Upper limit of fat‐free mass in humans: A study on Japanese Sumo wrestlers

Kondo, Masakatsu; Abe, Takashi; Ikegawa, Shigeki; Kawakami, Yasuo; Fukunaga, Tetsuo

doi:10.1002/ajhb.1310060509

Cited by 27 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the trunk contains about one-half of all the body mass and lean tissue mass (Organ et al 1994). From the findings of Kondo et al (1994), who investigated the relationship between LBM and limb muscle CSA, as LBM increases, muscle CSA also increases, but a further increase in CSA is not apparent in LBM above 80 kg. This finding implies that an increase in LBM above 80 kg largely depends on the hypertrophy of lean tissues involved in the trunk.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

A comparison of three bioelectrical impedance analyses for predicting lean body mass in a population with a large difference in muscularity

et al. 2004

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study tested the hypothesis that, as compared to whole-body bioelectrical impedance (BI) analysis, segmental BI analysis can estimate lean body mass (LBM) more accurately in a population with a large difference in muscularity. In addition to whole-body BI, which determines impedance (Z) between the wrist and ankle, two segmental BI analyses which determine the Z value of every body segment in each of (1) the arms, legs and trunk (distal BI) and (2) the upper arms, upper legs and trunk (proximal BI) were applied to a group of 125 male athletes and 75 non-athletes. The subjects were divided into validation and cross-validation groups. Simple and multiple regression analyses were applied to (length)(2)/Z (BI index) values for the whole-body and each body segment, to develop the prediction equations of LBM measured using air-displacement plethysmography. In the validation group, the SE of estimation was similar in the whole-body (3.4 kg, 5.4%), distal (3.4 kg, 5.5%) and proximal BI (3.3 kg, 5.2%) analyses. However, the whole-body and distal BI analyses produced systematical errors in the estimates of LBM. Moreover, the residuals in the two methods significantly (P < 0.05) correlated with the ratios of BI indices of the upper arms and upper legs to those of the arms and legs, respectively, calculated as variables approximating the relative development of lean tissues at the proximal area of limbs. On the other hand, the proximal BI analysis was validated and cross-validated. Thus, the accuracy of estimating LBM was similar in the whole-body and the two segmental BI analyses. However, the prediction equations derived from the use of the whole-body BI index and a combination of the arms, legs and trunk BI indices produced a systematical error relating to the difference between the limb segments in lean tissue development.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

A comparison of three bioelectrical impedance analyses for predicting lean body mass in a population with a large difference in muscularity

et al. 2004

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Based on a sample of healthy humans, it has been suggested that the upper limit of FFM accumulation in humans is about 100 kg (Forbes 1987a). However, several reports using athletes have observed greater FFM accumulation in American football players and sumo wrestlers (Wilmore et al 1976;Kondo et al 1994;Abe et al 1999). In the present study, two superheavy class lifters had over 110 kg FFM.…”

Section: Ffm Accumulation and Powerlifting Performancementioning

confidence: 95%

The role of FFM accumulation and skeletal muscle architecture in powerlifting performance

2002

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to determine the distribution and architectural characteristics of skeletal muscle in elite powerlifters, and to investigate their relationship to fat-free mat (FFM) accumulation and powerlifting performance. Twenty elite male powerlifters (including four world and three US national champions) volunteered for this study. FFM, skeletal muscle distribution (muscle thickness at 13 anatomical sites), and isolated muscle thickness and fascicle pennation angle (PAN) of the triceps long-head (TL), vastus lateralis, and gastrocnemius medialis (MG) muscles were measured with B-mode ultrasound. Fascicle length (FAL) was calculated. Best lifting performance in the bench press (BP), squat lift (SQT), and dead lift (DL) was recorded from competition performance. Significant correlations (P < or = 0.01) were observed between muscle distribution (individual muscle thickness from 13 sites) and performance of the SQT (r = 0.79 to r = 0.91), BP (r = 0.63 to r = 0.85) and DL (r = 0.70 to r = 0.90). Subscapular muscle thickness was the single best predictor of powerlifting performance in each lift. Performance of the SQT, BP, and DL was strongly correlated with FFM and FFM relative to standing height (r = 0.86 to 0.95, P < or = 0.001). FAL of the triceps long head and vastus lateralis were significantly correlated with FFM (r = 0.59, P < or = 0.01; 0.63, P < or = 0.01, respectively) and performance of the SQT (r = 0.45; r = 0.50, respectively; P < or = 0.05), BP (r = 0.52; r = 0.56, respectively; P < or = 0.05), and DL (r = 0.56; r = 0.54, respectively; P < or = 0.01). A significant positive correlation was observed between isolated muscle thickness and PAN for triceps long-head (r = 0.64, P < or = 0.01) and gastrocnemius medialis (r = 0.48, P < or = 0.05) muscles, but not for vastus lateralis (r = 0.35). PAN was negatively correlated with powerlifting performance. Our results indicate that powerlifting performance is a function of FFM and, therefore, may be limited by the ability to accumulate FFM. Additionally, muscle architecture appears to play an important role in powerlifting performance in that greater fascicle lengths are associated with greater FFM accumulation and powerlifting performance.

show abstract

“…Underwater weighing was conducted according to the procedure described by Kondo et al (1984). Residual lung volume was measured by the closed-circuit oxygen dilution technique (Rahn et al 1949) whereby the subject sat in a position similar to that used during the underwater weighing procedure.…”

Section: Measurement Of Body Densitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Profiles of musculoskeletal development in limbs of college Olympic weightlifters and wrestlers

Kanehisa

Fukunaga

1999

European Journal of Applied Physiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To investigate the event-related profiles of musculoskeletal development in weight-categorized athletes, we measured the cross-sectional areas (CSA) of bone and muscle in the forearm, upper arm, lower leg and thigh, using a B-mode ultrasound apparatus, in college Olympic weightlifters (OWL, n = 19) and wrestlers (WR, n = 17) and untrained men (UM, n = 24), whose body masses were within the range from 55 kg to 78 kg. Both bone and muscle CSA at all sites were significantly correlated to the two-thirds power of fat-free mass (FFM(2/3)) with correlation coefficients of 0.430-40.741 (P < 0.05) and 0.608-0.718 (P < 0.05), respectively. Moreover, there were significant correlations between bone and muscle CSA at all sites (r = 0.664-0.829, P < 0.05). Even when bone and muscle CSA were expressed relative value to FFM(2/3), both OWL and WR showed significantly greater values than UM at all sites except for the lower leg. Furthermore, the comparison of the lean (bone + muscle) CSA ratio from site to site indicated a higher distribution of lean tissues in the upper extremities in OWL and WR compared to UM. While there was no significant difference between the two athlete groups in FFM(2/3), OWL showed significantly larger values than WR in the bone CSA of the upper arm and thigh and in the muscle CSA of the lower leg and thigh. However, lean CSA ratios of the upper extremities to the lower ones were significantly higher in WR than in OWL. Thus, the present results indicated that, compared to UM, OWL and WR had a greater lean tissue CSA in limbs, especially in the upper extremities, even when the difference in FFM was normalized. Moreover, the relative distribution of lean tissues in limbs differed between the two weight-categorized athletes in spite of there being no difference in FFM, which may be attributable to their own training regimens and/or competition style.

show abstract

Upper limit of fat‐free mass in humans: A study on Japanese Sumo wrestlers

Cited by 27 publications

References 14 publications

A comparison of three bioelectrical impedance analyses for predicting lean body mass in a population with a large difference in muscularity

A comparison of three bioelectrical impedance analyses for predicting lean body mass in a population with a large difference in muscularity

The role of FFM accumulation and skeletal muscle architecture in powerlifting performance

Profiles of musculoskeletal development in limbs of college Olympic weightlifters and wrestlers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About