Are performance and perceived fatigability dependent on the anchor scheme of fatiguing isometric tasks in men?

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q3 SPORT SCIENCES
Dolores G Ortega, Robert W Smith, Jocelyn E Arnett, Tyler J Neltner, Richard J Schmidt, Glen O Johnson, Terry J Housh
{"title":"Are performance and perceived fatigability dependent on the anchor scheme of fatiguing isometric tasks in men?","authors":"Dolores G Ortega, Robert W Smith, Jocelyn E Arnett, Tyler J Neltner, Richard J Schmidt, Glen O Johnson, Terry J Housh","doi":"10.23736/S0022-4707.24.15721-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) can be used to regulate exercise intensity. This study examined the effect of anchor scheme on performance fatigability and neuromuscular responses following fatiguing forearm flexion tasks.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Twelve men (age 20.9±2.2 years; height 179.8±5.3 cm; body mass 80.2±9.9 kg) performed sustained, isometric forearm flexion tasks to failure anchored to RPE=6 (RPEFT) and the torque (TRQFT) that corresponded to RPE=6. Pre-test and post-test maximal voluntary isometric contractions (MVIC) were performed to quantify changes in the amplitude (AMP) and mean power frequency (MPF) of the electromyographic (EMG) and mechanomyographic (MMG) signals. Neuromuscular efficiency (NME) was calculated by dividing normalized torque by normalized EMG AMP. A dependent t-test was used to assess the mean difference for time to task failure (TTF). Repeated measures ANOVAs were used to compare mean differences for performance fatigability and normalized neuromuscular parameters.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The RPEFT had a greater TTF than the TRQFT (P<0.001). MVIC and NME decreased from pre-test to post-test following the RPEFT and TRQFT (P<0.05) with no differences between anchor schemes. Following the TRQFT, normalized EMG MPF decreased from pre-test to post-test (P=0.004). Following the RPEFT, normalized MMG MPF increased from pre-test to post-test (P=0.021). There were no changes in normalized EMG AMP or MMG AMP (P>0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These findings indicated anchor scheme-specific neuromuscular responses and TTF, despite no difference in performance fatigability. Furthermore, performance fatigability was likely due to peripheral fatigue (based on normalized EMG MPF and NME) following the TRQFT, but peripheral and central fatigue (based on normalized MMG MPF and NME) following the RPEFT.</p>","PeriodicalId":17013,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23736/S0022-4707.24.15721-0","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) can be used to regulate exercise intensity. This study examined the effect of anchor scheme on performance fatigability and neuromuscular responses following fatiguing forearm flexion tasks.

Methods: Twelve men (age 20.9±2.2 years; height 179.8±5.3 cm; body mass 80.2±9.9 kg) performed sustained, isometric forearm flexion tasks to failure anchored to RPE=6 (RPEFT) and the torque (TRQFT) that corresponded to RPE=6. Pre-test and post-test maximal voluntary isometric contractions (MVIC) were performed to quantify changes in the amplitude (AMP) and mean power frequency (MPF) of the electromyographic (EMG) and mechanomyographic (MMG) signals. Neuromuscular efficiency (NME) was calculated by dividing normalized torque by normalized EMG AMP. A dependent t-test was used to assess the mean difference for time to task failure (TTF). Repeated measures ANOVAs were used to compare mean differences for performance fatigability and normalized neuromuscular parameters.

Results: The RPEFT had a greater TTF than the TRQFT (P<0.001). MVIC and NME decreased from pre-test to post-test following the RPEFT and TRQFT (P<0.05) with no differences between anchor schemes. Following the TRQFT, normalized EMG MPF decreased from pre-test to post-test (P=0.004). Following the RPEFT, normalized MMG MPF increased from pre-test to post-test (P=0.021). There were no changes in normalized EMG AMP or MMG AMP (P>0.05).

Conclusions: These findings indicated anchor scheme-specific neuromuscular responses and TTF, despite no difference in performance fatigability. Furthermore, performance fatigability was likely due to peripheral fatigue (based on normalized EMG MPF and NME) following the TRQFT, but peripheral and central fatigue (based on normalized MMG MPF and NME) following the RPEFT.

男性疲劳等长任务的表现和感知疲劳度是否取决于锚点方案?
背景:感知用力评分(RPE)可用于调节运动强度。本研究考察了锚定方案对疲劳性前臂屈伸任务的表现疲劳性和神经肌肉反应的影响:12名男性(年龄为20.9±2.2岁;身高为179.8±5.3厘米;体重为80.2±9.9公斤)在RPE=6(RPEFT)和RPE=6所对应的扭矩(TRQFT)的锚定条件下进行了持续的等长前臂屈伸任务。测试前和测试后进行最大自主等长收缩(MVIC),以量化肌电图(EMG)和机械肌电图(MMG)信号的振幅(AMP)和平均功率频率(MPF)的变化。神经肌肉效率(NME)通过归一化扭矩除以归一化肌电图 AMP 计算得出。采用依赖性 t 检验来评估任务失败时间(TTF)的平均差异。重复测量方差分析用于比较表现疲劳度和归一化神经肌肉参数的平均差异:结果:RPEFT 的 TTF 大于 TRQFT(P0.05):这些研究结果表明,尽管在表现疲劳性方面没有差异,但锚计划特有的神经肌肉反应和TTF却存在差异。此外,表现疲劳可能是由于 TRQFT 后的外周疲劳(基于归一化的肌电图 MPF 和 NME),但 RPEFT 后的外周和中枢疲劳(基于归一化的肌电图 MPF 和 NME)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
5.90%
发文量
393
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness publishes scientific papers relating to the area of the applied physiology, preventive medicine, sports medicine and traumatology, sports psychology. Manuscripts may be submitted in the form of editorials, original articles, review articles, case reports, special articles, letters to the Editor and guidelines.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信