{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.053418803418803416, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0438034188034188, 'mean_word_length': 4.008021390374331, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Forearm composition and muscle function in trained and untrained limbs.

The influence of a period of training, which lasts for several years, on the proportions of muscle, fat and bone present in the human forearm has been investigated by comparing trained and untrained limbs of nine experienced male tennis players. Ten healthy but untrained males of similar age served as a control group. Computed tomography (CT) scans of the forearm were made at intervals along its length to identify fat, muscle and bone and to calculate the volumes occupied by each of these components. Total forearm volume was greater in the dominant limb compared with the contralateral side in both trained (by 135 +/- 59 cm3, mean +/- SD, P less than 0.001) and untrained subjects (by 41 +/- 45 cm3, P less than 0.02). Forearm muscle volume was also greater in dominant limbs of trained (by 117 +/- 52 cm3, P less than 0.001) and untrained by 35 +/- 41 cm3, P less than 0.025) subjects. Muscle accounted for 75.4 +/- 2.7% of the total volume in the dominant arm of trained subjects compared with 71.4 +/- 4.2% in the control group (P less than 0.05). There was a greater proportion of muscle (P less than 0.05) and a smaller proportion of fat (P less than 0.001) in the trained limb compared with the contralateral limb of the same subjects. No differences in proportions of fat, muscle and bone were observed in dominant and non-dominant limbs of the control subjects. Trained subjects were able to exert a greater isometric force with the dominant limb (549 +/- 76N) than with the non-dominant limb (496 +/- 48N; P less than 0.005). There was no difference in grip strength between the arms of the untrained group (dominant: 516 +/- 107N; non-dominant: 491 +/- 91N). The ratio of strength to muscle volume was, however, the same in dominant and non-dominant arms of both groups of subjects.