对双侧和单侧最大、疲劳、等速腿部伸展的同侧和对侧扭矩响应

Q3 Health Professions
Tyler J. Neltner, J. V. Anders, Joshua L. Keller, Robert W. Smith, T. Housh, Richard Schmidt, G. Johnson
{"title":"对双侧和单侧最大、疲劳、等速腿部伸展的同侧和对侧扭矩响应","authors":"Tyler J. Neltner, J. V. Anders, Joshua L. Keller, Robert W. Smith, T. Housh, Richard Schmidt, G. Johnson","doi":"10.7575/aiac.ijkss.v.8n.4p.25","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Few studies have compared performance fatigability (PF) for bilateral versus unilateral isokinetic tasks. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to examine: Mode-specific testing responses to isokinetic fatigue, differences in PF between bilateral and unilateral leg extensions, and the effects of fatiguing, unilateral, dynamic leg extensions on contralateral isokinetic peak torque (PT) and maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC). Methods: Eight men (mean ± SD: age= 22.5 ± 2.5 yr.) completed pre- and post-testing for PT and MVIC following 50 bilateral, unilateral right or left leg maximal, isokinetic leg extensions at 180°·s-1, on three separate days. Fatigue-induced decreases in PT and MVIC were used to quantify PF. The data were analyzed with a 4-way repeated measures ANOVA, follow up, and post-hoc analyses. Results: The results indicated that there were no differences (p > 0.05) in PF for the bilateral versus unilateral fatiguing tasks, decreases in PT (p < 0.001 - 0.016; d = 0.54 - 2.58) and MVIC (p < 0.001 - 0.006; η2p = 0.682 - 0.962) for the exercised legs during unilateral fatigue, and a contralateral increase (p = 0.007) in PT following the right leg fatiguing task. Conclusion: The results indicated that PT was more sensitive to fatiguing isokinetic tasks than was MVIC. In addition, there was a facilitation of PT in the contralateral leg following unilateral right leg fatigue. The differences in PT and MVIC testing may be attributable to the timing and/or relative contributions of peripheral and central fatigue.","PeriodicalId":36327,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Kinesiology and Sports Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ipsilateral and Contralateral Torque Responses to Bilateral and Unilateral Maximal, Fatiguing, Isokinetic Leg Extensions\",\"authors\":\"Tyler J. Neltner, J. V. Anders, Joshua L. Keller, Robert W. Smith, T. Housh, Richard Schmidt, G. Johnson\",\"doi\":\"10.7575/aiac.ijkss.v.8n.4p.25\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Few studies have compared performance fatigability (PF) for bilateral versus unilateral isokinetic tasks. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to examine: Mode-specific testing responses to isokinetic fatigue, differences in PF between bilateral and unilateral leg extensions, and the effects of fatiguing, unilateral, dynamic leg extensions on contralateral isokinetic peak torque (PT) and maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC). Methods: Eight men (mean ± SD: age= 22.5 ± 2.5 yr.) completed pre- and post-testing for PT and MVIC following 50 bilateral, unilateral right or left leg maximal, isokinetic leg extensions at 180°·s-1, on three separate days. Fatigue-induced decreases in PT and MVIC were used to quantify PF. The data were analyzed with a 4-way repeated measures ANOVA, follow up, and post-hoc analyses. Results: The results indicated that there were no differences (p > 0.05) in PF for the bilateral versus unilateral fatiguing tasks, decreases in PT (p < 0.001 - 0.016; d = 0.54 - 2.58) and MVIC (p < 0.001 - 0.006; η2p = 0.682 - 0.962) for the exercised legs during unilateral fatigue, and a contralateral increase (p = 0.007) in PT following the right leg fatiguing task. Conclusion: The results indicated that PT was more sensitive to fatiguing isokinetic tasks than was MVIC. In addition, there was a facilitation of PT in the contralateral leg following unilateral right leg fatigue. The differences in PT and MVIC testing may be attributable to the timing and/or relative contributions of peripheral and central fatigue.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36327,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Kinesiology and Sports Science\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-10-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Kinesiology and Sports Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijkss.v.8n.4p.25\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Health Professions\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Kinesiology and Sports Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijkss.v.8n.4p.25","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Health Professions","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

背景:很少有研究比较双侧和单侧等速任务的表现疲劳性。目的:本研究的目的是检查:等速疲劳的模式特异性测试反应,双侧和单侧伸腿之间PF的差异,以及疲劳、单侧动态伸腿对对对侧等速峰值扭矩(PT)和最大自主等长收缩(MVIC)的影响。方法:8名男性(平均值±标准差:年龄=22.5±2.5岁)在180°·s-1的双侧、单侧右腿或左腿最大等速伸腿50次后,分别在3天内完成PT和MVIC的前后测试。疲劳引起的PT和MVIC下降用于量化PF。数据采用4次重复测量ANOVA、随访和事后分析进行分析。结果:结果表明,在单侧疲劳期间,双侧和单侧疲劳任务的PF没有差异(p>0.05),运动腿的PT下降(p<0.001-0.016;d=0.54-2.58)和MVIC(p<0.001-0.006;η2p=0.682-0.962),右腿疲劳任务后对侧PT增加(p=0.007)。结论:PT对疲劳等速任务的敏感性高于MVIC。此外,单侧右腿疲劳后对侧腿的PT也有促进作用。PT和MVIC测试的差异可能归因于外周疲劳和中心疲劳的时间和/或相对贡献。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Ipsilateral and Contralateral Torque Responses to Bilateral and Unilateral Maximal, Fatiguing, Isokinetic Leg Extensions
Background: Few studies have compared performance fatigability (PF) for bilateral versus unilateral isokinetic tasks. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to examine: Mode-specific testing responses to isokinetic fatigue, differences in PF between bilateral and unilateral leg extensions, and the effects of fatiguing, unilateral, dynamic leg extensions on contralateral isokinetic peak torque (PT) and maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC). Methods: Eight men (mean ± SD: age= 22.5 ± 2.5 yr.) completed pre- and post-testing for PT and MVIC following 50 bilateral, unilateral right or left leg maximal, isokinetic leg extensions at 180°·s-1, on three separate days. Fatigue-induced decreases in PT and MVIC were used to quantify PF. The data were analyzed with a 4-way repeated measures ANOVA, follow up, and post-hoc analyses. Results: The results indicated that there were no differences (p > 0.05) in PF for the bilateral versus unilateral fatiguing tasks, decreases in PT (p < 0.001 - 0.016; d = 0.54 - 2.58) and MVIC (p < 0.001 - 0.006; η2p = 0.682 - 0.962) for the exercised legs during unilateral fatigue, and a contralateral increase (p = 0.007) in PT following the right leg fatiguing task. Conclusion: The results indicated that PT was more sensitive to fatiguing isokinetic tasks than was MVIC. In addition, there was a facilitation of PT in the contralateral leg following unilateral right leg fatigue. The differences in PT and MVIC testing may be attributable to the timing and/or relative contributions of peripheral and central fatigue.
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
International Journal of Kinesiology and Sports Science
International Journal of Kinesiology and Sports Science Health Professions-Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
×
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