半腱肌和股二头肌在腘绳肌运动中激活幅度的差异:一项系统和关键的荟萃分析综述。

IF 2.3 2区 医学 Q2 SPORT SCIENCES
Chrysostomos Sahinis, Ioannis G Amiridis, Roger M Enoka, Eleftherios Kellis
{"title":"半腱肌和股二头肌在腘绳肌运动中激活幅度的差异:一项系统和关键的荟萃分析综述。","authors":"Chrysostomos Sahinis, Ioannis G Amiridis, Roger M Enoka, Eleftherios Kellis","doi":"10.1080/02640414.2025.2486879","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the amplitude of electromyographic (EMG) recordings for the semitendinosus (ST) and biceps femoris (BF) muscles during selected exercises. Searches were conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases up to 31 August 2024. Included studies focused on healthy adults, reported ST and BF muscle activation during hamstring strengthening exercises, and presented outcomes as a percentage of maximal voluntary contraction. The analysis included 619 participants. No overall significant difference in activation was observed between ST and BF across knee- and hip-based exercises. However, EMG amplitude was greater in ST during the Nordic hamstring exercise (Standardized mean difference, SMD: -0.33, <i>p</i> = 0.01), whereas EMG amplitude was greater in BF during prone-lying curls (SMD: 0.94, <i>p</i> = 0.0076). Among hip-based exercises, EMG amplitude was greater in BF during back extensions (SMD: 0.34, <i>p</i> = 0.0092), whereas EMG amplitude was greater in ST during kettlebell swings (SMD: -0.59, <i>p</i> = 0.0007). Nonetheless, the variability in the methods used to record and analyze EMG as well as the properties of the signal itself make it difficult to reach firm conclusions on whether specific exercises can preferentially recruit ether ST or BF.</p>","PeriodicalId":17066,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Sports Sciences","volume":" ","pages":"1-16"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Differences in activation amplitude between semitendinosus and biceps femoris during hamstring exercises: A systematic and critical review with meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Chrysostomos Sahinis, Ioannis G Amiridis, Roger M Enoka, Eleftherios Kellis\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/02640414.2025.2486879\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the amplitude of electromyographic (EMG) recordings for the semitendinosus (ST) and biceps femoris (BF) muscles during selected exercises. Searches were conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases up to 31 August 2024. Included studies focused on healthy adults, reported ST and BF muscle activation during hamstring strengthening exercises, and presented outcomes as a percentage of maximal voluntary contraction. The analysis included 619 participants. No overall significant difference in activation was observed between ST and BF across knee- and hip-based exercises. However, EMG amplitude was greater in ST during the Nordic hamstring exercise (Standardized mean difference, SMD: -0.33, <i>p</i> = 0.01), whereas EMG amplitude was greater in BF during prone-lying curls (SMD: 0.94, <i>p</i> = 0.0076). Among hip-based exercises, EMG amplitude was greater in BF during back extensions (SMD: 0.34, <i>p</i> = 0.0092), whereas EMG amplitude was greater in ST during kettlebell swings (SMD: -0.59, <i>p</i> = 0.0007). Nonetheless, the variability in the methods used to record and analyze EMG as well as the properties of the signal itself make it difficult to reach firm conclusions on whether specific exercises can preferentially recruit ether ST or BF.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17066,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Sports Sciences\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-16\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Sports Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2025.2486879\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SPORT SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Sports Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2025.2486879","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本系统综述和荟萃分析的目的是比较在选定的运动中半腱肌(ST)和股二头肌(BF)肌肉的肌电图(EMG)记录的振幅。截至2024年8月31日,在PubMed、Web of Science和Scopus数据库中进行了检索。纳入的研究以健康成人为研究对象,报告了腿筋强化运动期间的ST和BF肌肉激活,并以最大自愿收缩的百分比呈现了结果。该分析包括619名参与者。在膝关节和臀部运动中,观察到ST和BF在激活方面没有总体上的显著差异。然而,在北欧腿筋运动中,ST的肌电振幅更大(标准化平均差,SMD: -0.33, p = 0.01),而在俯卧弯曲时,BF的肌电振幅更大(SMD: 0.94, p = 0.0076)。在基于臀部的运动中,背部伸展时BF的肌电信号振幅更大(SMD: 0.34, p = 0.0092),而壶铃摆动时ST的肌电信号振幅更大(SMD: -0.59, p = 0.0007)。尽管如此,用于记录和分析肌电图的方法以及信号本身的特性的可变性使得很难得出关于特定练习是否优先招募乙醚ST或BF的确切结论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Differences in activation amplitude between semitendinosus and biceps femoris during hamstring exercises: A systematic and critical review with meta-analysis.

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the amplitude of electromyographic (EMG) recordings for the semitendinosus (ST) and biceps femoris (BF) muscles during selected exercises. Searches were conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases up to 31 August 2024. Included studies focused on healthy adults, reported ST and BF muscle activation during hamstring strengthening exercises, and presented outcomes as a percentage of maximal voluntary contraction. The analysis included 619 participants. No overall significant difference in activation was observed between ST and BF across knee- and hip-based exercises. However, EMG amplitude was greater in ST during the Nordic hamstring exercise (Standardized mean difference, SMD: -0.33, p = 0.01), whereas EMG amplitude was greater in BF during prone-lying curls (SMD: 0.94, p = 0.0076). Among hip-based exercises, EMG amplitude was greater in BF during back extensions (SMD: 0.34, p = 0.0092), whereas EMG amplitude was greater in ST during kettlebell swings (SMD: -0.59, p = 0.0007). Nonetheless, the variability in the methods used to record and analyze EMG as well as the properties of the signal itself make it difficult to reach firm conclusions on whether specific exercises can preferentially recruit ether ST or BF.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Sports Sciences
Journal of Sports Sciences 社会科学-运动科学
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
2.90%
发文量
147
审稿时长
12 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Sports Sciences has an international reputation for publishing articles of a high standard and is both Medline and Clarivate Analytics-listed. It publishes research on various aspects of the sports and exercise sciences, including anatomy, biochemistry, biomechanics, performance analysis, physiology, psychology, sports medicine and health, as well as coaching and talent identification, kinanthropometry and other interdisciplinary perspectives. The emphasis of the Journal is on the human sciences, broadly defined and applied to sport and exercise. Besides experimental work in human responses to exercise, the subjects covered will include human responses to technologies such as the design of sports equipment and playing facilities, research in training, selection, performance prediction or modification, and stress reduction or manifestation. Manuscripts considered for publication include those dealing with original investigations of exercise, validation of technological innovations in sport or comprehensive reviews of topics relevant to the scientific study of sport.
×
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