Considering body mass differences, who are the world's strongest women?

Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise

Volumn 32, Issue 1, 2000, Pages 197-201

  Vanderburgh, Paul M ^a   Dooman, Clifford ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON   (United States)

Author keywords

Allometric scaling; Polynomial models; Weightlifting

Indexed keywords

ALLOMETRY; ARTICLE; ATHLETE; BODY MASS; BODY WEIGHT; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; STRENGTH; WEIGHT LIFTING;

EID: 0033968769     PISSN: 01959131     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00005768-200001000-00029     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. ARMSTRONG, N. and J. WELSMAN. Assessment and interpretation of aerobic fitness in children and adolescents. Exerc. Sport Sci. Rev. 22:435-476, 1994.
2. ARMSTRONG, N., J. WELSMAN, and B. KIRBY. Peak oxygen uptake and maturation in 12-yr olds. Med Sci. Sports Exerc. 30:165-169, 1998.
3. ASTRAND, P. O. and K. RODAHL. Textbook of Work Physiology. New York: McGraw Hill, 1986, pp. 399-405.
4. BATTERHAM, A. and K. GEORGE. Allometric modeling does not determine a dimensionless power function ratio for maximal muscular function. J. Appl. Physiol. 83:2158-2166, 1997.
5. BATTERHAM, A., K. GEORGE, and D. MULLINEAUX. Allometric scaling of left ventricular mass by body dimensions in males and females. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 29:181-186, 1997.
6. BATTERHAM, A., K. TOLFREY, and K. GEORGE. Nevill's explanation of Kleiber's 0.75 mass exponent: an artifact of collinearity in least squares models? J. Appl. Physiol. 82:693-697, 1997.
7. CROUCHER, J. An analysis of world weight-lifting records. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport 55:285-288, 1984.
8. NEVILL, A. The need to scale for differences in body size and mass: an explanation of Kleiber's 0.75 mass exponent. J. Appl. Physiol. 77:2870-2873, 1994.
9. NEVILL, A., R. RAMSBOTTOM, and C. WILLIAMS. Scaling physiological measurements for individuals of different body size. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 65:110-117, 1992.
10. ROGERS, D., K. TURLEY, K. KUJAWA, K. HARPER, and J. WILMORE. Allometric scaling factors for oxygen uptake during exercise in children. Pediatr. Exerc. Sci. 7:12-25, 1995.
11. ROWLAND, T., P. VANDERBURGH, and L. CUNNINGHAM. Body size and the growth of maximal aerobic power in children: a longitudinal analysis. Pediatr. Exerc. Sci. 9:262-274, 1997.
12. VANDERBURGH, P. Non-parallel slopes using analysis of covariance for body size adjustment may reflect inappropriate modeling. Meas. Phys. Ed. Exerc. Sci. 2:127-135, 1998.
13. VANDERBURGH, P., G. DANIELS, T. A. CROWDER, T. LACHOWETZ, and R. ELLIOTT. The 10-min cycle ergometer test: a body mass adjusted test of maximal aerobic power. J. Strength Cond. Res. 12:12-17, 1998.
14. 2max penalizes women with larger percent body fat, not lean body mass. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 28:1204-1208, 1996.
15. VANDERBURGH, P., F. KATCH, J. SCHOENLEBER, C. BALABINIS, and R. ELLIOTT. Multivariate allometric scaling of men's world indoor rowing championship performance. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 28: 626-630, 1996.
16. VANDERBURGH, P. and M. MAHAR. Scaling of 2-mile run times by body weight and fat-free weight in college-age men. J. Strength Cond. Res. 9:67-70, 1995.
17. VANDERBURGH, P., M. MAHAR, and C. CHOU. Allometric scaling of grip strength by body mass in college-age men and women. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport. 66:80-84, 1995.
18. VANDERBURGH, P., M. SHARP, and B. NINDL. Two important cautions regarding the use of allometric scaling: the common exponent and group difference principles. Meas. Phys. Ed. Exerc. Sci. 2:153-163, 1998.
19. 2 for differences in body size. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 28:259-265, 1996.
20. WINTER, E. Scaling: partitioning out differences in size. Pediatr. Exerc. Sci. 4:296-301, 1992.