4.4 Article

ARM-CURL FIELD TEST FOR OLDER WOMEN: IS IT A MEASURE OF ARM STRENGTH?

Journal

JOURNAL OF STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING RESEARCH
Volume 25, Issue 1, Pages 193-197

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181bac36a

Keywords

aging; muscle strength; muscle endurance; general endurance; isokinetic

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Ayelet Dunsky, A, Ayalon, M, and Netz, Y. Arm-curl field test for older women: is it a measure of arm strength? J Strength Cond Res 25(1): 193-197, 2011-The facilitative effect of physical activity on age-related decline is well documented. Specifically, it has been found to reduce the risk of dependency. However, physical activity programs for older adults should be carefully designed so that improvements in all aspects of movement and physical capacities are achieved. This means that efficient fitness measurements should be made available for coaches and trainers. The arm-curl test is a common field test known for measuring the strength of upper extremities in older age. The objective of the current study was to determine to what extent this test indeed assesses arm strength as well as other fitness aspects such as arm muscle endurance or general endurance. Scores of the arm-curl test were compared with strength and endurance of elbow flexors measured by an isokinetic dynamometer and general endurance measured by a stress test in 48 independently functioning women (age 72.04 +/- 6.28 yr). Significant correlations were indicated between the arm-curl scores and both isokinetic endurance (r = 0.452) and general endurance (r = 0.437); however, a very low nonsignificant correlation was found between the arm-curl and isokinetic maximal strength scores. Coaches must be aware of the fact that the repetitive arm-curl exercise contains a significant aerobic component and thus may contribute to aerobic fitness and arm muscle endurance but not necessarily to arm strength.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available