Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 595

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Muscle quality. I. Age-associated differences between arm and leg muscle groups

Lynch, N. A., Metter, E. J., Lindle, R. S., Fozard, J. L., Tobin, J. D., Roy, T. A., Fleg, J. L., Hurley, B. F.·1999·Journal of Applied Physiology
DOI 10.1152/jappl.1999.86.1.188
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

To determine the differences between arm and leg muscle quality (MQ) across the adult life span in men and women, concentric (Con) and eccentric (Ecc) peak torque (PT) were measured in 703 subjects (364 men and 339 women, age range 19–93 yr) and appendicular skeletal muscle mass (MM) was determined in the arm and leg in a subgroup of 502 of these subjects (224 men and 278 women). Regression analysis showed that MQ, defined as PT per unit of MM, was significantly higher in the arm (∼30%) than in the leg across age in both genders ( P < 0.01). Arm and leg MQ declined at a similar rate with age in men, whereas leg MQ declined ∼20% more than arm MQ with increasing age in women ( P ≤ 0.01 and P < 0.05 for Con and Ecc PT, respectively). Moreover, the age-associated decrease in arm MQ was steeper in men than in women whether Con or Ecc PT was used (both P < 0.05). Arm MQ as determined by Con PT showed a linear age-related decline in men and women (28 and 20%, respectively, P < 0.001), whereas arm MQ as determined by Ecc PT showed a linear age-related decline in men (25%, P < 0.001) but not in women (not significant). In contrast, both genders exhibited an age-related quadratic decline in leg MQ as determined by Con PT (∼40%) and Ecc PT (∼25%; both P< 0.001), and the rate of decline was similar for men and women. Thus MQ is affected by age and gender, but the magnitude of this effect depends on the muscle group studied and the type of muscle action (Con vs. Ecc) used to assess strength.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1152/jappl.1999.86.1.188

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Lynch, N. A., Metter, E. J., Lindle, R. S., Fozard, J. L., Tobin, J. D., Roy, T. A., Fleg, J. L., & Hurley, B. F.
Venue
Journal of Applied Physiology
Publisher
American Physiological Society
Published
1999-01-01
Volume
86
Issue
1
Pages
188-194
ISSN
  • 0161-7567 (ISSN-L)
  • 8750-7587
  • 1522-1601
DOI
10.1152/jappl.1999.86.1.188
OpenAlex
W2143789674
Cited by
595
References
2
FWCI
6.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.