Maximal isometric and eccentric hamstring strength is influenced by body mass and additional load: Does the critical point at which peak knee flexor force is achieved play a role?

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q2 PHYSIOLOGY
Frontiers in Physiology Pub Date : 2025-09-18 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fphys.2025.1654030
Andrew Rinaldi Sinulingga, Erika Zemková
{"title":"Maximal isometric and eccentric hamstring strength is influenced by body mass and additional load: Does the critical point at which peak knee flexor force is achieved play a role?","authors":"Andrew Rinaldi Sinulingga, Erika Zemková","doi":"10.3389/fphys.2025.1654030","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Isometric (ISO) and eccentric (ECC) hamstring tests are used to assess peak force at various knee angles. However, it is unknown to what extent body weight influences the so-called \"critical point\" at which individuals achieve their maximal knee flexor force production. This study compared (1) the peak force during maximum voluntary isometric contraction at 60<sup>o</sup> knee flexion without body weight, with body weight and with added weight, and (2) the eccentric knee flexor strength during Nordic hamstring exercise (NHE) up to 60<sup>o</sup> of knee flexion with body weight and added weight, as well as up to an angle of 20<sup>o</sup> with body weight only. The relationship between peak isometric strength in all loading conditions and eccentric strength during NHE performed to different knee angles was also investigated. 22 male athletes (age 21.7 ± 4.3 years, height 181.6 ± 7.5 cm, body mass 75.4 ± 8.5 kg) completed i) maximal efforts on isometric knee flexion at 60° (ISO60), with body weight (ISO60-BW), and with 5 kg medicine ball (ISO60-BW + AW), ii) NHE with lean forward from 90<sup>o</sup> to 60° with body weight (ECC60-BW) and a 5 kg medicine ball (ECC60-BW + AW), and iii) NHE with lean forward up to 20<sup>o</sup> with body weight (ECC20). Results showed higher peak force during ISO60-BW + AW compared to ISO60-BW (24.2 N, 6.5%, p = 0.012), and ISO60 (42.1 N, 11.6%, p = 0.000). The added 5 kg (ECC60-BW + AW) produced greater eccentric force compared to body weight (ECC60-BW) (17.9 N, 6.4%; p = 0.03). However, there was no significant difference between NHE with body weight and added weight, irrespective of the subject's ability to achieve a final position of 20<sup>o</sup> of knee flexion. Relative eccentric force was higher in participants who achieved 20° than in those who reached their critical point at 45° of knee flexion (p = 0.001, d = 1.89). Peak isometric force in all three conditions significantly correlated with NHE peak force at 45° (r = 0.79-0.90) and 20° of knee flexion (r = 0.71-0.77), explaining 62%-81% and 49%-58% of the variance, respectively. These findings indicate that isometric and eccentric measures of hamstring strength are interdependent. However, eccentric hamstring strength during NHE is more dependent on maximal hamstring strength when this exercise is performed to a critical point of 45° than 20° of knee flexion.</p>","PeriodicalId":12477,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Physiology","volume":"16 ","pages":"1654030"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12488718/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Physiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2025.1654030","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHYSIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Isometric (ISO) and eccentric (ECC) hamstring tests are used to assess peak force at various knee angles. However, it is unknown to what extent body weight influences the so-called "critical point" at which individuals achieve their maximal knee flexor force production. This study compared (1) the peak force during maximum voluntary isometric contraction at 60o knee flexion without body weight, with body weight and with added weight, and (2) the eccentric knee flexor strength during Nordic hamstring exercise (NHE) up to 60o of knee flexion with body weight and added weight, as well as up to an angle of 20o with body weight only. The relationship between peak isometric strength in all loading conditions and eccentric strength during NHE performed to different knee angles was also investigated. 22 male athletes (age 21.7 ± 4.3 years, height 181.6 ± 7.5 cm, body mass 75.4 ± 8.5 kg) completed i) maximal efforts on isometric knee flexion at 60° (ISO60), with body weight (ISO60-BW), and with 5 kg medicine ball (ISO60-BW + AW), ii) NHE with lean forward from 90o to 60° with body weight (ECC60-BW) and a 5 kg medicine ball (ECC60-BW + AW), and iii) NHE with lean forward up to 20o with body weight (ECC20). Results showed higher peak force during ISO60-BW + AW compared to ISO60-BW (24.2 N, 6.5%, p = 0.012), and ISO60 (42.1 N, 11.6%, p = 0.000). The added 5 kg (ECC60-BW + AW) produced greater eccentric force compared to body weight (ECC60-BW) (17.9 N, 6.4%; p = 0.03). However, there was no significant difference between NHE with body weight and added weight, irrespective of the subject's ability to achieve a final position of 20o of knee flexion. Relative eccentric force was higher in participants who achieved 20° than in those who reached their critical point at 45° of knee flexion (p = 0.001, d = 1.89). Peak isometric force in all three conditions significantly correlated with NHE peak force at 45° (r = 0.79-0.90) and 20° of knee flexion (r = 0.71-0.77), explaining 62%-81% and 49%-58% of the variance, respectively. These findings indicate that isometric and eccentric measures of hamstring strength are interdependent. However, eccentric hamstring strength during NHE is more dependent on maximal hamstring strength when this exercise is performed to a critical point of 45° than 20° of knee flexion.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

最大等距和偏心腘绳肌力量受体重和额外负荷的影响:膝关节屈肌力量达到峰值的临界点是否起作用?
等距(ISO)和偏心(ECC)腿筋测试用于评估不同膝关节角度下的峰值力。然而,目前尚不清楚体重在多大程度上影响所谓的“临界点”,即个体达到最大的膝关节屈肌力量产生。本研究比较了(1)无体重、有体重和增加体重时膝关节屈曲600度时最大自主等距收缩时的峰值力,以及(2)北欧腿筋运动(NHE)在有体重和增加体重时膝关节屈曲600度时的偏心膝关节屈曲力量,以及只有体重时的200度角度。研究了各载荷条件下的峰值等距强度与不同膝关节角度下NHE的偏心强度之间的关系。22名男性运动员(年龄21.7±4.3岁,身高181.6±7.5 cm,体重75.4±8.5 kg)完成了i)在体重(ISO60- bw)和5公斤健身球(ISO60- bw + AW)的情况下,在60°(ISO60- bw)的等距膝关节弯曲上最大努力,ii)在体重(ECC60-BW)和5公斤健身球(ECC60-BW + AW)的情况下,前倾从90°到60°的NHE,以及iii)前倾到200°(ECC20)的NHE。结果表明,与ISO60- bw (24.2 N, 6.5%, p = 0.012)和ISO60 (42.1 N, 11.6%, p = 0.000)相比,ISO60- bw + AW的峰值力更高。增加的5kg (ECC60-BW + AW)比体重(ECC60-BW)产生更大的偏心力(17.9 N, 6.4%; p = 0.03)。然而,无论受试者达到200度膝关节屈曲的最终位置的能力如何,NHE与体重和增加体重之间没有显著差异。相对偏心力在达到膝关节屈曲20°的参与者中高于达到膝关节屈曲45°临界点的参与者(p = 0.001, d = 1.89)。所有三种情况下的峰值等距力与膝关节屈曲45°(r = 0.79-0.90)和20°(r = 0.71-0.77)时的NHE峰值力显著相关,分别解释了62%-81%和49%-58%的方差。这些发现表明,腿筋力量的等距测量和偏心测量是相互依赖的。然而,在NHE期间,偏心腘绳肌力量更多地依赖于最大腘绳肌力量,当这项运动进行到45°而不是20°膝关节屈曲的临界点时。
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
6.50
自引率
5.00%
发文量
2608
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊介绍: Frontiers in Physiology is a leading journal in its field, publishing rigorously peer-reviewed research on the physiology of living systems, from the subcellular and molecular domains to the intact organism, and its interaction with the environment. Field Chief Editor George E. Billman at the Ohio State University Columbus is supported by an outstanding Editorial Board of international researchers. This multidisciplinary open-access journal is at the forefront of disseminating and communicating scientific knowledge and impactful discoveries to researchers, academics, clinicians and the public worldwide.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信