Full-Body Harness versus Waist Belt: An Examination of Force Production and Pain during an Isoinertial Device Maximal Voluntary Isometric Contraction.

IF 2.6 Q1 SPORT SCIENCES

Journal of Functional Morphology and Kinesiology Pub Date : 2024-09-16 DOI:10.3390/jfmk9030165

Trevor J Dufner, Jonathan M Rodriguez, McKenna J Kitterman, Jennifer C Dawlabani, Jessica M Moon, Adam J Wells

{"title":"Full-Body Harness versus Waist Belt: An Examination of Force Production and Pain during an Isoinertial Device Maximal Voluntary Isometric Contraction.","authors":"Trevor J Dufner, Jonathan M Rodriguez, McKenna J Kitterman, Jennifer C Dawlabani, Jessica M Moon, Adam J Wells","doi":"10.3390/jfmk9030165","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background/objectives: This study examined the differences in participant force production and pain between a squat maximal voluntary isometric contraction (IMVIC) performed with either a waist belt (WB) or full-body harness (FBH) on the Desmotec D.EVO isoinertial device (D.EVO). Agreement between FBH IMVIC and a traditional force plate squat MVIC (TMVIC) was also assessed.Methods: Twenty adults completed FBH, WB, and TMVIC assessments on two separate occasions. Two-way treatment x time ANOVAs were conducted to compare force outputs and pain between treatments (FBH vs. WB) across time. Test-retest reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients. Associations between outcomes were determined using Pearson's r. Standard error of estimate, constant error, total error, and Bland-Altman plots were used to assess agreement between IMVIC and TMVIC.Results: FBH and WB IMVIC exhibited good to excellent reliability (ICC2,1 = 0.889-0.994) and strong associations (r = 0.813 and 0.821, respectively) when compared to TMVIC. However, agreement between FBH and TMVIC was poor. No significant interaction or main effects were observed for pain. FBH maximum isometric force (MIF) was significantly higher than WB MIF. WB IMVIC was the only significant predictor of TMVIC (R2 = 0.674).Conclusions: Our findings indicate that the D.EVO should not be utilized as a replacement for a traditional MVIC setup.","PeriodicalId":16052,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Functional Morphology and Kinesiology","volume":"9 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11417928/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Functional Morphology and Kinesiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/jfmk9030165","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background/objectives: This study examined the differences in participant force production and pain between a squat maximal voluntary isometric contraction (IMVIC) performed with either a waist belt (WB) or full-body harness (FBH) on the Desmotec D.EVO isoinertial device (D.EVO). Agreement between FBH IMVIC and a traditional force plate squat MVIC (TMVIC) was also assessed.

Methods: Twenty adults completed FBH, WB, and TMVIC assessments on two separate occasions. Two-way treatment x time ANOVAs were conducted to compare force outputs and pain between treatments (FBH vs. WB) across time. Test-retest reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients. Associations between outcomes were determined using Pearson's r. Standard error of estimate, constant error, total error, and Bland-Altman plots were used to assess agreement between IMVIC and TMVIC.

Results: FBH and WB IMVIC exhibited good to excellent reliability (ICC_2,1 = 0.889-0.994) and strong associations (r = 0.813 and 0.821, respectively) when compared to TMVIC. However, agreement between FBH and TMVIC was poor. No significant interaction or main effects were observed for pain. FBH maximum isometric force (MIF) was significantly higher than WB MIF. WB IMVIC was the only significant predictor of TMVIC (R² = 0.674).

Conclusions: Our findings indicate that the D.EVO should not be utilized as a replacement for a traditional MVIC setup.

查看原文本刊更多论文

全身安全带与腰带：等惯性装置最大自主等长收缩过程中力的产生和疼痛的研究。

背景/目的：本研究考察了在戴斯莫泰克 D.EVO 等惯性设备（D.EVO）上使用腰带（WB）或全身安全带（FBH）进行深蹲最大自主等长收缩（IMVIC）时，参与者的发力和疼痛差异。此外，还评估了 FBH IMVIC 与传统平板下蹲 MVIC（TMVIC）之间的一致性：20 名成年人分别在两个不同的场合完成了 FBH、WB 和 TMVIC 评估。进行了双向治疗 x 时间方差分析，以比较不同治疗（FBH 与 WB）在不同时间的力量输出和疼痛情况。使用类内相关系数评估重测可靠性。使用估计标准误差、常量误差、总误差和布兰-阿尔特曼图评估 IMVIC 和 TMVIC 之间的一致性：结果：与 TMVIC 相比，FBH 和 WB IMVIC 表现出良好至卓越的可靠性（ICC2,1 = 0.889-0.994）和较强的关联性（r = 0.813 和 0.821）。然而，FBH 和 TMVIC 之间的一致性较差。在疼痛方面没有观察到明显的交互作用或主效应。FBH 最大等长力（MIF）明显高于 WB MIF。WB IMVIC 是 TMVIC 的唯一重要预测指标（R2 = 0.674）：我们的研究结果表明，D.EVO 不应取代传统的 MVIC 设置。

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

Journal of Functional Morphology and Kinesiology Health Professions-Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation

CiteScore

4.20

自引率

0.00%

发文量

审稿时长

12 weeks