Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Muscle-to-Bone Ratio in NCAA Division I Collegiate Football Players by Position.
Dengel, Donald R; Studee, Hannah R; Juckett, William T; Bosch, Tyler A; Carbuhn, Aaron F; Stanforth, Philip R; Evanoff, Nicholas G.
Affiliation
  • Dengel DR; School of Kinesiology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
  • Studee HR; School of Kinesiology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
  • Juckett WT; School of Kinesiology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
  • Bosch TA; Red Bull, Performance and Data Analytics, Athlete Performance Center, Santa Monica, California.
  • Carbuhn AF; Department of Dietetics and Nutrition, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas; and.
  • Stanforth PR; Department of Kinesiology and Health Education, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas.
  • Evanoff NG; School of Kinesiology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
J Strength Cond Res ; 38(9): 1607-1612, 2024 Sep 01.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38968202
ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT Dengel, DR, Studee, HR, Juckett, WT, Bosch, TA, Carbuhn, AF, Stanforth, PR, and Evanoff, NG. Muscle-to-bone ratio in NCAA Division I collegiate football players by position. J Strength Cond Res 38(9) 1607-1612, 2024-The purpose of this study was to compare the muscle-to-bone ratio (MBR) in National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I football players (collegiate football players [CFP]) to healthy, age-matched controls. In addition, we examined MBR in CFP by position. A total of 553 CFP and 261 controls had their total and regional lean mass (LM), fat mass (FM), and bone mineral content (BMC) determined by dual x-ray absorptiometry (DXA). College football players were categorized by positions defined as offensive linemen (OL), defensive linemen (DL), tight end, linebacker (LB), running back (RB), punter or kicker, quarterback (QB), defensive back (DB), and wide receiver (WR). There were significant differences between CFP and controls for total LM (80.1 ± 10.0 vs. 56.9 ± 7.8 kg), FM (22.2 ± 12.5 vs. 15.2 ± 7.1 kg), and BMC (4.3 ± 0.5 vs. 3.1 ± 0.5 kg). Although there were significant differences in body composition between CFP and controls, there was no significant differences in total MBR between CFP and controls (18.6 ± 1.4 vs. 18.8 ± 1.7). Regionally, CFP had significantly lower trunk MBR than controls (26.7 ± 2.7 vs. 28.7 ± 4.2), but no difference was seen in leg or arm MBR. Positional differences in CFP were noted as total MBR being significantly higher in DL (19.0 ± 1.4) than in DB (18.1 ± 1.3), WR (18.1 ± 1.3), and LB (18.2 ± 1.3). OL had a significantly higher total MBR (19.2 ± 1.3) than DB (18.1 ± 1.3), LB (18.2 ± 1.3), QB (18.1 ± 1.0), and WR (18.1 ± 1.3). In addition, RB had significantly higher total MBR (18.8 ± 1.3) than DB (18.1 ± 1.3) and WR (18.1 ± 1.3). This study may provide athletes and training staff with normative values when evaluating total and regional MBR with DXA.
Subject(s)

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Absorptiometry, Photon / Bone Density / Muscle, Skeletal / Football Limits: Adult / Humans / Male Language: En Journal: J Strength Cond Res Journal subject: FISIOLOGIA Year: 2024 Type: Article

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Absorptiometry, Photon / Bone Density / Muscle, Skeletal / Football Limits: Adult / Humans / Male Language: En Journal: J Strength Cond Res Journal subject: FISIOLOGIA Year: 2024 Type: Article