Kazuya Yashiro

Deterioration of muscle function after 21-day forearm immobilization.

PURPOSE Although it is well known that immobilization causes muscle atrophy, most immobilization models have examined lower limbs, and little is known about the forearm. The purpose of this study was to determine whether forearm immobilization produces changes in muscle morphology and function. METHODS Six healthy males (age: 21.5 +/- 1.4, mean +/- SD) participated in this study. The nondominant arm was immobilized with a cast (CAST) for 21 d, and the dominant arm was measured as the control (CONT). The forearm cross-sectional area (CSA) and circumference were measured as muscle morphology. Maximum grip strength, forearm muscle oxidative capacity, and dynamic grip endurance were measured as muscle function. Magnetic resonance (MR) imaging was used to measure CSA, and 31phosphorus MR spectroscopy was used to measure time constant (Tc) for phosphocreatine (PCr) recovery after submaximal exercise (PCr-Tc). Grip endurance was expressed by the number of handgrip contractions at 30% maximum grip strength load. All measurements were taken before and after the immobilization. RESULTS After the 21-d forearm immobilization, no changes were seen for each measurement in CONT. CSA and the circumference showed no significant changes in CAST. However, maximum grip strength decreased by 18% (P < 0.05), PCr-Tc was prolonged by 45% (P < 0.05), and the grip endurance at the absolute load was reduced by 19% (P < 0.05) for CAST. CONCLUSION In this model, 21-d forearm immobilization caused no significant changes in forearm muscle morphology, but the muscle function showed remarkable deterioration ranging from 18 to 45%.

Muscle cross-sectional areas and performance power of limbs and trunk in the rowing motion

Although it is clear that rowers have a large muscle mass, their distribution of muscle mass and which of the main motions in rowing mediates muscle hypertrophy in each body part are unclear. We examine the relationships between partial motion power in rowing and muscle cross-sectional area of the thigh, lower back, and upper arms. Sixty young rowers (39 males and 21 females) participated in the study. Joint positions and forces were measured by video cameras and rowing ergometer software, respectively. One-dimensional motion analysis was performed to calculate the power of leg drive, trunk swing, and arm pull motions. Muscle cross-sectional areas were measured using magnetic resonance imaging. Multiple regression analyses were carried out to determine the association of different muscle cross-sectional areas with partial motion power. The anterior thigh best explained the power demonstrated by leg drive (r 2 = 0.508), the posterior thigh and lower back combined best explained the power demonstrated by the trunk swing (r 2 = 0.493), and the elbow extensors best explained the power demonstrated by the arm pull (r 2 = 0.195). Other correlations, such as arm muscles with leg drive power (r 2 = 0.424) and anterior thigh with trunk swing power (r 2 = 0.335), were also significant. All muscle cross-sectional areas were associated with rowing performance either through the production of power or by transmitting work. The results imply that rowing motion requires a well-balanced distribution of muscle mass throughout the body.