Premium
Skeletal muscle mass in female athletes: The average and the extremes
Author(s) -
Abe Takashi,
Wong Vickie,
Dankel Scott J.,
Bell Zachary W.,
Spitz Robert W.,
Viana Ricardo B.,
Loenneke Jeremy P.
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
american journal of human biology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.559
H-Index - 81
eISSN - 1520-6300
pISSN - 1042-0533
DOI - 10.1002/ajhb.23333
Subject(s) - athletes , muscle mass , fat free mass , medicine , body mass index , fat mass , ultrasound , subcutaneous adipose tissue , adipose tissue , physical therapy , radiology
Objectives To examine the absolute and relative skeletal muscle mass (SM) in female athletes and to discuss the potential upper limit of whole‐body muscle mass between large sized female and male athletes. Methods Forty‐five female athletes and forty‐five recreationally active females (control) had muscle thickness measured by ultrasound at nine sites on the anterior and posterior aspects of the body. SM was estimated from an ultrasound‐derived prediction equation. Body fat percentage and fat‐free mass (FFM) were calculated from ultrasound measured subcutaneous fat thickness. To eliminate fat‐free component of adipose tissue (FFAT), we calculated FFM minus FFAT (FFM‐FFAT). Results FFM, FFM‐FFAT, and muscle mass were markedly higher in athletes. Fat Mass was similar (Athlete: 14.9 kg vs Control: 12.9 kg [median value]). The large‐sized female athletes had approximately 9 to 11 kg FFAT which corresponds to about 10% to 15% of FFM. Seven of the female athletes had more than 60 kg of FFM‐FFAT, the largest of whom had 77.0 kg of FFM‐FFAT. SM increased in a parabolic fashion reaching a value of 35 kg SM beyond 100 kg body mass. Only one of the athletes had a SM index of more than 13 kg/m 2 . Conclusions Female athletes had much greater muscle mass than controls. In large‐sized female athletes, the influence of FFAT needs to be considered when interpreting their FFM. In addition, the largest SM index in female athletes was 13.2 kg/m 2 , which was approximately 77% of that observed with the largest male athlete ever recorded. This difference appears similar to that observed in nonathletes.