Dear Label_Name,

Greetings! I hope you are well.

I am writing on behalf of an international publishing house, Science and Education Publishing, USA (http://www.sciepub.com).

Science and Education Publishing (SciEP) is a multidisciplinary open access publisher of Journals covering the fields of Science, Technology and Medicine. All SciEP publications are subject to high-quality peer review, editorial and production processes and are freely available online.

Welcome to the April, 2013 edition of SciEP newsletter, providing monthly summaries of articles on science & education related topics of interest to scientist and professionals. The mission of our journals is to provide an open access forum for publishing new findings on issues pertinent to scientific and academic field. We also invite you to submit original research papers, review articles, short reports, or case studies are considered for publication in our Multidisciplinary Journals.

American Journal of Public Health Research
DOI: 10.12691/ajphr-1-1-3

The Implementation of a Tele-Homecare System with Service Oriented Architecture and HL7 Message Transmission Standard
Ching-Sung Wang

American Journal of Medical and Biological Research
DOI: 10.12691/ajmbr-1-1-2

The Influence of Ethanol on Pyruvate Kinases Activity in Vivo, in Vitro, in Silico
Lelevich Sergey Vladimirovich, Khrustalev Vladislav Victorovich, Barkovsky Eugene Victorovich, Shedogubova Tatyana Aleksandrovna

American Journal of Medical Sciences and Medicine
DOI: 10.12691/ajmsm-1-1-1

Clinical and Histological Features in Wegener Granulomatosis
Li Cavoli Gioacchino, Passantino Rita, Bono Luisa, Tortorici Calogera, Ferrantelli Angelo, Giammarresi Carlo, Rotolo Ugo

American Journal of Infectious Diseases and Microbiology
DOI: 10.12691/ajidm-1-1-2

The Curse of Lymphatic Filariasis: Would the Continual Use of Diethylcarbamazine Eliminate this Scourge in Papua New Guinea?
Anne Lanham, Lillian Mwanri

We have released issues of some journals on February 2013.
American Journal of Public Health Research
American Journal of Medical Sciences and Medicine
American Journal of Medical and Biological Research
American Journal of Pharmacological Sciences
American Journal of Clinical Medicine Research
American Journal of Nursing Research
American Journal of Cancer Prevention
American Journal of Medicine Studies
American Journal of Infectious Diseases and Microbiology
American Journal of Cardiovascular Disease Research
American Journal of Biomedical Research
American Journal of Mechanical Engineering
American Journal of Microbiological Research
Journal of Preventive Medicine
American Journal of Food and Nutrition
American Journal of Hypertension Research
American Journal of Sports Science and Medicine
Journal of Cancer Research and Treatment
American Journal of Zoological Research
Journal of Biomedical Engineering and Technology
American Journal of Microbiological Research
Biomedical Science and Engineering

We are pleased to announce that submissions are now being accepted for peer review for all the journals across all our subject areas in SciEP.

Please submit your manuscript via our online submission system:
http://www.sciepub.com/author/signin

To unsubscribe from our mailing list, please click on the following link: unsubscribe

I am looking forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards,

David Rain
Email:join@sciepub.com
Science and Education Publishing (http://www.sciepub.com)

Label_Title

Dear Label_Name,

Greetings! I hope you are well.

I am writing on behalf of an international publishing house, Science and Education Publishing, USA (http://www.sciepub.com).

Science and Education Publishing (SciEP) is a multidisciplinary open access publisher of Journals covering the fields of Science, Technology and Medicine. All SciEP publications are subject to high-quality peer review, editorial and production processes and are freely available online.

Welcome to the April, 2013 edition of SciEP newsletter, providing monthly summaries of articles on science & education related topics of interest to scientist and professionals. The mission of our journals is to provide an open access forum for publishing new findings on issues pertinent to scientific and academic field. We also invite you to submit original research papers, review articles, short reports, or case studies are considered for publication in our Multidisciplinary Journals.

American Journal of Public Health Research
DOI: 10.12691/ajphr-1-1-3

The Implementation of a Tele-Homecare System with Service Oriented Architecture and HL7 Message Transmission Standard
Ching-Sung Wang

American Journal of Medical and Biological Research
DOI: 10.12691/ajmbr-1-1-2

The Influence of Ethanol on Pyruvate Kinases Activity in Vivo, in Vitro, in Silico
Lelevich Sergey Vladimirovich, Khrustalev Vladislav Victorovich, Barkovsky Eugene Victorovich, Shedogubova Tatyana Aleksandrovna

American Journal of Medical Sciences and Medicine
DOI: 10.12691/ajmsm-1-1-1

Clinical and Histological Features in Wegener Granulomatosis
Li Cavoli Gioacchino, Passantino Rita, Bono Luisa, Tortorici Calogera, Ferrantelli Angelo, Giammarresi Carlo, Rotolo Ugo

American Journal of Infectious Diseases and Microbiology
DOI: 10.12691/ajidm-1-1-2

The Curse of Lymphatic Filariasis: Would the Continual Use of Diethylcarbamazine Eliminate this Scourge in Papua New Guinea?
Anne Lanham, Lillian Mwanri

We have released issues of some journals on February 2013.
American Journal of Public Health Research
American Journal of Medical Sciences and Medicine
American Journal of Medical and Biological Research
American Journal of Pharmacological Sciences
American Journal of Clinical Medicine Research
American Journal of Nursing Research
American Journal of Cancer Prevention
American Journal of Medicine Studies
American Journal of Infectious Diseases and Microbiology
American Journal of Cardiovascular Disease Research
American Journal of Biomedical Research
American Journal of Mechanical Engineering
American Journal of Microbiological Research
Journal of Preventive Medicine
American Journal of Food and Nutrition
American Journal of Hypertension Research
American Journal of Sports Science and Medicine
Journal of Cancer Research and Treatment
American Journal of Zoological Research
Journal of Biomedical Engineering and Technology
American Journal of Microbiological Research
Biomedical Science and Engineering

We are pleased to announce that submissions are now being accepted for peer review for all the journals across all our subject areas in SciEP.

Please submit your manuscript via our online submission system:
http://www.sciepub.com/author/signin

To unsubscribe from our mailing list, please click on the following link: unsubscribe

I am looking forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards,

David Rain
Email:join@sciepub.com
Science and Education Publishing (http://www.sciepub.com)

Allometric Scaling of Maximal Strength Performance in Physically Active College-Aged Males: Removing the Effects of Body Weight

Peter D. Hart

Health Promotion Research, Havre, Montana, USA

Abstract: Background: Anytime a trend or correlation is observed between fitness scores and the size of the participating individuals, it is possible that body weight (BW) is confounding the performance. A common method employed to correct this bias is ratio scaling (i.e., dividing the score by BW). However, another method, allometric scaling, may be more accurate in partitioning out BW effects from performance scores. The purpose of this study was two-fold. First, to compare the results of ratio scaling and allometric scaling in removing the effects of BW from maximal strength scores. Second, to validate the scaled strength scores by examining their differences across groups of varying BW. Methods: A cross-sectional convenience sample of N = 80 traditional male college students ages 18 to 24 years was used in the analysis. Four different maximal strength tests were administered including hand grip strength (GS), 1RM bench press (BP), 1RM leg press (LP), and vertical jump (VJ). Body measures of height, BW, BMI, and WC were collected using standardized procedures. Scaling was performed using the following general calculation: MS/BWb, where MS is the maximum strength score and b the scaling exponent for BW. An exponent of 1.0 was used for ratio scaling. The fit BW coefficients from log-log regression models supplied the exponents for allometric scaling. Pearson correlations were utilized to examine the relationships between body measures and scaled strength scores. ANOVA was used to examine differences in scaled strength scores across BW tertile groups. Results: Mean age of the sample was 20.5 ± 1.6 yr with mean BMI, GS, BP, LP, and VJ of 27.5 ± 4.7 kg/m², 54.2 ± 8.6 kg, 230.3 ± 63.8 lb, 582.4 ± 159.5 lb, and 23.7 ± 4.3 in, respectively. BW, BMI, and WC were significantly related to BP, LP, and VJ. Body measures were not related to GS. Ratio scaling increased the dependence between the body measures and maximal strength scores. Allometric scaling removed the effects of all body measures from maximal strength scores except for a weak association between height and LP. ANOVA models indicated no significant differences across BW tertile groups for the four allometric scaled maximum strength scores. Conclusion: Results from this study indicate that ratio scaling is a poor method for removing BW from maximal strength scores in traditional college-aged males. Allometric scaling for BW however adequately removed the effects of BW, BMI, and WC from maximal strength scores. Finally, GS does not appear to be dependent on body measures in this population.

Keywords: allometry, scaling, measurement, evaluation, muscular strength

Received July 13, 2024; Revised August 14, 2024; Accepted August 21, 2024

Citation: Peter D. Hart, Allometric Scaling of Maximal Strength Performance in Physically Active College-Aged Males: Removing the Effects of Body Weight. Journal of Physical Activity Research, 9 (1). 14-19. January 2024. doi:10.12691/jpar-9-1-3

1. Introduction

Many human performance assessments are influenced by the participant’s body weight (BW) [1,2,3,4]. An extreme example is the performance difference in many fitness tests between children and adults [5]. A less obvious example is the negative relationship often seen between cardiorespiratory fitness and BW or body mass index (BMI) [6,7]. Similarly, positive relationships involving BW and lean mass are often observed with muscular strength tests [8].

From an absolute performance perspective, these BW-related differences are valid. That is, a larger individual deserves credit and should be ranked higher if they indeed outperform a smaller counterpart on a muscular strength test. However, from a fitness evaluation perspective, a smaller individual should not necessarily be ranked lower than a larger counterpart because of absolute strength differences. This is the case because when an exercise professional administers a fitness test, they intend to measure and evaluate a specific trait - not an unwanted body measure masked as a fitness trait. A simple analogy is a math test with only word problems where performance may favor students with superior reading skills. Therefore, removing the effect that BW has on a performance test will allow for an independent evaluation of that specific fitness trait.

The concept of removing body size effects from physical tests is called ‘scaling’ (or normalizing) and several different scaling techniques have been used on fitness scores [9]. One of the more commonly applied techniques is called ‘ratio scaling’ where a fitness score is simply divided by the participant’s BW. Relative measures of both maximal oxygen consumption (VO2max, ml/kg/min) and one-repetition maximum lifts (1RM, lb/kg) are common in field, research, and labs [10,11]. Despite its widespread use, ratio scaling often lacks certain properties for scores to be valid. Specifically, the relationship between a fitness score of interest and BW must be perfectly linear, proportional, with a zero intercept [12,13,14]. That is, the fitness score divided by BW must always yield a constant proportion. Departures from this property will systematically lower a ratio-scaled fitness score for larger participants and systematically inflate scores for their smaller counterparts [9]. Furthermore, the new ratio scaled fitness variable often remains correlated with BW, defeating the initial scaling purpose.

Another scaling technique proposed for fitness scores is residualized scaling using regression [15]. With this technique, the fitness scores of interest are regressed onto BW and the differences between raw scores and predicted scores from the model serve as the new scaled score. Although this method is intuitive in that it does provide a new partialized fitness variable independent of BW, it also requires the assumptions of linear regression, creates obscure looking scores, and may not be a simple procedure for all fitness practitioners to employ.

Allometric scaling, however, is a technique that often satisfies the above-mentioned shortcomings [16]. In brief, allometric scaling is accomplished by the following steps: 1) log transform the fitness score and BW variables, 2) perform linear regression using the log fitness scores as the dependent variable and log BW as the predictor variable (i.e., linearize the relationship), 3) raise the raw BW variable to a power of the fit log BW coefficient (b) (i.e., define the power function), 4) finally divide the original fitness score by the power function (i.e., compute a power function ratio). This allometric scaling procedure provides a new scaled fitness score that better models a nonlinear association, satisfies the proportional relationship requirement, and, most importantly, removes the effect of BW [9,16].

Data examining scaled maximal strength scores in specific populations like college-aged males are sparse. The purpose of this study was two-fold. First, to compare results of ratio scaling and allometric scaling in removing the effects of BW from maximal strength scores. Second, to validate the scaled strength scores by examining their differences across groups of varying BW.

2. Methods

Study design

This study was a secondary analysis of a larger campus-based fitness dataset [17]. It included a convenience sample of college students that assessed across the five components health-related fitness. Participants were included in the current study if they were male of traditional college age (i.e., 18 to 24 years), had complete muscular strength and anthropometric data, and were generally physically active. Students were initially recruited using public flyers and word-of-mouth. The university system’s institutional review board (IRB) approved all study methods and procedures.

Scaling

Scaling was performed using the following general calculation: MS/BWb, where MS is the maximum strength score and b the scaling exponent for BW. The fit BW coefficients from log-log regression models supplied the exponents for allometric scaling (MSAS). The general log-log regression equation is as follows:

.

The power (allometric) function is then:

.

The constant a in the multiplicative power function describes the rate of change. i.e., the rate of increase or decrease of the curve. The b parameter in the power function describes the shape of the curve. When the b exponent is positive (‘+’) the curve is concave up and increasing and when negative (‘-‘) the curve is concave down and decreasing. When values of b are between 0 and 1 exclusive the curve is concave down and increasing and when between -1 and 0 exclusive the curve is concave up and decreasing. Finally, an exponent of 1.0 was used for ratio scaling (MSRS). Note that an exponent of 0.0 is equivalent to a ratio-scaled denominator of 1.0. That is, no scaling of the MS score.

Maximal strength performance

Four different field-based fitness tests were administered for maximal strength performance. These tests included: hand grip strength (GS) [18], 1RM bench press (BP) [19], 1RM leg press (LP) [19], and vertical jump (VJ) [20]. Both BP and LP were measured in pounds (lb), GS measured in kilograms (kg), and VJ measured in inches (in). BP was assessed by the heaviest load successfully lifted. BP procedure included lowering and raising the bar slowly with a closed pronated grip wider than shoulder width while ensuring the 5-points of contact [18]. LP was assessed by the heaviest load successfully pushed. LP procedure included lowering the load on a seated leg press machine (hip sled) until thighs parallel to the foot platform and raising until the knees completely extended [18]. GS was assessed with subject squeezing as forcefully as possible using a hand grip dynamometer (Camry, Model: ‎EH101). The dynamometer was placed in the participant’s dominant hand with elbow extended and arm to the side next to the hip [19]. VJ was assessed as the difference between two chalked finger marks on a wall. A standing mark was made with dominant arm raised upward and body to the side of a wall. A jumping mark was made after forcefully jumping upward without stepping [20]. VJ was considered a measure of maximal explosive strength in this study.

Body measures

Body measures for this study were assessed on the same lab visit with two measurements recorded for each in rotational order and then averaged, unless large differences noted. Height was assessed using a wall mounted stadiometer (Seca, Model: 216) to the nearest 0.5 cm. BW was assessed with a digital floor scale (Seca, Model: 803) to the nearest 0.1 kg. BMI (kg/m²) was computed as a calculation of weight (kg) divided by height in meters (m) squared (m²) [21]. Waist circumference (WC) was assessed to the nearest 0.5 cm using an elastic tape and measuring the narrowest point between the participant’s umbilicus and xiphoid process [22].

Statistical analyses

Descriptive statistics were computed to describe the sample and study variables. Histograms were inspected to judge normality and identify outliers. Pearson correlations (r) were utilized to examine the relationships of body measures with unscaled and scaled strength scores. Since the sample size was the same for all analyses, N = 80, a critical value of r was obtained where |r| > rcv of .220 was considered significant at a two-tailed α of .05.

Least squares linear regression was used on log transformed variables (i.e., log-log regression) with the strength scores as the dependent variable and BW as the predictor. The fit BW coefficients from the regression models supplied the exponents for allometric scaling. Standard errors (SE) and confidence intervals (CI) were used to examine the significance of the power exponents as well as indirectly test the exponents for unscaled and ratio-scaled scenarios.

Finally, to validate the strength scores, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to examine differences in unscaled and scaled means across BW groups. ANOVA models used strength scores that were first converted to T-scores (i.e., Mean = 50, SD = 10) to aid interpretation and comparison. Additionally, BW tertile groups were created where the 1st BW tertile contained the lightest males and the 3rd BW tertile contained the heaviest males. All p-values were reported as two-sided and statistical significance set at p < 0.05.

3. Results

Table 1. Descriptive statistics for the study sample

Table 1 contains descriptive statistics for the sample. Mean age of the participants was 20.5 ± 1.6 yr with mean BMI, GS, BP, LP, and VJ of 27.5 ± 4.7 kg/m2, 54.2 ± 8.6 kg, 230.3 ± 63.8 lb, 582.4 ± 159.5 lb, and 23.7 ± 4.3 in, respectively. All variables had approximate bell-shaped distributions with slight right skewness for BW, BMI, and WC. One participant had a sample Z-score typically considered an outlier (i.e., |Z| > +3.00) for BW (152.7 kg, Z = 3.61), BMI (41.6 kg/m2, Z = 3.01), and WC (122.0 cm, Z = 3.79). Since these body measure values were checked for accuracy, did not excessively skew the distributions, did not alter the results when removed, and subjectively seem reasonable in this population, the participant remained in the analysis.

Table 2. Pearson correlations for body measures and raw unscaled maximum strength scores

Table 2 contains the Pearson correlations for body measures and raw unscaled maximum strength scores. BW, BMI, and WC were each significantly and positively related to BP and LP (rs .241 to .545). Conversely, BW, BMI, and WC were each significantly and negatively related to VJ (rs -.308 to -.424). Body measures were not related to GS and height was not related to any strength score. Table 3 contains the Pearson correlations for body measures and ratio-scaled maximum strength scores. Most noteworthy is that all correlations in this analysis were negative and the majority significant. The exceptions were BMI with BP and LP as well as WC with LP (p > .05).

Table 3. Pearson correlations for body measures and ratio-scaled maximum strength scores

Table 4 displays the power function exponents for BW and associated statistics for allometric scaled maximum strength scores. Power exponents were significantly different from 0.0 for VJ, BP, and LP but not GS. This indicates that GS statistically does not require BW scaling. Power exponents were significantly different from 1.0 for all strength scores, indicating that ratio-scaled strength scores are not statistically useful in removing the effects of BW. Table 5 contains the Pearson correlations for body measures and allometric scaled maximum strength scores. Most noteworthy, no correlations in this table were significant, less height and LPAS (r = -.239), which was considered weak. This indicates that allometric scaling not only removed the effects of BW from the maximal strength scores but also the effects of BMI and WC.

Table 4. Power function exponents for allometric-scaled maximum strength scores using body weight

Table 5. Pearson correlations for body measures and allometric-scaled maximum strength scores

Table 6. Comparison of unscaled maximum strength T-scores across body weight tertiles

Table 6 contains the comparison of unscaled maximum strength T-scores across BW tertiles. Significant differences were observed for VJT, BPT, and LPT across BW tertile groups. Additionally, linear trend tests indicated a positive trend for BPT and LPT and negative trend for VJT. As expected, no differences were observed for GST across BW tertile groups. Table 7 contains the same ANOVA summary statistics for ratio-scaled strength scores. Significant differences were observed for VJRS.T, GSRS.T, and LPRS.T across BW tertile groups. Additionally, all ratio-scaled strength measures trended toward negative associations with BW tertile groups. Table 8, finally, contains the same ANOVA summary statistics for the allometric-scaled strength scores. No significant differences were observed nor significant linear trends found across BW tertile groups in this table.

Table 7. Comparison of ratio-scaled maximum strength T-scores across body weight tertiles

Table 8. Comparison of allometric-scaled maximum strength T-scores across body weight tertiles

4. Discussion

The primary purpose of this study was to compare the results of ratio scaling and allometric scaling in removing the effects of BW from maximal strength scores. Results showed that ratio scaling overall was a poor method for removing these effects. In fact, BW not only remained correlated with ratio-scaled strength scores but changed the direction of associations with BPRS and LPRS. Furthermore, ratio scaling created strong negative correlations between GSRS and all four body measures, which were absent with the raw unscaled GS scores. Finally, ratio scaling of BW created negative correlations with height and each of the four maximal strength tests, which also were absent with the raw scores. In sum then, results from this study confirm that ratio scaling does not remove the effects of BW from maximal strength scores in college-aged males [9]. Moreover, these findings indicate that ratio scaling may result in new strength variables that are more biased than the original unscaled scores.

On the other hand, allometric scaling proved robust in removing the effects of BW from maximal strength scores. Specifically, BW was not significantly correlated with any of the four allometric-scaled strength scores. Additionally, allometric scaling of BW removed the effects of both BMI and WC from the strength scores, which were present in unscaled and ratio-scaled variables. These results underscore the use of allometric scaling as an efficacious means of removing BW bias from maximal strength scores.

Two final notes regarding the primary purpose of this study. The first is that GS was not correlated with BW or any body measure in this population of college-aged males. This was the case with raw unscaled GS as well as allometric-scaled GSAS. This discovery contradicts findings from others [23,24]. Thus, further research may be needed to explore the reasoning behind this lack of association. Nonetheless intuition may suggest that BW is simply not a factor in GS among a relatively physically active and physically fit population of delimited age (i.e., 18 to 24 years). The second is the finding that height became weakly correlated with allometric-scaled LPAS. Although this was the only significant allometric-scaled correlation, there is some theoretical justification. That is, once BW is statistically removed from the allometric-scaled LPAS, some of its remaining variation could be explained by participant height and lower leg length [25,26,27]. Said differently, with BW held constant, those with longer legs might suffer a mechanical disadvantage in LP performance. Even though, the correlation between height and LPAS was weak to the extent of likely causing nominal bias in LP evaluation.

A secondary purpose of this study was to validate the scaled strength scores by examining their differences across groups of varying BW. The logic behind this part of the study was to statistically test if BW-related bias remained in group means from scaled strength scores (i.e., unscaled, ratio-scaled, allometric-scaled). Results from these analyses confirmed previous correlational findings. That is, group means from unscaled and ratio-scaled strength scores suffer from BW-related bias. Additionally, the effects of BW appear to be removed from group means of allometric-scaled strength scores. Once again, BW was not related to unadjusted GS means in college-aged males.

A strength regarding this study is its use of four different maximal strength tests. Having multiple tests should be considered an attribute because, as in psychometric theory, multiple tests are more likely to target the full trait range than single tests [28]. In so doing, different findings were indeed observed for GS that may not otherwise have been found. Another strength regarding this study is the relatively large sample size and delimited population of traditional college-aged males. Having a homogenous sample allows for generalizations tailored to a specific and important population subgroup. Again, the findings regarding GS dispute what many other studies have reported – a finding that may not have otherwise been noticed.

The most important limitation in this study is its use of field tests for the maximal strength scores. Although laboratory tests may have added an improved degree of control over the assessment procedures, the strength tests used in this study are commonly administered and considered valid [29]. A final limitation of this study is the use of BW, as opposed to lean body mass, to adjust for size differences in strength scores. While a measure of lean mass might more accurately remove size differentials, BW is a convenient measure assessed and strongly correlated with lean body mass [30].

5. Conclusions

Results from this study indicate that ratio scaling is a poor method for removing BW from maximal strength scores. In fact, ratio-scaling was found to increase bias in strength scores above that seen from raw unscaled scores. Results also found that allometric scaling for BW adequately removes the effects of BW, BMI, and WC from BP, LP, and VJ scores. The nonlinear power function of allometric scaling also removes BW-related bias from strength score group means. Finally, GS does not appear to be dependent on body measures in traditional college-aged males.

References

[1]   | Mitsionis G, Pakos EE, Stafilas KS, Paschos N, Papakostas T, Beris AE. Normative data on hand grip strength in a Greek adult population. Int Orthop. 2009; 33(3): 713-717.
[2]   | Shozi S, Monyeki MA, Moss SJ, Pienaar C. Relationships between physical activity, body mass index, waist circumference and handgrip strength amongst adults from the North West province, South Africa: The PURE study. Afr J Prim Health Care Fam Med. 2022; 14(1): e1-e11. Published 2022 May 23.
[3]   | Lakoski SG, Barlow CE, Farrell SW, Berry JD, Morrow JR Jr, Haskell WL. Impact of body mass index, physical activity, and other clinical factors on cardiorespiratory fitness (from the Cooper Center longitudinal study). Am J Cardiol. 2011; 108(1): 34-39.
[4]   | Yang J, Christophi CA, Farioli A, et al. Association Between Push-up Exercise Capacity and Future Cardiovascular Events Among Active Adult Men. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(2):e188341. Published 2019 Feb 1. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.8341
[5]   | Kim CR, Jeon YJ, Kim MC, Jeong T, Koo WR. Reference values for hand grip strength in the South Korean population. PLoS One. 2018; 13(4): e0195485. Published 2018 Apr 6.
[6]   | Radovanović S, Kocić S, Gajović G, Radević S, Milosavljević M, Nićiforović J. The impact of body weight on aerobic capacity. Med Glas (Zenica). 2014; 11(1): 204-209.
[7]   | Alahmari KA, Rengaramanujam K, Reddy RS, et al. Cardiorespiratory Fitness as a Correlate of Cardiovascular, Anthropometric, and Physical Risk Factors: Using the Ruffier Test as a Template. Can Respir J. 2020; 2020: 3407345. Published 2020 Sep 8.
[8]   | Cadore E, Pinto RS, Brentano MA, Silva RF, da Silva EM, Spinelli R, Kruel LF. Prediction of one repetition maximum load by total and lean body mass in trained and untrained men. Medicina Sportiva. 2012 Sep 1; 16(3): 111-7.
[9]   | Winter EM, Nevill AM. Ch 11: Scaling: adjusting for differences in body size. In: Eston RG, Reilly T, eds. Kinanthropometry and exercise physiology laboratory manual. 3rd ed. Routledge; 2009: 300-314.
[10]   | Bielik V, Lendvorský L, Vajda M, et al. Comparison of Aerobic and Muscular Power Between Junior/U23 Slalom and Sprint Paddlers: An Analysis of International Medalists and Non-medalists. Front Physiol. 2021; 11: 617041. Published 2021 Jan 20.
[11]   | Villanueva MG, He J, Schroeder ET. Periodized resistance training with and without supplementation improve body composition and performance in older men. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2014; 114(5): 891-905.
[12]   | Tanner JM. Fallacy of per-weight and per-surface area standards, and their relation to spurious correlation. J Appl Physiol. 1949; 2(1): 1-15.
[13]   | Katch VL. Use of the oxygen-body weight ratio in correlational analyses: spurious correlations and statistical considerations. Med Sci Sports. 1973; 5(4): 253-257.
[14]   | Welsman J, Armstrong N. Interpreting Aerobic Fitness in Youth: The Fallacy of Ratio Scaling. Pediatr Exerc Sci. 2019; 31(2): 184-190.
[15]   | Vanderburgh PM, Mahar MT, Chou CH. Allometric scaling of grip strength by body mass in college-age men and women. Res Q Exerc Sport. 1995; 66(1): 80-84.
[16]   | Winter EM. Scaling: partitioning out differences in size. Pediatric Exercise Science. 1992 Nov 1; 4(4): 296-301.
[17]   | Hart PD. A new and simple prediction equation for health-related fitness: Use of honest assessment predictive modeling. American Journal of Applied Mathematics and Statistics. 2018; 6(6): 224-31.
[18]   | Suni J, Husu P, Rinne M. Fitness for health: the ALPHA-FIT test battery for adults aged 18–69. Tester’s Manual. 2009.
[19]   | American College of Sports Medicine. ACSM's Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription. Philadelphia :Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2014.
[20]   | Haff GG, Triplett NT, editors. Essentials of strength training and conditioning 4th edition. Human kinetics; 2016.
[21]   | Raven P, Wasserman D, Squires W, Murray T. Exercise Physiology. Nelson Education. 2012.
[22]   | American College of Sports Medicine. ACSM’s Resources for the Exercise Physiologist, 2nd. Philadelphia, Md.: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. 2017.
[23]   | Krakauer NY, Krakauer JC. Association of Body Shape Index (ABSI) with Hand Grip Strength. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020; 17(18): 6797. Published 2020 Sep 17.
[24]   | Kim CR, Jeon YJ, Kim MC, Jeong T, Koo WR. Reference values for hand grip strength in the South Korean population. PLoS One. 2018; 13(4): e0195485. Published 2018 Apr 6.
[25]   | Ritz P, Vol S, Goxe D, Quentel-Soroko MF, Berrut G, Tichet J. Estimation of height from knee-heel length in middle-aged Caucasian adults. Clin Nutr. Published online December 12, 2006.
[26]   | García-Peña C, Pérez-Zepeda MU. Validity of Knee-Estimated Height to Assess Standing Height in Older Adults: A Secondary Longitudinal Analysis of the Mexican Health and Aging Study. J Nutr Health Aging. 2017; 21(3): 262-265.
[27]   | Chumpathat N, Rangsin R, Changbumrung S, Soonthornworasiri N, Durongritichai V, Kwanbunjan K. Use of knee height for the estimation of body height in Thai adult women. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr. 2016; 25(3): 444-451.
[28]   | Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. Psychometric theory. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. 1994.
[29]   | Hart PD, Benavidez G, Detomasi N, Potter A, Rech K, Budak C, Faupel N, Thompson J, Schwenke L, Jericoff G, Manuel M. A multitrait-multimethod (MTMM) study of fitness assessments in college students. SM Journal of Sports Medicine and Therapy. 2017; 1(1): 1002.
[30]   | Prieto-González P. Relationship between Specific Field-Based Physical Fitness Test Results and Selected Health Biomarkers in College-Aged Males: A Cross-Sectional Study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022; 19(21): 14498. Published 2022 Nov 4.