Table 5.

RMA scaling results for MM and PCSA from the reduced data set (muscle subset)

Regression variable	n	Scaling pattern	Slope	H0	Lower limit	Upper limit	R 2	Slope P	Adj. P	Shapiro–Wilk test of residuals
MM
Hip extensors	26	+	1.31	1.00	1.24	1.39	0.981	< 0.001	< 0.001	0.400
Knee flexors	25	+	1.29		1.21	1.37	0.979	< 0.001	< 0.001	0.800
Knee extensors	29	+	1.22		1.12	1.32	0.959	< 0.001	< 0.001	0.020
Ankle extensors	27	+	1.34		1.21	1.49	0.933	< 0.001	< 0.001	0.200
PCSA
Hip extensors	24	+	0.98	0.67	0.89	1.08	0.952	< 0.001	< 0.001	0.500
Knee flexors	24	+	1.07		0.90	1.28	0.846	< 0.001	< 0.001	0.007
Knee extensors	24	+	0.96		0.84	1.10	0.905	< 0.001	< 0.001	0.300
Ankle extensors	24	+	1.40		1.09	1.78	0.686	< 0.001	< 0.001	0.030

MM, muscle mass; PCSA, physiological cross‐sectional area.

Adjusted P‐values < 0.05 are significantly different from the null hypothesis (H₀) of isometry.

Groups marked with (+) show positive allometry; (−) show negative allometry; (iso) isomeric scaling.

All regression results are derived from the log muscle variable plotted against log body mass.

Non‐significant Shapiro–Wilk tests of residuals indicate that residuals are normally distributed about the regression line.