4.7 Article

Relationships between structural and functional measures of nutritional status in a normally nourished population

期刊

CLINICAL NUTRITION
卷 24, 期 3, 页码 421-426

出版社

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE
DOI: 10.1016/j.clnu.2005.01.002

关键词

anthropometry; grip strength; hand dynamometry; muscle function; nutritional assessment; peak expiratory flow rate

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and aims: Both anthropometric and functional measurements have been used in nutritional assessment and monitoring. Hand dynamometry is a predictor of surgical outcome and peak expiratory flow rate has been used as an index of respiratory muscle function. This study aims to measure in normal subjects the relationship between anthropometric measurements, voluntary muscle strength by hand grip dynamometry and respiratory muscle function by peak expiratory flow rate. Methods: Ninety-eight subjects (46 mate, 52 female) with a mean age of 45.9 years were studied. Hand grip strength was measured in the dominant and non-dominant hands with a portable strain-gauge dynamometer. Peak expiratory flow rate was measured using a mini-Wright peak flow meter. Three readings were taken, each 1 min apart, and the average recorded. Midarm muscle circumference (MAMC) was derived from triceps skin fold thickness and midarm circumference (MAC) using standard anthropometric techniques. Statistical relationships were measured with Pearson's coefficient of correlation. Results: In both sexes there was significant correlation between hand grip strength in the dominant and non-dominant hands and peak expiratory flow rate (P < 0.001). In men, there was a positive correlation between MAMC, hand grip strength (P < 0.001) and peak expiratory flow rate (P < 0.001). In women muscle function correlated with height (P < 0.001) but not MAMC (P > 0.05). Conclusions: In normal subjects bedside tests of skeletal and respiratory muscle function correlated with each other in both sexes, and with muscle mass in men but not in women. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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