European Journal of Applied Physiology

, Volume 118, Issue 11, pp 2359–2366 | Cite as

Differences in elbow extensor muscle characteristics between resistance-trained men and women

  • Justin J. Merrigan
  • Jason B. White
  • Y. Eliot Hu
  • Jason D. Stone
  • Jonathan M. Oliver
  • Margaret T. JonesEmail author
Original Article



Muscular strength is suggested to be dependent upon muscle characteristics. Yet, sex-specific relationships of muscle characteristics to strength in the resistance-trained require investigation. Therefore, the purpose was to evaluate sex differences in muscle characteristics and isometric strength in the elbow extensors, as well as their respective associations.


Resistance-trained men (n = 15, mean ± SD 22 ± 4 years, 87.5 ± 12.8 kg, 16.9 ± 2.9% body fat) and women (n = 15, mean ± SD 25 ± 5 years, 59.3 ± 7.3 kg, 22.4 ± 4.2% body fat) were tested. B-mode ultrasound images assessed muscle thickness, pennation angle, and echo intensity. Muscle volume and fascicle length were estimated from previously validated equations. Maximal voluntary isometric contraction measured elbow extensors isometric strength. Independent samples t-tests and Fisher’s r-to-z test examined differences between sexes.


Sex differences existed in all muscle characteristics (p < 0.05). Men’s absolute strength (27.86 ± 3.55 kg) was significantly greater than women (16.15 ± 3.15 kg), but no differences were noted when controlling for muscle volume (men 0.069 ± 0.017, women 0.077 ± 0.022 kg/cm3). Sex differences did not exist in the relationships of muscle characteristics to strength with muscle size having the largest correlations. However, the relationship between echo intensity and body fat was different in men (r = − 0.311) and women (r = 0.541, p = 0.0143).


Sex differences in isometric elbow extensor strength are eliminated when expressed relative to muscle volume. Relationships of echo intensity and body fat were different between men and women and may be indicative of greater adipose infiltration in women.


Echo intensity Gender MVIC Strength Ultrasound 



Echo intensity


Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry


Fascicle length


Lean body mass


Limb length


Muscle thickness


Muscle volume


Pennation angle


Ultrasound imaging



There was no funding received for this work, nor relationships with companies or manufacturers who will benefit from the results of this study.

Author contributions

JM and MJ conceived and designed research. JM, JW, and EH conducted experiments. JO, JW, and JS analyzed data. JM, MJ, JW wrote the manuscript. All authors read and approved the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interest.


  1. Abe T, Brechue WF, Fujita S, Brown JB (1998) Gender differences in FFM accumulation and architectural characteristics of muscle. Med Sci Sports Exerc 30(7):1066–1070. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arts IMP, Pillen S, Schelhaas HJ et al (2010) Normal values for quantitative muscle ultrasonography in adults. Muscle Nerve 41:32–41. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bolsterlee B, Gandevia SC, Herbert RD (2016) Effect of transducer orientation on errors in ultrasound image-based measurements of human medial gastrocnemius muscle fascicle length and pennation. PLoS One 11:e0157273. PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Caresio C, Molinari F, Emanuel G, Minetto MA (2015) Muscle echo intensity: reliability and conditioning factors. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging 35:393–403. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Lawrence Earlbaum Associates. HilsdaleGoogle Scholar
  6. Delmonico MJ, Harris TB, Visser M et al (2009) Longitudinal study of muscle strength, quality, and adipose tissue infiltration. Am J Clin Nutr 90:1579–1585. PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dudley GA, Harris RT, Duvoisin MR et al (1990) Effect of voluntary vs. artificial activation on the relationship of muscle torque to speed. J Appl Physiol 69:2215–2221PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ema R, Wakahara T, Mogi Y et al (2013) In vivo measurement of human rectus femoris architecture by ultrasonography: validity and applicability. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging 33:267–273. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fukumoto Y, Ikezoe T, Tateuchi H et al (2012a) Muscle mass and composition of the hip, thigh and abdominal muscles in women with and without hip osteoarthritis. Ultrasound Med Biol 38:1540–1545. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fukumoto Y, Ikezoe T, Yamada Y et al (2012b) Skeletal muscle quality assessed from echo intensity is associated with muscle strength of middle-aged and elderly persons. Eur J Appl Physiol 112:1519–1525PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fukunaga T, Kawakami Y, Kuno S et al (1997) Muscle architecture and function in humans. J Biomech 30:457–463. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fukunaga T, Miyatani M, Tachi M et al (2001) Muscle volume is a major determinant of joint torque in humans. Acta Physiol Scand 172:249–255PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fukutani A, Kurihara T (2015) Comparison of the muscle fascicle length between resistance-trained and untrained individuals: cross-sectional observation. SpringerPlus. PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Haizlip KM, Harrison BC, Leinwand LA (2015) Sex-based differences in skeletal muscle kinetics and fiber-type composition. Physiology 30:30–39. PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ichinose Y, Kanehisa H, Ito M et al (1998) Morphological and functional differences in the elbow extensor muscle between highly trained male and female athletes. Eur J Appl Physiol 78:109–114. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ikegawa S, Funato K, Tsunoda N et al (2008) Muscle force per cross-sectional area is inversely related with pennation angle in strength trained athletes. J Strength Cond Res 22:128–131PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ivey FM, Tracy BL, Lemmer JT et al (2000) Effects of strength training and detraining on muscle quality age and gender comparisons. J Gerontol Ser A 55:B152–B157. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kawakami Y, Abe T, Fukunaga T (1993) Muscle-fiber pennation angles are greater in hypertrophied than in normal muscles. J Appl Physiol Bethesda Md 1985 74:2740–2744Google Scholar
  19. Kawakami Y, Abe T, Kuno S-Y, Fukunaga T (1995) Training-induced changes in muscle architecture and specific tension. Eur J Appl Physiol 72:37–43. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kawakami Y, Abe T, Kanehisa H, Fukunaga T (2006) Human skeletal muscle size and architecture: Variability and interdependence. Am J Hum Biol 18:845–848. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kubo K, Kanehisa H, Azuma K et al (2003) Muscle architectural characteristics in young and elderly men and women. Int J Sports Med 24:125–130. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Liu G, Li J, Zhou H et al (2016) A simple way to improve the relative and absolute reliability of handheld dynamometer measurements using learners. Int J Clin Exp Med 9:199–208Google Scholar
  23. Manal K, Roberts DP, Buchanan TS (2006) Optimal pennation angle of the primary ankle plantar and dorsiflexors: variations with sex, contraction intensity, and limb. J Appl Biomech 22:255–263PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Miller AE, MacDougall JD, Tarnopolsky MA, Sale DG (1993) Gender differences in strength and muscle fiber characteristics. Eur J Appl Physiol 66:254–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Miyaguchi K, Demura S (2009) Gender difference in ability using the stretch-shortening cycle in the upper extremities. J Strength Cond Res 23:231–236PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Miyatani M (2004) The accuracy of volume estimates using ultrasound muscle thickness measurements in different muscle groups. Eur J Appl Physiol 91:264–272. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Muraki S, Fukumoto K, Fukuda O (2013) Prediction of the muscle strength by the muscle thickness and hardness using ultrasound muscle hardness meter. SpringerPlus 2:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nana A, Slater GJ, Stewart AD, Burke LM (2015) Methodology review: using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) for the assessment of body composition in athletes and active people. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab 25:198–215. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ogasawara R, Thiebaud RS, Loenneke JP et al (2012) Time course for arm and chest muscle thickness changes following bench press training. Interv Med Appl Sci 4:217–220. PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pillen S, Tak RO, Zwarts MJ et al (2009) Skeletal muscle ultrasound: correlation between fibrous tissue and echo intensity. Ultrasound Med Biol 35:443–446. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rech A, Radaelli R, Goltz FR et al (2014) Echo intensity is negatively associated with functional capacity in older women. AGE. PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Trexler ET, Smith-Ryan AE, Roelofs EJ, Hirsch KR (2015) Body composition, muscle quality, and scoliosis in female collegiate gymnasts. Int J Sports Med 36:1087. PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Watanabe Y, Yamada Y, Fukumoto et al (2013) Echo intensity obtained from ultrasonography images reflecting muscle strength in elderly men. Clin Interv Aging. PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Weeks BK, Gerrits TA, Horan SA, Beck BR (2016) Muscle size not density predicts variance in muscle strength and neuromuscular performance in healthy adult men and women. J Strength Cond Res 30:1577–1584PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Health and Human PerformanceGeorge Mason UniversityManassasUSA
  2. 2.Center for Sports PerformanceGeorge Mason UniversityFairfaxUSA
  3. 3.Exercise and Sport Performance LaboratoryTexas Christian UniversityFort WorthUSA

Personalised recommendations