This article was downloaded by: [Queensland University of Technology]

On: 06 November 2014, At: 20:33

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Sports Sciences

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjsp20

The validity of estimating triceps brachii volume

from single MRI cross-sectional area before and after
resistance training
a b c a
Jelena Popadic Gacesa , Natasa R. Dragnic , Natasa M. Prvulovic , Otto F. Barak &
a
Nikola Grujic
a
Department of Physiology, Medical School , University of Novi Sad , Novi Sad, Serbia
b
Centre for Informatics and Biostatistics in Medicine , Institute for Public Health of
Vojvodina , Novi Sad, Serbia
c
Centre for Imaging Diagnostics , Institute for Oncology Sremska Kamenica , Novi Sad,
Serbia
Published online: 03 Mar 2011.

To cite this article: Jelena Popadic Gacesa , Natasa R. Dragnic , Natasa M. Prvulovic , Otto F. Barak & Nikola Grujic (2011)
The validity of estimating triceps brachii volume from single MRI cross-sectional area before and after resistance training,
Journal of Sports Sciences, 29:6, 635-641, DOI: 10.1080/02640414.2010.549498

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2010.549498

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Journal of Sports Sciences, March 15th 2011; 29(6): 635–641

The validity of estimating triceps brachii volume from single MRI

cross-sectional area before and after resistance training

JELENA POPADIC GACESA1, NATASA R. DRAGNIC2, NATASA M. PRVULOVIC3,

OTTO F. BARAK1, & NIKOLA GRUJIC1
1
Department of Physiology, Medical School, University of Novi Sad, Novi Sad, Serbia, 2Centre for Informatics and
Biostatistics in Medicine, Institute for Public Health of Vojvodina, Novi Sad, Serbia and 3Centre for Imaging Diagnostics,
Downloaded by [Queensland University of Technology] at 20:33 06 November 2014

Institute for Oncology Sremska Kamenica, Novi Sad, Serbia

(Accepted 16 December 2010)

Abstract
The aim of this study was to determine whether triceps brachii muscle volume can be adequately estimated from a single
anatomical cross-sectional area (ACSA) and can the same model be used for prediction after training. Thirty-five healthy
male non-athletes (age 21.6 + 2.5 years, body mass index 24.8 + 3.5 kg  m72) volunteered for this study. The volumes of
the upper arm extensors were calculated from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) sequence scans and regression models
were developed, which were used to predict muscle volumes from single MRI cross-sectional scans taken at different points
along the humerus length. The same procedure was repeated after 12 weeks of maximal resistance training of the elbow
extensors. Correlation coefficients were calculated for Model A with CSAmax, humerus length (HL), and body mass index
(r ¼ 0.919), a model with CSA50% and HL (r ¼ 0.922), and a model with CSA60% and HL (r ¼ 0.920) (P 5 0.001). The
standard error of estimate for Model A, Model CSA50%, and Model CSA60% was 8.0%, 7.7%, and 7.8% respectively.
The same prediction formula can be used for the left arm (r ¼ 0.904). If a single ACSA is used for triceps brachii volume
prediction, the best fit is with Model CSA60% and HL, both before and after training (r ¼ 0.941). By introducing humerus
length into the calculation, we simplify the procedure for volume measurement, since it can be obtained during MRI
scanning.

Keywords: Anatomical cross-sectional area, triceps brachii, muscle volume, magnetic resonance imaging

Beneke et al. (1991) compared MRI-skeletal muscle

Introduction
Measurement of muscle volume is required for the
in vivo calculation of physiological cross-sectional
area (PCSA; Fukunaga et al., 1992), or for muscle
strength and power prediction (Abe, DeHoyos,
Pollock, & Garzarella, 2000; Chilibeck, Calder, Sale,
& Webber, 1998; Kraemer et al., 2004). Contiguous
transverse magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans
are considered the ‘‘gold standard’’ for calculating
muscle volume and has been validated with cadaveric
muscle (Beneke, Neuerburg, & Bohndorf, 1991;
Mitsiopoulos et al., 1998). Findings of Mitsiopoulos
et al. (1998) strongly support the use of MRI and
computerized tomography (CT) as reference meth-
ods for appendicular skeletal muscle measurement
in vivo (MRI: r ¼ 0.99, standard error of measure-
ment [SEE] ¼ 3.9 cm2 (10%), P 5 0.001; CT:
r ¼ 0.99, SEE ¼ 3.8 cm2 (9.5%), P 5 0.001), and
areas from two images to cadaver-skeletal muscle
and reported a mean error of 1.2%.
However, MRI cannot always be performed and
a number of alternatives have been used including
anthropometry, ultrasound, and bioimpedance.
Where imaging techniques have been used, the
simplest measure of muscle size is a single, trans-
verse, cross-sectional scan at right angles to the
longitudinal axis of the muscle, giving the so-called
‘‘anatomical cross-sectional area’’ (ACSA).
Although ACSA of a muscle group shows a
significant positive correlation with muscle strength
and torque production and muscle volume in a
relatively homogenous population (Fukunaga et al.,
2001; Miyatani, Kanehisa, Masuo, Ito, & Fukunaga,
2001), it may be inadequate as a surrogate for
muscle size in a population where muscle length
varies markedly (e.g. between adults and children),

Correspondence: J. Popadic Gacesa, Department of Physiology, Medical School, University of Novi Sad, 3 Hajduk-Veljko St., 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia.
E-mail: jpopadic@uns.ac.rs
ISSN 0264-0414 print/ISSN 1466-447X online Ó 2011 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/02640414.2010.549498
 636 J. Popadic Gacesa et al.
where the shape of the individual muscles may vary,
or if the muscle is changing in size throughout time,
so that tapering of the muscle causes the ACSA to
over- or underestimate muscle volume.
The reliable measurement of human muscle size is
essential in determining to what extent changes in
muscle volume contribute to changes in muscle
function during training, ageing, growth or disease.
Since most investigators use single cross-sectional
area (CSA) of a muscle to predict its changes in size/
volume during training programmes (Abe et al.,
2000; Bamman, Newcomer, Larson-Meyer, Wein-
sier, & Hunter, 2000; Hakkinen et al., 2003;
Kraemer et al., 2004; West et al., 2010; Widrick,
Downloaded by [Queensland University of Technology] at 20:33 06 November 2014
Stelzer, Shoepe, & Garner, 2002), we wished to
create the best prediction equation for calculating
upper arm muscle volume on the basis of a
single CSA in young non-athletes, and to determine
whether the same prediction can be used before and
after a training protocol for a specific muscle group.
Previous studies used different sites in the arm or
leg for CSA measurements. None of them, to our
knowledge, investigated differences between volume
prediction based on multiple CSA measurements
and volume prediction using various single CSA
measures. In addition, the influence of muscle
volume change as a result of training (when
hypertrophy may occur), and the significance of
other anthropometric parameters on the accuracy
of these predictions, have not yet been assessed or
reported. Therefore, the aims of the present study
were as follows: (1) to compare volume prediction
based on a single CSA value and volume measure-
ment calculation based on multiple CSA measures
along the length of the triceps brachii muscle; (2) to
determine which CSA is the best predictor of triceps
brachii muscle volume; and (3) to evaluate if the
prediction of muscle volume with a single CSA is
sufficient in the case of volume changes with time
(during training), or if other parameters have to be
included.
Methods
Participants
Thirty-five healthy young men (age 21.6 + 2.5
years, body mass index 24.8 + 3.5 kg  m72), who
had not taken part in any formal resistance exercise
regime in the 6 months before the study, volun-
teered for the study. The participants did not
engage in any other physical activity during the
experimental period. All participants were given an
oral and written explanation of the study before
signing a consent form. The study received
approval from the Ethics Committee of the
Medical School of the University of Novi Sad,
and the investigation was performed according to
the principles outlined in the Declaration of
Helsinki.
Experimental study design
The volumes of the upper arm extensors and flexors
were calculated from MRI sequence scans and
regression models were developed to predict muscle
volumes from single MRI cross-sectional scans taken
at different points along the humerus length. The
same procedure was repeated after the resistance
training of the elbow extensors.
MRI measurements
A series of cross-sectional images of the upper arm
were obtained by MRI scans with an extremity coil
on a Magnetom Avanto TIM Siemens, 1.5 T
(Siemens, Erlangen, Germany). lulti-slice se-
quences of T1-weighted, flash (gradient echo) axial
images of both arms were obtained, starting from the
head of the humerus to the medial epicondyle.
Repetition time (TR) and echo time (TE) were
232 ms and 4.76 ms respectively. The field of view
was 162 6 288 mm, and the matrix size was
288 6 512. Slice thickness was 10 mm with an
inter-slice interval of 3 mm. Data processing was
conducted using the MIPAV software, version 2.6
(Medical Image Processing, Analysis and Visualiza-
tion, Center for Information Technology, National
Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD). The MIPAV
software was used to analyse images on a personal
computer workstation (McAuliffe et al., 2001). This
program calculates the surface area (in mm2) of the
manually selected region of interest. Briefly, for each
axial image, the CSA of the triceps brachii was
manually outlined as a region of interest from the first
section closest to the superior border of the humerus
to a point where the muscle group is no longer reliably
distinguishable. The same number of sections distal
from the humerus was measured for each participant
before and after the training protocol to ensure within-
participant measurement replication. All sequences
were analysed by the same person (J.P.G.). The
investigator was blinded to participant identification,
date of scan, and training status, for both baseline and
post-training analyses. The intra-class correlation
coefficient for repeated measurements was 0.99.
Cronbach’s alpha (a) for repeated measures on the
same participant was 0.98.
Multiplying each CSA value of the region of
interest with the 10-mm slice thickness and then
summing these individual volumes using the trun-
cated cone formula provided the final muscle volume
(Vm). A control MRI was conducted 3–5 days after
the final training session.

In addition, the humerus length was measured
using localizers, and it was defined as the length from
the upper border of the head of the humerus to the
end of the medial epicondyle, and three additional
slices were scanned: at 30%, 50%, and 60% of the
humerus length.
Training protocol
Dynamic self-perceived maximal resistance training,
in which each participant was encouraged to perform
maximally according to personal perception, was
undertaken for 12 weeks, with a frequency of five
sessions per week. Each training session included five
Downloaded by [Queensland University of Technology] at 20:33 06 November 2014
sets of 10 maximal contractions (elbow extensions of
both arms) after 15 min of a general warm-up. A
1-min rest period was allowed between sets. The
participants adopted the sitting bench press position.
Training sessions were performed on an isoaccelera-
tion dynamometer Concept 2 Dyno (Concept 2,
Inc., Morrisville, VT). Values of maximal strength
for each repetition (maximal contraction) were
recorded and shown on the display of the dynam-
ometer.
Statistical analysis
All data are presented as means + standard deviation
(s) unless otherwise indicated. The differences in
muscle volumes and CSA between left and right
arm, and in change in volume between left and right
arm, were assessed using Wilcoxon’s test. The
correlation between muscle volumes and CSA was
assessed using Pearson’s correlation coefficient. For
checking the assumptions of linear regression, we
conducted a residual analysis (outliers control,
independence, normality assumption) as well as an
assessment of collinearity. All assumptions were met.
Selection of the independent variables in the
different multiple regression models was made based
on the stepwise method. Adjusted R2, F-statistics,
standard error of estimate (SEE), and relative
standard error of estimate (RSE) were used in the
interpretation of the results of the regression model.
Statistical significance was indicated if P 5 0.05. All
calculations were performed using SPSS, version
10.0 (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL).
Table I. Elbow extensors muscle volume and some CSA values for both arms before and after the training protocol.
Measured volume (cm3)
Left Before 462.4 + 98.8
Left After 511.3 + 77.0
Right Before 474.7 + 91.9
Right After 525.3 + 73.7
Prediction of triceps brachii volume from single CSA 637
Results
Values of participants’ elbow extensor muscle
volumes and maximal CSA, as well as CSA at
30%, 50%, and 60% of humerus length for both
arms are presented in Table I. Humerus length was
used to predict and calculate muscle length. Hu-
merus length for the right arm was 34.8 + 1.5 cm,
and for the left arm 34.3 + 1.0 cm. No significant
differences were observed in the muscle volumes of
the left and right arm (dominant and non-dominant
arm) (P 4 0.05). The distribution of each slice cross-
sectional area (CSA) in a sequence for muscle
volume calculation before and after training of the
elbow extensors is presented in Figure 1.
When assessing the relative change in individual
ACSA throughout the length of a muscle as a result
of strength training, the highest increase is registered
in the second third of the muscle length. The relative
increase of some ACSA is strongly correlated with
the relative increase in volume.
Correlations between whole muscle volumes and
a single slice at 30%, 50%, and 60% of the humerus
length (CSA30%, CSA50%, CSA60%) and maximal
muscle CSA (CSAmax) are presented in Table II.
Estimation of triceps brachii muscle volume from a
single CSA
Using Pearson correlation, muscle volume showed a
significant correlation with different CSA, but not
with body mass index (BMI) or humerus length
(HL) alone. All variables of interest (regardless of
their statistical significance alone) – HL, BMI, and
the relevant CSAx – were included in the multiple
linear regression analysis with muscle volume as the
dependent variable. Using stepwise selection, we
observed a significant association between muscle
volume and some CSA, HL, and BMI. The
following predictors were extracted: HL, BMI,
and CSAmax for Model A (for x ¼ max); HL and
CSA50% for Model CSA50% (for x ¼ 50%); and
HL and CSA60% for Model CSA60% (x ¼ 60%).
Model CSAmax was obtained using independent
variables HL and CSAmax (similar to Models
CSA50% and CSA60%). This approach allowed us
to calculate muscle volume on the basis of different
CSAmax (cm2) CSA30% (cm2) CSA50% (cm2) CS60% (cm2)
29.1 + 5.6 16.7 + 6.1 27.9 + 6.1 25.4 + 5.9
30.6 + 4.6 13.9 + 4.1 29.0 + 4.3 29.5 + 5.0
29.8 + 5.4 16.1 + 5.0 28.5 + 5.6 25.9 + 6.2
31.1 + 4.5 14.9 + 3.2 30.2 + 4.7 29.2 + 5.0
 638 J. Popadic Gacesa et al.

non-dependent variables, as shown in the following
prediction equation:
V ¼ a þ b  HL þ c  BMI þ d  CSAx
where x ¼ 50%, 60% or max (x ¼ max for Model A;
c ¼ 0 for Models CSA50%, CSA60%, and CSAmax).
Unstandardized regression coefficients for all
models and their significance (P) are presented in
Table III. All independent variables in the models
contributed significantly to the prediction of muscle
volume (P 5 0.05). The coefficient of determination
(adjusted R2) was in the range 0.80–0.84, and all
models were statistically significant (F-statistics
P 5 0.001), as presented in Table III.
Downloaded by [Queensland University of Technology] at 20:33 06 November 2014
correlation between triceps brachii muscle volume
and the predicted value based on the regression
models before and after training. The correlation
coefficients (r) before and after the training were:
Model A, r ¼ 0.919 before and 0.941 after; Model
CSAmax, r ¼ 0.903 before and 0.911 after; Model
CSA50%, r ¼ 0.922 before and 0.882 after; and
Model CSA60%, r ¼ 0.920 before and 0.896 after
(P 5 0.001). This indicates that the pre-training
prediction formula is adequate for the prediction
of volume after muscle morphological adaptation
following the training protocol. Prediction based on
the model with slice CSA30% was not confirmed,
because only 20.5% of the variance in the triceps

All models were tested before and after the
training protocol. There was a highly significant
Figure 1. Anatomical cross-sectional area (ACSA) of the triceps
brachii muscles measured along the length of the humerus. Values
on the x-axis denote the scan number from the head of the
humerus to the medial epicondyle. Each dot represents the
mean + s of all participants. All values are presented in cm2.
brachii volume was explained with this model.
We also tested the same pre-training formula on
the prediction of left arm triceps brachii volume,
and found a strong correlation for pre- (r ¼ 0.904,
P 5 0.001) and post-training values (r ¼ 0.875,
P 5 0.001).
The standard error of estimate for Model A was
37.9 cm3 (RSE ¼ 8.0%), Model CSA60% 37.2 cm3
(RSE ¼ 7.8%), Model CSAmax 40.6 cm3 (RSE ¼
8.55%), and Model CSA50% 36.5 cm3 (RSE ¼
7.7%). The standard error of estimate for prediction
based on a single CSA not including BMI or HL was
44.9 cm3 (RSE ¼ 9.4%), 40.1 cm3 (RSE ¼ 8.4%),
and 39.5 cm3 (RSE ¼ 8.3%) for CSAmax, CSA60%,
and CSA50% respectively.
When we calculated volume change based on the
prediction models and compared it with multi-slice
volume changes, the best prediction results were
obtained with Model CSA60%. Mean volume change
from before to after training based on multi-slice
calculation was þ37.9 cm3 (7.8%, s ¼ 3.95%, SEE
0.9%), while that with the Model CSA60% formula

Table II. Correlations (r) between extensors muscle volume and some CSA values for both arms before and after the training protocol.

Measured volume CSAmax (cm2) CSA30% (cm2) CSA50% (cm2) CS60% (cm2)

Vleft Before 0.86** 0.51** 0.85** 0.89**

After 0.85** 0.56** 0.78** 0.86**
Vright Before 0.88** 0.41* 0.91** 0.90**
After 0.92** 0.54* 0.87** 0.89**

*P 5 0.05; **P 5 0.01.

Table III. Values of unstandardized coefficients a, b, c, d, significance (P) of the coefficients, adjusted R2, and F-statistics are presented for
different regression models.

Model a b c d adjusted R2 F

A 7435.536 (0.007) 10.323 (0.023) 4.638 (0.021) 14.661 (0.000) 0.830** 58.087**
CSAmax 7420.164 (0.013) 12.963 (0.007) 0 14.929 (0.000) 0.805** 73.250**
CSA50% 314.523 (0.035) 10.502 (0.014) 0 14.889 (0.000) 0.842** 94.203**
CSA60% 7236.97 (0.110) 10.533 (0.015) 0 13.367 (0.000) 0.836** 90.321**

**P 5 0.001.
 Prediction of triceps brachii volume from single CSA
was þ34.5 cm3 (7.0%). Using the Model A formula
gave a value of þ28.6 cm3 (6.3%). Volume change
after training predicted with the Model CSA50%
formula was þ14.0 cm3 (3.3%), while that with the
Model CSAmax formula was þ29.2 cm3 (6.4%).
Prediction of triceps muscle volume before and after
the training is presented in Figure 2.
Discussion
In the present study, we tried to develop a new
equation for prediction of triceps brachii volume
based on a single CSA value. Muscle volume values
are one of the most important measures when
Downloaded by [Queensland University of Technology] at 20:33 06 November 2014
investigating muscle change after a programme of
physical activity, or during disease or with ageing.
This parameter can provide valuable information on
the efficiency of an intervention. Measuring muscle
volume with imaging techniques is both expensive
Figure 2. Correlation based on prediction of elbow extensors
muscle volume models: (a) triceps brachii volume before training –
right arm: measured and estimated volume using pre-training
formula; (b) triceps brachii volume after training– right arm:
measured and estimated volume using pre-training formula. All
values are presented in cm3.
639
and time-consuming. Most investigators use single
anatomical CSA to predict muscle volume and its
change over time (Abe et al., 2000; Bamman et al.,
2000; Hakkinen et al., 2003; Kraemer et al., 2004;
Losnegard et al., 2010; O’Hagan, Sale, MacDougall,
& Garner, 1995; West et al., 2010; Widrick et al.,
2002). There is no consensus regarding the position
of a slice used for a single muscle volume prediction
based on a CSA measure, and therefore there is no
unique protocol for individual muscles.
Here, we have provided a detailed MRI sequen-
cing for both upper arms in young non-athletes and
compared values of measured and calculated triceps
brachii volume with predicted values, using several
prediction equations and testing their precision and
validity. Four single anatomical CSA values have
been used for predictions – at 30%, 50%, and 60% of
humerus length, and a maximal CSA. Our aim was
to establish the best prediction equation and we have
discovered that this equation includes not only the
CSA values, but that it also depends on the humerus
length and BMI. These findings are very interesting,
since no correlation between muscle volume and
body weight or height alone has been reported. Most
investigators emphasize the problem of standardizing
prediction formulae since there are inter-individual
variations in any population, and few of them
reported prediction models. A regression model
based on five MRI scans has been used to estimate
total thigh muscle volume (Tothill & Stewart, 2002).
Morse and colleagues obtained a regression model
for the cross-sectional area of each of the four
muscles of the quadriceps, as a function of muscle
length, based on data from 18 individuals (Morse,
Degens, & Jones, 2007).
Together with humerus length, our regression
model introduces one more antropometric measure –
BMI, as a measure of body size. In this way, we added
a new predictor in muscle volume calculations.
We also tried to obtain information on the
possibility of using a single anatomical CSA, instead
of three or four. We tested a few prediction models
and discovered the best fit is when CSA50% or
CSA60% is introduced into the equation. Other
investigators have reported different protocols. Some
of them used CSAmax for the prediction (Bamman
et al., 2000; Roman et al., 1993; West et al., 2010),
others the average of all ACSA in a sequence
(Losnegard et al., 2010), or some percentage
measured throughout the muscle or bone length to
calculate muscle volumes (Chilibeck et al., 1998;
Kraemer et al., 2004). Since different muscle groups
were investigated, and different measurement pro-
cedures applied, literature does not provide consis-
tent findings.
Skeletal muscle adaptation to physical activity in-
cludes a morphological aspect of this phenomenon –
 640 J. Popadic Gacesa et al.
hypertrophy (Hakkinen et al., 2003; Losnegard et al.,
2010; Popadic Gacesa et al., 2009; West et al.,
2010). For upper arm muscle volume and CSA
change with training, limited data are available. Abe
et al. (2000) found an increase in triceps brachii
thickness of 7–9% after 12 weeks of resistance
training, three times a week, with six dynamic
exercises with 8–12 1-RM in untrained men.
O’Hagan et al. (1995) showed that 20 weeks of
resistance training led to an 8.3% increase in biceps
brachii CSAmax. West et al. (2010) reported an
increase in the biceps brachii CSA after 15 weeks of
resistance training of 10–12%. Losengard et al.
(2010) reported a 5.5% increase in average ACSA
Downloaded by [Queensland University of Technology] at 20:33 06 November 2014
(mean of nine ACSA in a upper arm sequence) of the
triceps brachii after 12 weeks of strength training.
Roman et al. (1993) evaluated the effects of elbow
flexors training in older men and reported a 13.9%
increase in muscle volume and 26% increase in
CSAmax after a 12-week training programme. They
correlated muscle volume change with a single CSA
change as a result of training, and found a 12–18%
difference between the CSA of consecutive MR
images at mid-arm.
Our findings indicate that the triceps muscle size
change as a result of training keeps the same
functional relation as before the protocol. In addi-
tion, when we apply the same prediction formula for
post-training values, the correlation is significant and
very high for all prediction models. However, volume
change prediction in comparison to multi-slice
volume calculation change showed less than a 1%
difference when Model CSA60% was used, and the
standard deviation for the calculated volume change
is 3.95%. These data indicate that the accuracy of the
prediction method is better than the variability
of muscle volume change with training. But, if
volume change is less than 4%, errors may occur.
Interestingly, if only the CSA change is taken into
consideration, prediction is possible, but with higher
error (RSE is 9.4%, 8.4%, and 8.5% for CSAmax,
CSA60%, and CSA50% respectively, compared with
8.5%, 7.8%, and 7.7% when humerus length is
included in the equation). This observation is valid
only for the triceps brachii, the muscle investigated in
the present study.
An important application of this technique is in the
assessment of muscle volumes in cross-sectional and
longitudinal studies of muscle hypertrophy or atro-
phy occurring as a result of growth, ageing, training,
disuse or disease. To be useful in these situations the
critical requirement is that the individual muscles
retain the same shape, i.e. can be described by the
regression equations derived here, no matter whether
they atrophy or hypertrophy. Preferential hypertro-
phy of a muscle would not be a problem as long as
the overall shape of the muscle remains constant.
There is limited, and somewhat contradictory,
information about changes in muscle shape with
resistance training. For instance, in the case of the
vastus lateralis, one study reports that the greatest
relative increase occurs at the distal end (Housh,
Housh, Johnson & Chu, 1992), and at either end of
the muscle in other reports (Narici, Roi, Landoni,
Minetti, & Cerretelli, 1989; Narici et al., 1996). For
the biceps brachii, the absolute change with training
shows only minimal variability along the length
(Roman et al., 1993; West et al., 2010). By
calculating each anatomical CSA relative increase
as a result of training and comparing it with the
muscle volume relative increase, we can provide
some information about muscle shape changes with
hypertrophy. Our results indicate that triceps brachii
muscle change with training shows the best predic-
tion in the second third of the muscle length.
The use of a regression equation as a model for
predicting muscle volume is not without limitations.
Our regression model, derived from a relatively
homogeneous group of 35 males only, showed a
very high correlation with the multi-slice measure-
ment, and a standard error of estimate equivalent to
8% of the measured muscle volume. Although
validation is required, as few as seven participants
are enough for deriving the prediction formula for
muscle volume calculation based on one slice before
and after training with this method. The minimum
required sample size for our study was seven, for the
following parameters: number of predictors ¼ 2,
type I error rate a ¼ 0.05, Cohen’s effects size ¼ 4
(R2 ¼ 0.8), statistical power 1 – b ¼ 0.8.
These findings show that further study on this
topic is necessary to validate the equations we have
derived for other population groups before they can
be applied in general.
Finding the best prediction equation for muscle
volume calculation, and small volume changes based
on a single anatomical CSA measure, will consider-
ably reduce the time required to estimate muscle
volume using this and similar approaches. In
addition, by introducing humerus length into the
equation, we simplify the procedure for its measure-
ment, since it can be obtained during MRI scanning.
Other investigators used muscle length, which can be
obtained only by using the ultrasound technique
together with MRI (Morse et al., 2007). Also, BMI
can provide an additional dimension of muscle
volume measurements, especially because of popula-
tion variation in body size.
Conclusions
For triceps brachii muscle volume calculation based
on CSA measures, the best prediction equation
includes not only the values of CSA50% or CSA60%,
 Prediction of triceps brachii volume from single CSA
but also the humerus length and BMI. If a single
anatomical CSA is used for prediction of triceps
brachii volume, the best fit is with CSA60% and
humerus length. The same prediction formula can be
used for volume prediction before and after training,
with high accuracy (r ¼ 0.941). Triceps brachii
muscle hypertrophy, as a result of resistance training,
is at its highest in the second third of the muscle
length.
References
Abe, T., DeHoyos, D. V., Pollock, M. L., & Garzarella, L. (2000).
Downloaded by [Queensland University of Technology] at 20:33 06 November 2014
Time course for strength and muscle thickness changes
following upper and lower body resistance training in men and
women. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 81, 174–180.
Bamman, M. M., Newcomer, B. R., Larson-Meyer, D. E.,
Weinsier, R. L., & Hunter, G. R. (2000). Evaluation of the
strength–size relationship in vivo using various muscle size
indices. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 32, 1307–
1313.
Beneke, R., Neuerburg, J., & Bohndorf, K. (1991). Muscle cross-
section measurement by magnetic resonance imaging. European
Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology, 63,
424–429.
Chilibeck, P. D., Calder, A. W., Sale, D. G., & Webber, C. E.
(1998). A comparison of strength and muscle mass increases
during resistance training in young women. European Journal of
Applied Physiology, 77, 170–175.
Fukunaga, T., Miyatani, M., Tachi, M., Kouzaki, M., Kawakami,
Y., & Kanehisa, H. (2001). Muscle volume is a major
determinant of joint torque in humans. Acta Physiologica
Scandinavica, 172, 249–255.
Fukunaga, T., Roy, R. R., Shellock, F. G., Hodgson, J. A., Day,
M. K., Lee, P. L. et al. (1992). Physiological cross-sectional
area of human leg muscles based on magnetic resonance
imaging. Journal of Orthopaedic Research, 10, 928–934.
Häkkinen, K., Alen, M., Kraemer, W. J., Gorostiaga, E.,
Izquierdo, M., Rusko, H. et al. (2003). Neuromuscular
adaptations during concurrent strength and endurance training
versus strength training. European Journal of Applied Physiology,
89, 42–52.
Housh, D. J., Housh, T. J., Johnson, G. O., & Chu, W. K. (1992).
Hypertrophic response to unilateral concentric isokinetic
resistance training. Journal of Applied Physiology, 73, 65–70.
Kraemer, W. J., Nindl, B. C., Ratamess, N. A., Gotshalk, L. A.,
Volek, J. S., Fleck, S. J. et al. (2004). Changes in muscle
hypertrophy in women with periodized resistance training.
Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 36, 697–708.
Losnegard, T., Mikkelsen, K., Rønnestad, B. R., Hallén, J., Rud,
B., & Raastad, T. (2010). The effect of heavy strength training
on muscle mass and physical performance in elite cross country
skiers. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0838.2009.01074.x.
641
McAuliffe, M., Lalonde, F., McGarry, D., Gandler, W., Csaky,
K., & Trus, B. (2001). Medical imaging processing, analysis
and visualization in clinical research. IEEE Computer-based
Medical Systems, 2001, 381–386.
Mitsiopoulos, N., Baumgartner, R. N., Heymsfield, S. B., Lyons,
W., Gallagher, D., & Ross, R. (1998). Cadaver validation of
skeletal muscle measurement by magnetic resonance imaging
and computerized tomography. Journal of Applied Physiology,
85, 115–122.
Miyatani, M., Kanehisa, K., Masuo, Y., Ito, M., & Fukunaga, T.
(2001). Validity of estimating limb muscle volume by bioelec-
trical impedance. Journal of Applied Physiology, 91, 386–394.
Morse, C. I., Degens, H., & Jones, D. A. (2007). The validity of
estimating quadriceps volume from single MRI cross-sections
in young men. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 100, 267–
274.
Morse, C. I., Thom, J. M., Davis, M. G., Fox, K. R., Birch,
K. M., & Narici, M. V. (2007). Reduced plantar flexor specific
torque in the elderly is associated with a lower activation
capacity. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 92, 219–226.
Narici, M. V., Hoppeler, H., Kayser, B., Landoni, L., Claassen,
H., Gavardi, C. et al. (1996). Human quadriceps cross-
sectional area, torque and neural activation during 6 months
strength training. Acta Physiologica Scandinavica, 157, 175–186.
Narici, M., Roi, G., Landoni, L., Minetti, A., & Cerretelli, P.
(1989). Changes in force, cross-sectional area and neural
activation during strength training and detraining of the human
quadriceps. European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupa-
tional Physiology, 59, 310–319.
O’Hagan, F. T., Sale, D. G., MacDougall, J. D., & Garner, S. H.
(1995). Comparative effectiveness of accommodating and
weight resistance training modes. Medicine and Science in Sports
and Exercise, 27, 1210–1219.
Popadic Gacesa, J. Z., Kozic, D. B., Dragnic, N. R., Jakovljevic,
Dj. G., Brodie, D.A., & Grujic, N. G. (2009). Changes of
functional status and volume of triceps brachii measured by
magnetic resonance imaging after maximal resistance training.
Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, 29, 671–676.
Roman, W. J., Fleckenstein, J., Stray-Gundersen, J., Always, S. E.,
Peshock, R., & Gonyea, W. J. (1993). Adaptations in the elbow
flexors of elderly males after heavy- resistance training. Journal
of Applied Physiology, 74, 750–754.
Tothill, P., & Stewart, A. D. (2002). Estimation of thigh muscle
and adipose tissue volume using magnetic resonance imaging
and anthropometry. Journal of Sports Sciences, 20, 563–567.
West, D. W., Burd, N. A., Tang, J. E., Moore, D. R., Staples,
A. W., Holwerda, A. M. et al. (2010). Elevations in ostensibly
anabolic hormones with resistance exercise enhance neither
training-induced muscle hypertrophy nor strength of the elbow
flexors. Journal of Applied Physiology, 108, 60–67.
Widrick, J. J., Stelzer, J. E., Shoepe, T. C., & Garner, D. P.
(2002). Functional properties of human muscle fibers after
short-term resistance exercise training. American Journal of
Physiology: Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology,
283, R408–R416.