4.4 Article

Lean Mass, Muscle Strength, and Muscle Quality in Retired Rugby Players: The UK Rugby Health Project

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE
卷 43, 期 11, 页码 958-963

出版社

GEORG THIEME VERLAG KG
DOI: 10.1055/a-1854-0052

关键词

former athletes; retirement; sport; ageing; muscle; strength; sarcopenia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the lean mass, strength, and muscle quality in retired elite and amateur rugby players and non-contact athletes. The results showed that retired elite rugby players had greater lean mass and grip strength compared to amateur rugby players and non-contact athletes.
Although athletes from sports such as rugby have greater lean mass and strength during their playing careers, little is known about these characteristics post-retirement. Therefore, this study investigated lean mass, strength, and muscle quality in retired elite and amateur rugby players and non-contact athletes. Retired elite male rugby players (n=42, 43.9 +/- 10.3 y; 101.1 +/- 13.4 kg; 1.82 +/- 0.09 m), amateur rugby players (n=46, 48.0 +/- 10.5 y; 98.9 +/- 16.6 kg; 1.79 +/- 0.07 m) and non-contact athletes (n=30, 51.3 +/- 12.5 y; 91.3 +/- 13.4 kg; 1.79 +/- 0.07 m) received one total body dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry assessment of appendicular lean mass (ALM) and ALM index (ALMI). Grip strength was measured, and muscle quality (grip strength/unit of arm lean mass) was calculated. Sarcopenia was identified as ALMI<7.23 kg/m (2) and handgrip strength<37.2 kg. Total lean mass, ALM and grip strength were greater in the elite rugby compared to amateur rugby and non-contact groups (p<0.01). There were no significant differences in muscle quality or sarcopenia prevalence. Retired elite rugby players had greater lean mass and grip strength than amateur rugby and non-contact athletes, although muscle quality was similar. The greater lean mass and strength might reflect genetic influences or previous participation in a highly physical sport.

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

4.4
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