Comparison of the Relationship between Lying and Standing Ultrasonography Measures of Muscle Morphology with Isometric and Dynamic Force Production Capabilities

Abstract

The purpose of the current study was (1) to examine the differences between standing and lying measures of vastus lateralis (VL), muscle thickness (MT), pennation angle (PA), and cross-sectional area (CSA) using ultrasonography; and (2) to explore the relationships between lying and standing measures with isometric and dynamic assessments of force production—specifically peak force, rate of force development (RFD), impulse, and one-repetition maximum back squat. Fourteen resistance-trained subjects (age = 26.8 ± 4.0 years, height = 181.4 ± 6.0 cm, body mass = 89.8 ± 10.7 kg, back squat to body mass ratio = 1.84 ± 0.34) agreed to participate. Lying and standing ultrasonography images of the right VL were collected following 48 hours of rest. Isometric squat assessments followed ultrasonography, and were performed on force platforms with data used to determine isometric peak force (IPF), as well as RFD and impulse at various time points. Forty-eight hours later, one-repetition maximum back squats were performed by each subject. Paired-samples t-tests revealed statistically significant differences between standing and lying measurements of MT (p < 0.001), PA (p < 0.001), and CSA (p ≤ 0.05), with standing values larger in all cases. Further, standing measures were correlated more strongly and abundantly to isometric and dynamic performance. These results suggest that if practitioners intend to gain insight into strength-power potential based on ultrasonography measurements, performing the measurement collection with the athlete in a standing posture may be preferred.

Effects of Rest Position on Morphology of the Vastus Lateralis and Its Relationship with Lower-Body Strength and Power

“…Wagle et al [15] reported stronger relationships between standing measures of muscle size and isometric variables compared to supine measures, however, in the current study, no measures of muscle size were significantly related to any of the isometric variables. This may be a result of a discrepancy between positions, as the ultrasound assessments were completed while in the recumbent position or while standing and the isometric tests were completed while seated.…”

“…Muscle morphology measured in the IP position appears to be best related to physical performance, although utilizing the NDLR and DLR positions may provide comparable results. Although standing measures of VL morphology have previously been reported to exhibit stronger relationships with performance than recumbent measures [15], our results suggest that the relationship between muscle morphology and performance in ST may be weaker compared to the recumbent positions.…”

The Importance of Lean Body Mass for the Rate of Force Development in Taekwondo Athletes and Track and Field Throwers

“…Finally, in the present study, RFD was evaluated in testing positions that were different to the ultrasound collection position. Recent study report that performing ultrasonography evaluation of vastus lateris architecture with athletes in a lying position or in a different position when compared to those that they have during strength and power evaluations, does not allow for us to have a precise view of muscle configuration that is present during performance evaluations, and this may have some impact on the correlations between strength/power performances and architecture parameters [18]. Unfortunately, the present study performed prior to this report.…”

“…Previous studies indicate that pennation angle and muscle thickness seems to affect late RFD [2,14,17,18]. Fascicle length is thought to reflect the number of sarcomeres in series in a muscle and the increase in this number has been suggested to contribute to higher shortening velocity and muscle power [19].…”

Bilateral Asymmetries in Ultrasound Assessments of the Rectus Femoris throughout an NCAA Division I Volleyball Preseason

“…Even though athletes served as their own control, it is possible that athletes replenish glycogen content differently if nutrition (i.e., strategic ingestion of carbohydrates and proteins) and hydration (i.e., strategic ingestion of water and sports drinks) protocols are adequate and controlled throughout the day. Additionally, ultrasound assessments of glycogen content scores may be influenced by muscle size, postural alignment [ 26 ], and even ultrasound transducer pressure. While the current standard for assessing glycogen content within a muscle is to obtain muscle biopsies, this technique was not feasible during the preseason.…”