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
AIM: To investigate the lifestyles, physical performance and quality of life (QOL) of frail and robust Brazilian community-dwelling older women, and to identify risk factors for frailty. METHODS: Frailty was assessed using the Kihon Checklist. Lifestyles were assessed using a questionnaire. Physical performance was assessed by measuring walking speeds, performance on the one-leg stand test and the five-times chair stand test and handgrip strength. QOL was assessed using the Short Form-8 questionnaire. Participants were divided into frail and robust groups based on their total Kihon Checklist scores. RESULTS: A total of 109 participants (age 70.8 ± 6.87 years) were included in this study (robust n = 85, frail n = 24). Differences in living structures (P < 0.001), financial satisfaction (P = 0.004) and the frequencies with which participants leave the house (P < 0.001) were found between groups. The frail group had more fallers (P = 0.047), and lower engagement in physical activity (P = 0.044), lower body mass indices (P = 0.043) and poorer nutritional status (P = 0.002), whereas robust older people showed better physical performance (walking speed P < 0.001, one-leg stand P = 0.021, handgrip strength P = 0.002) and higher QOL scores (general health P = 0.005, role-physical P = 0.013, bodily pain P = 0.002, vitality P = 0.001, social functioning P = 0.001, role-emotional P = 0.008). Multivariate regression analysis identified a slow usual walking speed and bodily pain as risk factors for frailty. CONCLUSIONS: Frail participants had higher indices for being housebound, and having financial dissatisfaction, a sedentary lifestyle, falls, and malnutrition. Furthermore, they showed poorer physical performance and QOL. An early, well-focused approach is crucial, especially for older adults who walk slowly and have bodily pain to preserve health and QOL. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2016; 16: 829-835.