Comparative Analysis of B-Mode Ultrasound, Thigh Circumference, and Skinfold and Thigh-Circumference Based Cross-Sectional Area Measurements for Detecting Resistance Training-Induced Muscle Size Changes

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the changes in muscle mass resulting from resistance training using B-mode ultrasound, circumference measurement, and circumference-based estimation of cross-sectional area, as well as to determine the predictive value of these three measurement methods for muscle mass changes. Thirty-five young males (age: 22.14±1.37 years, body weight: 76.37±8.38 kg, height: 178.89±6.35 cm, body mass index: 23.88±2.52) with experience in resistance training and currently engaged in resistance training voluntarily participated in the study. The quadriceps muscle thickness of the participants was measured using B-mode ultrasonography, thigh circumference was measured using a measuring tape, and quadriceps skinfold thickness was measured with a caliper at the thickest point (50%). The findings obtained demonstrated that following a 20-session resistance training program, B-mode ultrasonography, thigh circumference measurement, skinfold, and circumference-based estimation of cross-sectional area (CSA) could similarly detect the changes occurring in muscle mass (p< 0.05). The average percentage change was 23.7% for ultrasonography, 2.6% for thigh circumference, and 2.8% for skinfold and circumference-based estimation of cross-sectional area (CSA). Correlation analysis of the average differences obtained from the three measurement methods revealed a high positive relationship between circumference measurement and skinfold-circumference-based CSA (r = 0.826, p < 0.001). In conclusion, it can be stated that changes in muscle mass resulting from resistance training can be detected similarly through anthropometric measurements and ultrasonography. However, the magnitude of muscle mass change may vary depending on the measurement method used. Therefore, when comparing the increase in muscle mass across different resistance training interventions, the measurement methods should be taken into consideration.

Keywords

• Ultrasonography
• Circumference Measurement
• Muscle Mass
• Resistance Training
• Muscle Hypertrophy

Direnç Antrenmanı Kaynaklı Kas Kütlesi Değişikliklerini Tespit Etmek İçin B-Mod Ultrason, Uyluk Çevresi ve Skinfold ve Uyluk Çevresine Dayalı Enine Kesit Alanı Ölçümlerinin Karşılaştırmalı Analizi

Abstract

Bu araştırmanın amacı, direnç antrenmanı kaynaklı ortaya çıkan kas kütlesindeki değişimin B-mod ultrason, çevre ölçümü, skinfold ve çevre ölçümüne dayalı enine kesit alanı kestirimi ile değerlendirilmesi ve üç ölçüm yönteminin kas kütlesindeki değişime ilişkin belirleyiciliğini ortaya koymaktır. Araştırmaya direnç antrenmanı tecrübesi olan ve direnç antrenmanına devam eden 35 genç erkek (yaş: 22.14±1.37 yıl, vücut ağırlığı: 76.37±8.38 kg, boy uzunluğu: 178.89±6.35 cm, vücut kitle indeksi: 23.88±2.52) gönüllü olarak katılmıştır. Katılımcıların kuadriceps kas kalınlığı B-mod ultrasonografi, uyluk çevresi mezura, kuadriceps deri kıvrım kalınlığı ise kaliper aracılığı ile en kalın noktadan (%50) ölçülmüştür. Elde edilen bulgular, 20 seanslık direnç antrenmanı sonucunda, B-mod ultrasonografi, uyluk çevresi ölçümü, skinfold ve çevre ölçümüne dayalı enine kesit alanı (EKA) kestiriminin kas kütlesinde meydana gelen değişimi benzer şekilde tesptit edebildiğini göstermiştir (p< 0.05). Ortalama değişim %’si ultrasonografi için %23,7, uyluk çevresi için %2,6, skinfold ve çevreye dayalı EKA için %2,8’dir. Üç ölçüm yöntemi ile elde edilen ortalama farkın korelasyon analizi çevre ölçümü ve skinfold-çevre ölçümüne dayalı EKA arasında yüksek düzeyde pozitif bir ilişki olduğunu göstermiştir (r= 0.826, p<0.001). Sonuç olarak, direnç antrenmanı kaynaklı kas kütlesindeki değişimin, antropometrik ölçümler ve ultrasonografi ile benzer şekilde tespit edilebildiği söylenebilir. Ancak kas kütlesindeki değişim büyüklüğü ölçüm yöntemine göre farklılık gösterebilir, farklı direnç antrenmanlarının kas kütlesindeki artışına yönelik karşılaştırmalar yapılırken ölçüm yöntemleri göz önünde bulundurulmalıdır.

Keywords

• Ultrasonografi
• Çevre Ölçümü
• Kas Kütlesi
• Direnç Antrenmanı
• Kas Hipertrofisi

References

1. Atkinson, G., & Nevill, A. M. (1998). Statistical methods for assessing measurement error (reliability) in variables relevant to sports medicine. Sports Medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 26(4), 217–238. https://doi.org/10.2165/00007256-199826040-00002
2. Bemben, M.G., Sato, Y., & Abe, T. (2005). The use of anthropometry for assessing muscle size. International Journal of Kaatsu Training Research, 1, 33-36.
3. Budzynski-Seymour, E, Fisher, J, Giessing,J, Genil,P, and Steele,J. (2019). Relationship and comparative reliability of ultrasound derived measures of upper and lower limb muscle thickness, and estimates of muscle area from anthropometric measures.
4. Chen, B. B., Shih, T. T., Hsu, C. Y., Yu, C. W., Wei, S. Y., Chen, C. Y., Wu, C. H., & Chen, C. Y. (2011). Thigh muscle volume predicted by anthropometric measurements and correlated with physical function in the older adults. The Journal of Nutrition, Health & Aging, 15(6), 433–438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12603-010-0281-9
5. de Koning, F. L., Binkhorst, R. A., Kauer, J. M., & Thijssen, H. O. (1986). Accuracy of an anthropometric estimate of the muscle and bone area in a transversal cross-section of the arm. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 7(5), 246–249. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2008-1025768
6. Doxey G. (1987). The association of anthropometric measurements of thigh size and b-mode ultrasound scanning of muscle Thickness. The Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy, 8(9), 462–468. https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.1987.8.9.462
7. Franchi, M. V., Longo, S., Mallinson, J., Quinlan, J. I., Taylor, T., Greenhaff, P. L., & Narici, M. V. (2018). Muscle thickness correlates to muscle cross-sectional area in the assessment of strength training-induced hypertrophy. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 28(3), 846–853. https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.12961
8. Frontera, W. R., & Ochala, J. (2015). Skeletal muscle: A brief review of structure and function. Calcified Tissue International, 96(3), 183–195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00223-014-9915-y

9. Gentil, P., Arruda, A., Souza, D., Giessing, J., Paoli, A., Fisher, J., & Steele, J. (2017). Is there any practical application of meta-analytical results in strength training?. Frontiers in Pphysiology, 8, 1. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2017.00001
10. Gentil, P., Budzynski-Seymour, E., Souza, D., Steele, J., Fisher, J. P., & Bottaro, M. (2020). Evaluating the results of resistance training using ultrasound or flexed arm circumference: A case for keeping it simple?. Journal of Clinical and Translational Research, 7(6), 61–65.
11. Housh, D. J., Housh, T. J., Weir, J. P., Weir, L. L., Johnson, G. O., & Stout, J. R. (1995). Anthropometric estimation of thigh muscle cross-sectional area. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 27(5), 784–791.
12. Jelliffe, D. B, & Jelliffe, E. F. P. (1969). The arm circumference as a public health index of protein-calorie malnutrition in early childhood. Current conclusions, Journal of Tropical Pediatrics, 15, 253.
13. Koo, T. K., & Li, M. Y. (2016). A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 15(2), 155–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012
14. Kuehne, T. E., Yitzchaki, N., Jessee, M. B., Graves, B. S., & Buckner, S. L. (2019). A comparison of acute changes in muscle thickness between A-mode and B-mode ultrasound. Physiological Measurement, 40(11), 115004. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6579/ab4f14
15. Loenneke, J. P., Dankel, S. J., Bell, Z. W., Spitz, R. W., Abe, T., & Yasuda, T. (2019). Ultrasound and MRI measured changes in muscle mass gives different estimates but similar conclusions: a Bayesian approach. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 73(8), 1203–1205. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41430-019-0431-z
16. McGlory, C., & Phillips, S. M. (2015). Exercise and the regulation of skeletal muscle hypertrophy. Progress in Molecular Biology and Translational Science, 135, 153–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.pmbts.2015.06.018
17. Ogasawara, R., Thiebaud, R. S., Loenneke, J. P., Loftin, M., & Abe, T. (2012). Time course for arm and chest muscle thickness changes following bench press training. Interventional Medicine & Applied Science, 4(4), 217–220. https://doi.org/10.1556/IMAS.4.2012.4.7
18. Papageorgiou S. N. (2022). On correlation coefficients and their interpretation. Journal of Orthodontics, 49(3), 359–361
19. Quiñonez-Olivas, C. G., Salinas-Martínez, R., Ortiz-Jiménez, X. A., Gámez-Treviño, D. G., Guajardo-Álvarez, G., & González-García, B. (2016). Muscle mass measured using bioelectrical impedance analysis, calf circumference and grip strength in older adults. Medicina Universitaria, 18(72), 158-162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmu.2016.06.005
20. Rolland, Y., Lauwers-Cances, V., Cournot, M., Nourhashémi, F., Reynish, W., Rivière, D., Vellas, B., & Grandjean, H. (2003). Sarcopenia, calf circumference, and physical function of elderly women: a cross-sectional study. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 51(8), 1120–1124. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1532-5415.2003.51362.x
21. Weisscher, N., de Haan, R. J., & Vermeulen, M. (2007). The impact of disease-related impairments on disability and health-related quality of life: a systematic review. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 7, 24.
22. Wolfe R. R. (2006). The underappreciated role of muscle in health and disease. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 84(3), 475–482. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/84.3.475