis (VL), muscle thickness (MT), pennation angle (PA), and cross-sectional area (CSA) using ultrasonography; and (2) to explore the relationships between lying and standing measures with isometric and dynamic assessments of force production—specifically peak force, rate of force development (RFD), impulse, and one-repetition maximum back squat. Fourteen resistance-trained subjects (age = 26.8 ± 4.0 years, height = 181.4 ± 6.0 cm, body mass = 89.8 ± 10.7 kg, back squat to body mass ratio = 1.84 ± 0.34) agreed to participate. Lying and standing ultrasonography images of the right VL were collected following 48 hours of rest. Isometric squat assessments followed ultrasonography, and were performed on force platforms with data used to determine isometric peak force (IPF), as well as RFD and impulse at various time points. Forty-eight hours later, one-repetition maximum back squats were performed by each subject. Paired-samples t-tests revealed statistically significant differences between standing and lying measurements of MT (p < 0.001), PA (p < 0.001), and CSA (p ≤ 0.05), with standing values larger in all cases. Further, standing measures were correlated more strongly and abundantly to isometric and dynamic performance. These results suggest that if practitioners intend to gain insight into strength-power potential based on ultrasonography measurements, performing the measurement collection with the athlete in a standing posture may be preferred.

Highlights

IntroductionUltrasonography is commonly used to assess muscle size (e.g., muscle thickness, cross-sectional area) and architecture (e.g., pennation angle) [1,2,3], and has been shown to be valid against the gold standards magnetic resonance imaging [4,5,6] and dual energy X-ray absorptiometry [7,8]
Ultrasonography is commonly used to assess muscle size and architecture [1,2,3], and has been shown to be valid against the gold standards magnetic resonance imaging [4,5,6] and dual energy X-ray absorptiometry [7,8].Ultrasonography measurements are typically taken in a lying, and/or resting position, meaning that the muscle is likely evaluated in a position non-specific to upright activities
Standing measures resulted in greater values for all variables, presented as mean ± 95% confidence interval (CI): SMT was 14.5% ± 6.67% greater than lying ◦muscle thickness (LMT), SPA was 49.0% ± 16.0% greater than lying pennation angle (LPA), and SCSA was 3.4% ± 3.13% greater than

Summary

Introduction

Ultrasonography is commonly used to assess muscle size (e.g., muscle thickness, cross-sectional area) and architecture (e.g., pennation angle) [1,2,3], and has been shown to be valid against the gold standards magnetic resonance imaging [4,5,6] and dual energy X-ray absorptiometry [7,8]. Ultrasonography measurements are typically taken in a lying, and/or resting position, meaning that the muscle is likely evaluated in a position non-specific to upright activities. This could result in large alterations in measurements of muscle size and architecture due to the influence.

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion