ArticleScientific reports2026
Normalization of muscle strength measures in barbell exercises by sex, age, and anthropometry: notes on allometry.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate strength assessment requires consideration of individual anthropometric and demographic differences. Traditional absolute and body mass-normalized measures often fail to capture inter-individual variability, thereby limiting the precision of strength testing and classification. This study aimed to investigate the influence of age, body mass, height, and anthropometric characteristics on strength capacity and to systematically integrate these variables into a classification framework. A total of 393 individuals (197 females, 196 males), aged 16-64 years and ranging from beginners to elite powerlifters, were recruited. One-repetition maximum (1-RM) strength was assessed in the bench press (BP), back squat (SQ), and deadlift (DL). Age, height, body mass, and selected anthropometric variables including arm and leg lengths, were recorded. Multiple regression analyses were used to quantify the influence of these variables on 1-RM performance. Based on significant predictors, individualized z-scores were computed to standardize 1-RM values relative to relevant anthropometric and demographic factors. The applicability of these z-scores to interval-based classification frameworks was evaluated. Age, body mass, and height were identified as significant determinants of maximal strength across all 3 exercises. Incorporation of these variables into z-score calculation enabled a more precise and individualized assessment of strength performance. Attempts to apply z-scores to interval-based classification frameworks revealed substantial within-category heterogeneity, indicating that such frameworks are unsuitable for accurate strength classification. This study establishes an anthropometry- and demography-adjusted framework for strength assessment in BP, SQ, and DL among healthy adults aged 16-64 years. Standardized z-scores provide a biologically meaningful alternative to conventional normalization methods. The proposed z-score framework provides a reproducible, data-driven tool for individualized strength assessment in the BP, SQ and DL, with direct applications in sport science research, performance monitoring, and strength-based rehabilitation for healthy adults aged 16-64 years.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.