参与肌肉强化活动的性别差异。

James L Nuzzo
{"title":"参与肌肉强化活动的性别差异。","authors":"James L Nuzzo","doi":"10.15280/jlm.2020.10.2.110","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Previous data from the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate men are more likely than women to participate in muscle-strengthening activities (e.g., resistance training). However, a recent review by Rhodes et al. concluded there is no reliable sex difference in participation. The purpose of the current paper was to review population-level surveys of participation in muscle-strengthening activities to clarify if a sex difference in participation exists.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Keyword searches (e.g., \"resistance training participation\") were performed in PubMed and Google Scholar to identify papers that surveyed a general adult population (N > 1,000) and reported an outcome of the proportion of the population meeting recommendations for \"muscle-strengthening activities\" (i.e., ≥ 2 times/wk) or participating in resistance training.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixteen studies from 6 countries met the inclusion criteria. Irrespective of the measure of participation, population-levels of participation were typically higher in men than women. More men than women met recommendations for muscle-strengthening activities in England (men 34%; women 24%), Finland (men 18.1%; women 16.4%), Northern Ireland (men 25%; women 14%), Scotland (men 30%; women 25%), and the United States (men 34.8%; women 25.8%). For Australia, some studies showed no sex difference in participation, whereas other studies showed greater participation among men.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>A sex difference exists in participation in muscle-strengthening activities. Low participation rates in both sexes indicate efforts to encourage participation in men and women are warranted. The results also highlight the need for rigorous definitions of \"participation,\" as the lack of such definitions explains the mixed results reported previously.</p>","PeriodicalId":73805,"journal":{"name":"Journal of lifestyle medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/1d/99/JLM-10-110.PMC7502892.pdf","citationCount":"11","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Sex Difference in Participation in Muscle-Strengthening Activities.\",\"authors\":\"James L Nuzzo\",\"doi\":\"10.15280/jlm.2020.10.2.110\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Previous data from the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate men are more likely than women to participate in muscle-strengthening activities (e.g., resistance training). However, a recent review by Rhodes et al. concluded there is no reliable sex difference in participation. The purpose of the current paper was to review population-level surveys of participation in muscle-strengthening activities to clarify if a sex difference in participation exists.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Keyword searches (e.g., \\\"resistance training participation\\\") were performed in PubMed and Google Scholar to identify papers that surveyed a general adult population (N > 1,000) and reported an outcome of the proportion of the population meeting recommendations for \\\"muscle-strengthening activities\\\" (i.e., ≥ 2 times/wk) or participating in resistance training.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixteen studies from 6 countries met the inclusion criteria. Irrespective of the measure of participation, population-levels of participation were typically higher in men than women. More men than women met recommendations for muscle-strengthening activities in England (men 34%; women 24%), Finland (men 18.1%; women 16.4%), Northern Ireland (men 25%; women 14%), Scotland (men 30%; women 25%), and the United States (men 34.8%; women 25.8%). For Australia, some studies showed no sex difference in participation, whereas other studies showed greater participation among men.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>A sex difference exists in participation in muscle-strengthening activities. Low participation rates in both sexes indicate efforts to encourage participation in men and women are warranted. The results also highlight the need for rigorous definitions of \\\"participation,\\\" as the lack of such definitions explains the mixed results reported previously.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73805,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of lifestyle medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-07-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/1d/99/JLM-10-110.PMC7502892.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"11\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of lifestyle medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15280/jlm.2020.10.2.110\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of lifestyle medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15280/jlm.2020.10.2.110","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

摘要

背景:美国疾病控制和预防中心以前的数据表明,男性比女性更有可能参加肌肉强化活动(如阻力训练)。然而,Rhodes等人最近的一篇综述得出结论,在参与方面没有可靠的性别差异。本论文的目的是回顾参与肌肉强化活动的人口水平调查,以澄清参与是否存在性别差异。方法:在PubMed和Google Scholar中进行关键词搜索(例如,“阻力训练参与”),以识别调查一般成年人(N > 1000)并报告符合“肌肉强化活动”(即≥2次/周)或参加阻力训练的人群比例的论文。结果:来自6个国家的16项研究符合纳入标准。不论参与的衡量标准如何,总体参与水平中男性通常高于女性。在英国,男性比女性更符合建议的肌肉强化活动(男性34%;女性24%),芬兰(男性18.1%;妇女16.4%),北爱尔兰(男子25%;女性14%),苏格兰(男性30%;女性25%),以及美国(男性34.8%;女性25.8%)。对澳大利亚来说,一些研究显示在参与率方面没有性别差异,而另一些研究则显示男性参与率更高。结论:参与肌肉强化活动存在性别差异。男女参与率低表明有必要努力鼓励男女参与。研究结果还强调了对“参与”的严格定义的必要性,因为缺乏这样的定义解释了之前报告的好坏参半的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Sex Difference in Participation in Muscle-Strengthening Activities.

Background: Previous data from the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate men are more likely than women to participate in muscle-strengthening activities (e.g., resistance training). However, a recent review by Rhodes et al. concluded there is no reliable sex difference in participation. The purpose of the current paper was to review population-level surveys of participation in muscle-strengthening activities to clarify if a sex difference in participation exists.

Methods: Keyword searches (e.g., "resistance training participation") were performed in PubMed and Google Scholar to identify papers that surveyed a general adult population (N > 1,000) and reported an outcome of the proportion of the population meeting recommendations for "muscle-strengthening activities" (i.e., ≥ 2 times/wk) or participating in resistance training.

Results: Sixteen studies from 6 countries met the inclusion criteria. Irrespective of the measure of participation, population-levels of participation were typically higher in men than women. More men than women met recommendations for muscle-strengthening activities in England (men 34%; women 24%), Finland (men 18.1%; women 16.4%), Northern Ireland (men 25%; women 14%), Scotland (men 30%; women 25%), and the United States (men 34.8%; women 25.8%). For Australia, some studies showed no sex difference in participation, whereas other studies showed greater participation among men.

Conclusion: A sex difference exists in participation in muscle-strengthening activities. Low participation rates in both sexes indicate efforts to encourage participation in men and women are warranted. The results also highlight the need for rigorous definitions of "participation," as the lack of such definitions explains the mixed results reported previously.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Adjunctive Approach to Therapeutic Laser and Exercise Therapies in Alleviating Pain and Disability in Patients with Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review. An Overview of the Naturopathic Medicine Protocol Used in Inpatient Yoga and Naturopathy Hospitals in India: The Prakriti Shakti Protocol. Cutting-Edge Methodological Guidance for Authors in Conducting the Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Stroke Rehabilitation in India: Addressing Gender Inequities. The Indian Geriatrics Quality of Life Inventory Scale (IGQOLI): Development and Validation of a Scale to Evaluate the Quality of Life among Geriatric Population of India.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1