RESUMEN
The aim of the present study was to compare the myoelectric activation and peak force (PF) between pullover (PO) and pulldown (PW) exercises in different shoulder joint positions during maximal isometric contractions (0o, 45o, 90o, 135o, and 180°). Fifteen young, healthy, resistance-trained men were recruited. The participants performed three maximal voluntary isometric contractions for each exercise at five shoulder joint positions. The myoelectric activation (iEMG) from pectoralis major (PM); latissimus dorsi (LD); posterior deltoid (PD), and PF were measured. For PF, there were significant main effects for exercise and joint positions (p < 0.001). For iEMG PM, there was significant a main effect for joint positions (p < 0.001). There was a significant interaction between exercises and joint positions (p < 0.001). For iEMG LD, there was a significant main effect for joint positions (p < 0.001). There was no significant interaction between exercises and joint positions. For iEMG PD, there was a significant main effect for joint positions (p < 0.001). There was no significant interaction between exercises and joint positions. For RPE, there were no significant differences between exercises and joint positions. The study concludes that specific shoulder joint positions affect PF production and iEMG during both exercises. RPE was not affected.
RESUMEN
Changes in range of motion affect the magnitude of the load during the squat exercise and, consequently, may influence muscle activation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate muscle activation between the partial and full back squat exercise with external load equated on a relative basis between conditions. Fifteen young, healthy, resistance-trained men (age: 26 ± 5 years, height: 173 ± 6 cm) performed a back squat at their 10 repetition maximum (10RM) using 2 different ranges of motion (partial and full) in a randomized, counterbalanced fashion. Surface electromyography was used to measure muscle activation of the vastus lateralis, vastus medialis, rectus femoris, biceps femoris (BF), semitendinosus, erector spinae, soleus (SL), and gluteus maximus (GM). In general, muscle activity was highest during the partial back squat for GM (p = 0.004), BF (p = 0.009), and SL (p = 0.031) when compared with full-back squat. There was no significant difference for rating of perceived exertion between partial and full back squat exercise at 10RM (8 ± 1 and 9 ± 1, respectively). In conclusion, the range of motion in the back squat alters muscle activation of the prime mover (GM) and stabilizers (SL and BF) when performed with the load equated on a relative basis. Thus, the partial back squat maximizes the level of muscle activation of the GM and associated stabilizer muscles.
Asunto(s)
Músculo Esquelético/fisiología , Entrenamiento de Fuerza/métodos , Adulto , Dorso/fisiología , Electromiografía , Ejercicio Físico/fisiología , Músculos Isquiosurales/fisiología , Humanos , Masculino , Músculo Cuádriceps/fisiología , Rango del Movimiento Articular/fisiología , Muslo/fisiología , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
The purposes of this study were to measure the acute effects of knee wraps (KWs) on knee and hip joint kinematics, dynamic muscle activation from the vastus lateralis (VL) and gluteus maximus (GM), and rating of perceived exertion (RPE) during the back squat exercise at 2 different intensities. Fourteen resistance-trained men (age: 24 ± 4 years, height: 176 ± 6 cm, body mass: 81 ± 11 kg, back squat 1 repetition maximum [1RM]: 107 ± 30 kg, 3 ± 1 year of back squat experience) performed 1 set of 3 repetitions under 4 different conditions, to a depth of approximately 90 degrees of knee joint flexion, and in random order: KWs at 60% 1RM (KW60), KWs at 90% 1RM (KW90), without knee wraps (NWs) at 60% 1RM (NW60), and NWs at 90% 1RM (NW90). The dependent variables obtained were vertical and horizontal bar displacement, peak joint angle in the sagittal plane (hip and knee joints), concentric and eccentric muscle activation (by integrated electromyography) from the VL and GM, and RPE. For muscle activity, there were significant decreases in the VL NWs at 60% 1RM (p = 0.013) and a significant increase NWs at 90% 1RM (p = 0.037). There was a significant increase in VL muscle activity at 90% 1RM, when compared with 60% 1RM (KW: p = 0.001, effect size (ES) = 1.51 and NW: p < 00.001, ES = 1.67). There was a decrease in GM muscle activity NWs only at 60% 1RM (p = 0.014). There was a significant increase in GM muscle activity at 90% 1RM, when compared with 60% 1RM (KW: p < 0.001 and NW: p < 0.001). For peak hip joint flexion angle, there was significant decreases between intensities (90% 1RM < 60% 1RM) only to NWs condition (p = 0.009), and there was greater knee flexion NWs for both intensities: 60% 1RM (p < 0.001) and 90% 1RM (p = 0.018). For normalized vertical barbell displacement, there were significant differences between intensities when using KWs (p = 0.022). There were significant differences in RPE between 60 and 90% 1RM for each condition: KWs (p < 0.001) and NWs (p < 0.001). In conclusion, the use of KWs results in decreased muscle activation of the VL at the same intensity (90% 1RM).