4.5 Article

Muscle strength, functional endurance, and health-related quality of life in active older female golfers

期刊

AGING CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH
卷 30, 期 7, 页码 811-818

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s40520-017-0842-4

关键词

Active ageing; Muscle strength; Handgrip; Quadriceps; Endurance

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Grip strength is a reliable predictor of whole body strength in older adults, but muscle characteristics of people with different activity levels have not been studied previously. The present study examined the relationship between grip strength (GS), quadriceps peak torque (QPT), functional endurance, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in older female golfers. Methods Twenty-nine healthy female golfers (mean age 69.1 years, SD 3.4) participated. The ISOCOM and JAMAR dynamometers were used to assess QPT and GS, respectively. Functional endurance tests included 1-min sit-to-stand test (1MSTS), 30-s wall press (30SWP), and 2-min stair climb (2MSC). HRQol was assessed using the SF-36 questionnaire. Results Mean GS and QPT were 27.5 +/- 4 kg/f and 103.7 +/- 25.1 N m, respectively. Mean scores for the 1MSTS, 30SWP, and 2MSC were 31 +/- 7.7, 17.4 +/- 3.5, and 237.5 +/- 48.6 repetitions, respectively. GS was moderately correlated with QPT (r = 0.44), 1MSTS (r = 0.36), and 2MSC (r = 0.36), but had weak correlation with 30SWP (r = 0.003). Moderate correlation was observed between quadriceps peak torque and the 1MSTS (r = 0.50; p = 0.01), 2MSC (r = 0.44; p = 0.02) and 30SWP (r = 0.33). 30SWP and 2MSC had moderate correlations with PF r = 0.41 (p = 0.03) and r = 0.61 (p < 0.0005) and general physical well-being r = 0.47 (p = 0.01) and r = 0.39 (p = 0.04), respectively. Conclusion Quadriceps strength was more closely associated with functional endurance than grip strength. A single strength measure may not reflect overall muscle characteristics in active older females, and hence, assessment of both upper and lower limb strengths may be appropriate.

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

4.5
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