4.0 Article

Effects of age and sex on neuromuscular-mechanical determinants of muscle strength

期刊

AGE
卷 38, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11357-016-9921-2

关键词

Ageing; Sex; Muscle strength; Muscle architecture; Stiffness

资金

  1. University College Dublin
  2. Chinese Scholarship Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to concurrently assess the effect of age on neuromuscular and mechanical properties in 24 young (23.6 +/- 3.7 years) and 20 older (66.5 +/- 3.8 years) healthy males and females. Maximal strength of knee extensors (KE) and flexors (KF), contractile rate of torque development (RTD) and neural activation of agonist-antagonist muscles (surface EMG) were examined during maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC). Tissue stiffness (i.e. musculo-articular stiffness (MAS) and muscle stiffness (MS)) was examined via the free-oscillation technique, whereas muscle architecture (MA) of the vastus lateralis and subcutaneous fat were measured by ultrasonography. Males exhibited a greater age-related decline for KE (47.4 %) and KF (53.1 %) MVIC, and RTD (60.4 %) when compared to females (32.9, 42.6 and 34.0 %, respectively). Neural activation of agonist muscles during KE MVIC falls markedly with ageing; however, no age and sex effects were observed in the antagonist co-activation. MAS and MS were lower in elderly compared with young participants and in females compared with males. Regarding MA, main effects for age (young 23.0 +/- 3.3 vs older 19.5 +/- 2.0 mm) and sex (males 22.4 +/- 3.5 vs females 20.4 +/- 2.7 mm) were detected in muscle thickness. For fascicle length, there was an effect of age (young 104.6 +/- 8.8 vs older 89.8 +/- 10.5 mm), while for pennation angle, there was an effect of sex (males 13.3 +/- 2.4 vs females 11.5 +/- 1.7 degrees). These findings suggest that both neuromuscular and mechanical declines are important contributors to the age-related loss of muscle strength/function but with some peculiar sex-related differences.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据