4.1 Article

Body composition, segmental bioimpedance phase angle and muscular strength in professional volleyball players compared to a control group

期刊

出版社

EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA
DOI: 10.23736/S0022-4707.20.10548-6

关键词

Athletes; Muscle strength; Nutritional status

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND : The assessment of body composition is central in evaluating athletes' nutritional status and the effects of training. The aim of this study was to evaluate body composition and the relation between bioimpedance phase angle (PhA) and muscular strength in elite female volleyball players. METHODS: Twelve volleyball players (age 23.8 +/- 3.6 years; weight 63.0 +/- 5.1 kg; height 170 +/- 4 cm; BMI 21.9 +/- 1.3 kg/m(2)) and 22 non-athletic females, who served as a control group (age 23.6 +/- 2.0 years; weight 60.7 +/- 4.8 kg; height 167 +/- 5 cm; BMI 21.9 +/- 1.3 kg/m(2)), participating in the study. Skinfold thickness measures were used and segmental bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) was performed. Additionally, hand grip strength was used to evaluate muscular strength. RESULTS: Volleyball players had lower FM and higher FFM than controls (FM(kg)=15.7 +/- 2.7 vs. 18.0 +/- 3.0, P=0.036; FM(%)=24.8 +/- 3.0 vs. 29.5 +/- 3.8, P=0.001; FFM(kg)=47.4 +/- 3.5 vs. 42.8 +/- 3.6, P=0.001). Both whole-body and segmental PhA were higher in volleyball players (P<0.05) than in controls, whereas no differences were observed for hand grip strength. A positive relation was found between hand grip strength and whole-body and upper limbs PhA in all subjects, resulting stronger in volleyball players (r=0.696, P=0.012 and r=0.821, P=0.001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The data confirmed that body composition differed between volleyball players and non-athletic subjects. In addition, a strong correlation between PhA and hand grip strength in both volleyball players and in controls was found. However, further evaluations are needed to investigate the use of hand grip strength in sport performance.

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

4.1
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