Vidar Andersen, Marius Steiro Fimland, Atle Saeterbakken
{"title":"单臂和双臂美式壶铃摆动阻力训练男子躯干肌肉活动。","authors":"Vidar Andersen, Marius Steiro Fimland, Atle Saeterbakken","doi":"10.1055/a-0869-7228","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The aim of the study was to compare the one-armed vs. two-armed American kettlebell swing on trunk muscle activation. Fifteen resistance-trained men performed ten repetitions of both exercises using a 14-kg kettlebell. Surface EMG from the erector spinae, rectus abdominis and external oblique muscles were collected on both sides of the trunk. The erector spinae activation during the one-armed swing was 14-25% higher on the contralateral compared to the ipsilateral side in both exercises (Cohen's d effect size [ES]=0.41-0.71, <i>p</i> ˂ 0.001-0.034). Further, the contralateral side was 14% more activated during the two-armed swing compared to the ipsilateral side during the one-armed swing (ES=0.43, <i>p</i> =0.009). For the rectus abdominis muscle, the two-armed swing induced higher activation of the rectus abdominis compared to the one-armed swing on both the contralateral (40%, ES=0.48, <i>p</i> =0.040) and ipsilateral side (59%, ES=0.83, <i>p</i> =0.002). There were no differences for the external oblique muscle ( <i>p</i> =0.495-0.662). In conclusion, the trunk activation patterns of the two exercises were different, which could be explained by different biomechanics in the two exercises, and could thus have complimentary effects. We recommend that both unilateral and bilateral execution of the American kettlebell swing is included over time.</p>","PeriodicalId":74857,"journal":{"name":"Sports medicine international open","volume":"3 1","pages":"E12-E18"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1055/a-0869-7228","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Trunk Muscle Activity in One- and Two-Armed American Kettlebell Swing in Resistance-Trained Men.\",\"authors\":\"Vidar Andersen, Marius Steiro Fimland, Atle Saeterbakken\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/a-0869-7228\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The aim of the study was to compare the one-armed vs. two-armed American kettlebell swing on trunk muscle activation. Fifteen resistance-trained men performed ten repetitions of both exercises using a 14-kg kettlebell. Surface EMG from the erector spinae, rectus abdominis and external oblique muscles were collected on both sides of the trunk. The erector spinae activation during the one-armed swing was 14-25% higher on the contralateral compared to the ipsilateral side in both exercises (Cohen's d effect size [ES]=0.41-0.71, <i>p</i> ˂ 0.001-0.034). Further, the contralateral side was 14% more activated during the two-armed swing compared to the ipsilateral side during the one-armed swing (ES=0.43, <i>p</i> =0.009). For the rectus abdominis muscle, the two-armed swing induced higher activation of the rectus abdominis compared to the one-armed swing on both the contralateral (40%, ES=0.48, <i>p</i> =0.040) and ipsilateral side (59%, ES=0.83, <i>p</i> =0.002). There were no differences for the external oblique muscle ( <i>p</i> =0.495-0.662). In conclusion, the trunk activation patterns of the two exercises were different, which could be explained by different biomechanics in the two exercises, and could thus have complimentary effects. We recommend that both unilateral and bilateral execution of the American kettlebell swing is included over time.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74857,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sports medicine international open\",\"volume\":\"3 1\",\"pages\":\"E12-E18\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-03-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1055/a-0869-7228\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sports medicine international open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-0869-7228\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2019/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sports medicine international open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-0869-7228","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2019/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
摘要
这项研究的目的是比较单臂和双臂美式壶铃摆动对躯干肌肉激活的影响。15名受过阻力训练的男子用14公斤重的壶铃重复10次这两项运动。采集躯干两侧竖脊肌、腹直肌和外斜肌的表面肌电图。在这两种练习中,单臂摆动时对侧竖脊肌的激活比同侧高14-25% (Cohen's效应值[ES]=0.41-0.71, p小于0.001-0.034)。此外,与单臂摆动时的同侧相比,双臂摆动时对侧的激活率高出14% (ES=0.43, p =0.009)。对于腹直肌,双臂摆动诱导腹直肌的激活高于单臂摆动对侧(40%,ES=0.48, p =0.040)和同侧(59%,ES=0.83, p =0.002)。外斜肌无明显差异(p =0.495-0.662)。综上所述,两种运动的主干激活模式不同,这可能与两种运动的生物力学不同有关,因此可能具有互补作用。我们建议,随着时间的推移,美国壶铃摆动的单边和双边执行包括在内。
Trunk Muscle Activity in One- and Two-Armed American Kettlebell Swing in Resistance-Trained Men.
The aim of the study was to compare the one-armed vs. two-armed American kettlebell swing on trunk muscle activation. Fifteen resistance-trained men performed ten repetitions of both exercises using a 14-kg kettlebell. Surface EMG from the erector spinae, rectus abdominis and external oblique muscles were collected on both sides of the trunk. The erector spinae activation during the one-armed swing was 14-25% higher on the contralateral compared to the ipsilateral side in both exercises (Cohen's d effect size [ES]=0.41-0.71, p ˂ 0.001-0.034). Further, the contralateral side was 14% more activated during the two-armed swing compared to the ipsilateral side during the one-armed swing (ES=0.43, p =0.009). For the rectus abdominis muscle, the two-armed swing induced higher activation of the rectus abdominis compared to the one-armed swing on both the contralateral (40%, ES=0.48, p =0.040) and ipsilateral side (59%, ES=0.83, p =0.002). There were no differences for the external oblique muscle ( p =0.495-0.662). In conclusion, the trunk activation patterns of the two exercises were different, which could be explained by different biomechanics in the two exercises, and could thus have complimentary effects. We recommend that both unilateral and bilateral execution of the American kettlebell swing is included over time.