Table 2.

Surface morphology analysis

Complexity
3D Surface area (mm2 g−2/3) Parallel to STA Perpendicular to STA
Attachment siteExercisedSedentaryExercisedSedentaryExercisedSedentary
Infraspinatus12.60 (3.7)10.50 (6.0)1.62 (0.11)1.65 (0.24)1.61 (0.17)1.64 (0.22)
Biceps brachii4.20 (1.5)4.54 (2.36)1.65 (0.38)1.68 (0.14)1.78 (0.26)1.77 (0.21)
Quadriceps10.65 (4.37)9.15 (2.43)1.56 (0.25)1.52 (0.22)1.62 (0.18)1.55 (0.19)
Gastrocnemius origin37.1 (9.11)37.6 (13.0)1.36 (0.31)1.56 (0.15)1.45 (0.21)1.50 (0.06)
Gastrocnemius insertion40.7 (2.5)25.0 (10.1)1.49 (0.17)1.52 (0.26)1.39 (0.28)1.34 (0.17)
Masseter96.6 (27.4)103.0 (23.9)1.45 (0.19)1.50 (0.27)1.28 (0.34)1.34 (0.17)
  • Three-dimensional surface areas and complexities are summarized with the median (interquartile range) of each atachment site measured in this study.

    Three-dimensional surface areas are controlled for final body mass.

    Complexity refers to the average fractal dimension of the three profiles extracted along and perpendicular to the soft tissue attachment (STA); fractal dimensions for a profile can be between 1 (smooth) and 2 (infinitely complex).

    There are no significant or near significant differences between treatment groups in 3D surface area or complexity in either axis for any attachment site measured in this study (Mann-Whitney U tests).