Skip to main content
Log in

Allometric scaling of strength measurements to body size

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Applied Physiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

For comparative purposes, normalisation of strength measures to body size using allometric scaling is recommended. A wide range of scaling exponents have been suggested, typically utilising body mass, although a comprehensive evaluation of different body size variables has not been documented. Differences between force (F) and torque (T) measurements of strength, and the velocity of measurement might also explain some of the variability in the scaling exponents proposed. Knee extensor strength of 86 young men was assessed with measurement of torque at four velocities (0–4.19 rad s−1) and force measured isometrically. Body size variables included body mass, height and fat-free mass. Scaling exponents for torque were consistently higher than for force, but the velocity of torque measurement had no influence. As the confounding effects of fat mass were restricted, scaling exponents and the strength of the power-function relationships progressively increased. Fat-free mass determined a surprisingly high proportion of the variance in measured strength (F, 31%; T, 52–58%). Absolute force and torque measurements, and even torque normalised for body mass, were significantly influenced by height, although strength measures normalised to fat-free mass were not. To normalise strength measurements to body mass, for relatively homogenous lean populations (body fat <20%), exponents of 0.66 (F) and 1.0 (T) are appropriate. For more adipose populations (body fat >20%) lower body mass exponents appear more suitable (F, 0.45; T, 0.68). Nevertheless, fat-free mass is the recommended index for scaling strength to body size, and higher exponents (F, 0.76; T, 1.12) are advocated in this case.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Astrand PO, Rodahl K (1986) Textbook of work physiology. 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 391–410

    Google Scholar 

  • Bunout D, Barrera G, De La Maza T, Avendano M, Gattas V, Petermann M, Hirsch S (2004) Lean and fat mass as determinants of muscle strength and insulin sensitivity in Chilean elderly subjects. J Nutr Health Aging 8:374–378

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Davies MJ, Dalsky GP (1997) Normalizing strength for body size differences in older adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc 29:713–717

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Durnin JVGA, Womersley J (1974) Body fat assessed from total body density and its estimation from skinfold thickness: measurements on 481 men and women aged from 16 to 72 years. Br J Sports Med 32:77

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Folland JP, Hawker K, Leach B, Little T, Jones DA (2005) Strength training: Isometric training at a range of joint angles versus dynamic training. J Sports Sci 23:817–824

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Folland JP, Leach B, Little T, Hawker K, Myerson S, Montgomery H, Jones D (2000) Angiotensin converting enzyme genotype affects the response of skeletal muscle to functional overload. Exp Physiol 85:575–579

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hawes MR, Martin AD (2001) Human body composition. In: Eston R, Reilly T (eds) Kinanthropometry and exercise physiology laboratory manual volume 1: anthropometry. Routledge, London, pp 7–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmback AM, Porter MM, Downham D, Andersen JL, Lexell J (2003) Structure and function of the ankle dorsiflexor muscles in young and moderately active men and women. J Appl Physiol 95:2416–2424

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hulens M, Vansant G, Lysens R, Claessens AL, Muls E, Brumagne S (2001) Study of differences in peripheral muscle strength of lean versus obese women: an allometric approach. Int J Obese 25:676–681

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jaric S (2002) Muscle strength testing: use of normalisation for body size. Sports Med 32:615–631

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jaric S (2003) Role of body size in the relation between muscle strength and movement performance. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 31:8–12

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jaric S, Radosavljevic-Jaric S, Johansson H (2002a) Muscle force and torque in humans require different methods when adjusting for differences in body size. Eur J Appl Physiol 87:304–307

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jaric S, Ugarkovic D, Kukoli M (2002b) Evaluation of methods for normalising muscle strength in elite and young athletes. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 42:141–151

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jones DA, Parker DF (1989) Development of a portable strain gauge to measure human muscle isometric strength. J Physiol 145:11P

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanehisa H, Ikegawa S, Fukunaga T (1994) Comparison of muscle cross-sectional area and strength between untrained women and men. Eur J Appl Physiol 68:148–154

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Maughan RJ, Watson JS, Weir J (1983) Strength and cross-sectional area of human skeletal muscle. J Physiol 338:37–49

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Nevill AM, Ramsbottom R, Williams C (1992) Scaling physiological measurements for individuals of different body size. Eur J Appl Physiol 63:110–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nevill AM, Holder RL, Baxter-Jones A., Round JM, Jones DA (1998) Modelling developmental changes in strength and aerobic power in children. J Appl Physiol 84:963–970

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Parker DF, Round JM, Sacco P, Jones DA (1990) A cross-sectional survey of upper and lower limb strength in boys and girls during childhood and adolescence. Ann Hum Biol 17:199–211

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Siri WE (1956) The gross composition of the body. Adv Biol Med Phys 4:239–80

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sholl D (1948) The quantitative investigation on the vertebrate brain and the applicability of allometric formula to its study. Proc Roy Soc B 135:243–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanderburgh PM, Mahar MT, Chou CH (1995) Allometric scaling of grip strength by body mass in college-age men and women. Res Q Exerc Sport 66:80–84

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Weir JP, Housh TJ, Johnson GO, Housh DJ, Ebersole KT (1999) Allometric scaling of isokinetic peak torque: the Nebraska Wrestling study. Eur J Appl Physiol 80:240–248

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. P. Folland.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Folland, J.P., Mc Cauley, T.M. & Williams, A.G. Allometric scaling of strength measurements to body size. Eur J Appl Physiol 102, 739–745 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-007-0654-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-007-0654-x

Keywords

Navigation