Trevor J Dufner, Jonathan M Rodriguez, McKenna J Kitterman, Jennifer C Dawlabani, Jessica M Moon, Adam J Wells
{"title":"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。","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":"<p><strong>Background/objectives: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>FBH and WB IMVIC exhibited good to excellent reliability (ICC<sub>2,1</sub> = 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 (R<sup>2</sup> = 0.674).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings indicate that the D.EVO should not be utilized as a replacement for a traditional MVIC setup.</p>","PeriodicalId":16052,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Functional Morphology and Kinesiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"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":"{\"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\":\"<p><strong>Background/objectives: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>FBH and WB IMVIC exhibited good to excellent reliability (ICC<sub>2,1</sub> = 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 (R<sup>2</sup> = 0.674).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings indicate that the D.EVO should not be utilized as a replacement for a traditional MVIC setup.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16052,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Functional Morphology and Kinesiology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"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}","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}
Full-Body Harness versus Waist Belt: An Examination of Force Production and Pain during an Isoinertial Device Maximal Voluntary Isometric Contraction.
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.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
