Human muscle strength definitions, measurement, and usage: Part I – Guidelines for the practitioner1 1The recommendations provided in this guide are based on numerous published and unpublished scientific studies and are intended to enhance worker safety and productivity. These recommendations are neither intended to replace existing standards, if any, nor should be treated as standards. Furthermore, this document should not be construed to represent institutional policy.The following individuals participated in the discussion of the earlier version of this guide. Their suggestions (written or verbal) were incorporated by the authors in this version: A. Aaras, Norway; J.E. Fernandez, U.S.A.; A. Freivalds, U.S.A.; T. Gallewey, Ireland; M. Jager, Germany; S. Konz, U.S.A.; H. Krueger, Switzerland; K. Landau, Germany; A. Luttmann, Germany; J.D. Ramsey, U.S.A.; M-J. Wang, Taiwan.

Author(s):  
Anil Mital ◽  
Shrawan Kumar
1986 ◽  
Vol 30 (10) ◽  
pp. 977-981 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karl H. E. Kroemer

With recent advances regarding underlying theories, experimental approaches, and instrumentation techniques, the topic of human strength exertion and measurement can now be defined, analyzed, and researched systematically. Given the acute interest in modelling the human/task/equipment system, definite knowledge of human strength capabilities is needed.


Physiology ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 44-51
Author(s):  
Collin M. Douglas ◽  
Stuart J. Hesketh ◽  
Karyn A. Esser

For more than 20 years, physiologists have observed a morning-to-evening increase in human muscle strength. Recent data suggest that time-of-day differences are the result of intrinsic, nonneural, muscle factors. We evaluate circadian clock data sets from human and mouse circadian studies and highlight possible mechanisms through which the muscle circadian clock may contribute to time-of-day muscle strength outcomes.


2005 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 390-397 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. Huygens ◽  
M. A. I. Thomis ◽  
M. W. Peeters ◽  
J. Aerssens ◽  
R. Vlietinck ◽  
...  

This study reports the results of a multipoint linkage study that aims to unravel the genetic basis of muscle strength and muscle mass in humans. Myostatin ( GDF8) is known to be a strong inhibitor of muscle growth in animals. However, studies examining human myostatin polymorphisms are rare and are limited to the GDF8 gene itself. Here, the contribution to isometric and concentric knee strength of nine key proteins involved in the myostatin pathway is studied in a nonparametric multipoint linkage analysis by means of a variance components and regression method. A sample of 367 healthy young male siblings was phenotyped on an isokinetic dynamometer and genotyped for markers of the myostatin pathway genes. Three of the loci were found significantly linked with a quantitative trait locus (QTL) for knee muscle strength. First, D13S1303 showed replication of an explorative single-point linkage study with a maximum LOD score of 2.7 ( P = 0.0002). Second, maximum LOD scores of 3.4 ( P = 0.00004) and 3.3 ( P = 0.00005) were observed for markers D12S1042 and D12S85, respectively, at 12q12–14. Finally, marker D12S78 showed an LOD score of 2.7 at 12q22–23. We conclude that several genes involved in the myostatin pathway, but not the myostatin gene itself, are important QTLs for human muscle strength. An additional set of valuable candidate genes that were not part of the myostatin pathway was found in the chromosome 12 and 13 genomic regions.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document