Table 3.
Fmax, mN/mm2 | EC50, μmol/L | Hill | n | |
---|---|---|---|---|
EDL | ||||
HCR | 339 ± 39 | 1.50 ± 0.023 | 2.47 ± 0.40 | 7 |
LCR | 379 ± 45 | 1.62 ± 0.040* | 2.62 ± 0.23 | 7 |
SOL | ||||
HCR | 261 ± 41 | 1.05 ± 0.001 | 1.97 ± 0.13 | 8 |
LCR | 253 ± 33 | 1.49 ± 0.002* | 2.11 ± 0.23 | 8 |
SOL | ||||
HCR Fast | 372 ± 69 | 1.29 ± 0.020 | 2.15 ± 0.12 | 3 |
HCR Slow | 199 ± 34 | 0.91 ± 0.050 | 1.78 ± 0.20 | 5 |
LCR Fast | 352 ± 69 | 1.65 ± 0.004 | 2.32 ± 0.28 | 3 |
LCR Slow | 194 ± 21 | 1.37 ± 0.002 | 1.89 ± 0.25 | 5 |
Values are means ± SD; n, number of fibers. LCR, low capacity runners; HCR, high capacity runners; Fmax, maximally developed tension normalized to cross-sectional area; EC50, Ca2+ concentration required to develop 50% maximal tension; Hill, slope of the tension-Ca2+ plot. See Supplemental Fig. S1 for ANOVA analysis comparing Fast soleus (SOL), Slow SOL, and extensor digitorum longus (EDL) fiber mechanics (https://doi.org/10.35092/yhjc.11319998).
P < 0.05 LCR vs. HCR for EDL and SOL muscles by t test.