HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Google Scholar Articles by Klein, C.S. Articles by Rice, C.L. Articles citing this Article PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Klein, C.S. Articles by Rice, C.L.

Muscle Size, Strength, and Bone Geometry in the Upper Limbs of Young and Old Men

^a Canadian Centre for Activity and Aging, Lawson Health Research Institute
^b Division of Imaging, Lawson Health Research Institute
^c School of Kinesiology, Faculty of Health Sciences, and Departments of
^d Anatomy and Cell Biology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, The University of Western Ontario, London, Canada
^e Medical Biophysics, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, The University of Western Ontario, London, Canada

Correspondence: C.L. Rice, Canadian Centre for Activity and Aging, St. Joseph's Health Centre Annex, 1490 Richmond St., London, Ontario, N6G 2M3 Canada E-mail: crice{at}uwo.ca.

Background. Bone loss in old men is associated with a decrease in muscle mass and strength. However, the influence of muscle size and strength on age-related changes in bone geometry has not been comprehensively described.

Methods. Men in their third (group I, 23 ± 3 y, n = 20), eighth (group II, 77 ± 1 y, n = 10), and ninth (group III, 86 ± 4 y, n = 13) decades of age were studied. The cross-sectional area (CSA) of the elbow flexors, elbow extensors, and forearm muscles, the total area (TA), cortical area (CA), and medullary area (MA) of the midhumerus, and distal third of the radius and ulna (n = 7 group II; n = 6 group III) were measured with magnetic resonance imaging. The maximal isometric strength (MVC) of the elbow flexors and elbow extensors was also determined.

Results. The CSA and MVC of the arm muscles (elbow flexors plus elbow extensors) were less in group II (-17% and -22%) and III (-32% and -39%), respectively, compared to group I. However, forearm CSA was less (-21%) in group III only. The TA and MA of all bones were greater in the older groups. The CA of the humerus (-14%) and ulna (-10%), but not the radius, was less in group III compared to group I, whereas CA was unchanged in group II. Stepwise multiple linear regression determined that arm muscle CSA (r = 0.52, p < .01) and forearm muscle CSA (r = 0.41, p < .05) provided the best prediction of CA in the humerus and forearm, respectively.

Conclusions. Muscle size and strength are important determinants of CA in the humerus and forearm. The lower CA in the ninth decade may be explained, in part, by reduced bone strains due to a smaller muscle mass.