The association between fat-free mass and maximal aerobic capacity in healthy adults is primarily mediated by central circulatory factors (blood volume and stroke volume) rather than direct muscle oxygen consumption.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Central mediation of fat-free mass-VO2max links warrants hemodynamic assessment in testing; hypothesis-generating for mechanistic models.
Fat-free mass (FFM) (primarily skeletal muscle mass) is related to maximal aerobic capacity among healthy humans across the adult age range. The basis for this physiological association is assumed to be a direct relation between skeletal muscle mass and its capacity to consume oxygen. We tested the alternative hypothesis that FFM exerts its influence on maximal aerobic capacity in part via an association with central circulatory function. To do so, we analyzed data from 103 healthy sedentary adults aged 18-75 yr. FFM was strongly and positively related to maximal oxygen consumption (r = 0.80, P < 0. 001). FFM was also strongly and positively related to supine resting levels of blood volume (r = 0.79, P < 0.001) and stroke volume (r = 0.75, P < 0.001). Statistically controlling for the collective influences of blood volume and stroke volume abolished the tight relation between FFM and maximal oxygen consumption (r = 0.12, not significant). These results indicate that 1) FFM may be an important physiological determinant of blood volume and stroke volume among healthy sedentary adult humans of varying age; and 2) this relation between FFM and central circulatory function appears to represent the primary physiological basis for the strong association between FFM and maximal aerobic capacity in this population. Our findings suggest that sarcopenia (loss of skeletal muscle mass with aging) may contribute to the age-related decline in maximal aerobic capacity primarily via reductions in blood volume and stroke volume rather than a direct effect on the oxygen-consuming potential of muscle per se.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hunt et al. (1998) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: