4.7 Article

Are Fat Mass and Lean Mass Associated with Grip Strength in Adolescents?

Journal

NUTRIENTS
Volume 14, Issue 16, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nu14163259

Keywords

muscle strength; adolescent; anthropometry

Funding

  1. Department of Science and Technology-DECIT (Ministry of Health) [400943/2013-1]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study examined the association between lean body mass (LBM) and fat mass index (FMI) with grip strength (GS) in adolescents. The results showed that regardless of LBM, FMI was associated with lower GS, while regardless of FMI, LBM was associated with higher GS.
Background: The interaction between lean body mass (LBM) and fat mass index (FMI) with grip strength (GS) has not been explored in the same analysis model in adolescents. This study thus aims to analyze the association between FMI and LBM with GS. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted with data from the 2016 follow-up of the 1997/98 Birth Cohort of Sao Luis. Grip strength was assessed by the Jamar Plus + dynamometer. The LBM and FMI indexes were assessed [ratio of the mass (lean or fat-kg) to height (m(2))]. The confounding variables identified for the relationship between FMI and LBM with GS in the same analysis model, by directed acyclic graph (DAG), were sex, age, race, work, alcohol consumption, smoking, physical activity, and consumption of ultra-processed foods and culinary preparations, used in the adjusted analysis. Results: A total of 2339 adolescents (52.5% girls) were analyzed. The boys have a higher GS than the girls. In the adjusted analysis, with each increase of 1 kg/m(2) in the FMI, GS was reduced by 0.72 kgf for boys and 0.35 kgf for girls. At each increase of 1 kg/m(2) in the LBM, GS increased by 2.18 kgf for boys and 1.26 kgf for girls. Conclusions: FMI was associated with lower GS regardless of the LBM. LBM was associated with higher GS regardless of the FMI.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available