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) An erratum has been published Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Jung Lee, S. Articles by Ross, R. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Jung Lee, S. Articles by Ross, R. Agricola Articles by Jung Lee, S. Articles by Ross, R.

Relation between whole-body and regional measures of human skeletal muscle^1,2,3

¹ From the School of Physical and Health Education (SJL, IJ, and RR), the Department of Community Health and Epidemiology (IJ), and the Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Department of Medicine (RR), Queen’s University, Kingston, Canada, and the Obesity Research Center, St Luke’s-Roosevelt Hospital, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York (SBH)

Background: It is unknown whether regional measures of skeletal muscle (SM) in the thigh and abdomen accurately reflect whole-body SM mass.

Objective: We aimed to determine whether thigh and abdominal SM measures reflect whole-body SM mass and, if so, which region is a stronger marker.

Design: Whole-body and regional measures of SM were obtained by magnetic resonance imaging in a sample of 387 white men and women.

Results: The regional SM measures, whether obtained by using a single image (midthigh or L4-L5 level) or a series of 7 consecutive images covering 31 cm (thigh or abdomen), were strongly correlated with whole-body SM (P < 0.001). Independent of sex, the thigh SM measures derived from a single image (men: R² = 0.77, SEE = 6.5%; women: R² = 0.79, SEE = 7.4%) or a series of 7 consecutive images (men: R² = 0.84, SEE = 5.4%; women: R² = 0.90, SEE = 5.1%) were stronger correlates of whole-body SM with smaller SEE values than were the abdominal SM measures (P < 0.01). However, SM in the abdomen was also a strong marker of whole-body SM, whether determined from a single image at the L4-L5 level (men: R² = 0.63, SEE = 8.2%; women: R² = 0.58, SEE = 10.4%) or from a series of images across the abdomen (men: R² = 0.77, SEE = 6.5%; women: R² = 0.70, SEE = 8.7%).

Conclusion: Although thigh measures of SM are better predictors of whole-body SM, a single image within the abdomen routinely used to estimate abdominal fat may also be a useful marker of whole-body SM.

Key Words: Magnetic resonance imaging • body composition • computed tomography

This article has been cited by other articles:

				C. A. Allan, B. J. G. Strauss, H. G. Burger, E. A. Forbes, and R. I. McLachlan Testosterone Therapy Prevents Gain in Visceral Adipose Tissue and Loss of Skeletal Muscle in Nonobese Aging Men J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., January 1, 2008; 93(1): 139 - 146. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]