3.9 Article

Familiarisation to maximal recumbent eccentric cycling

期刊

ISOKINETICS AND EXERCISE SCIENCE
卷 25, 期 1, 页码 17-24

出版社

IOS PRESS
DOI: 10.3233/IES-160640

关键词

Eccentric cycling; familiarisation; electromyography; reliability; power output

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Isokinetic eccentric cycling is increasingly being utilised to examine the effect of chronic eccentric muscle training however little is known about how individuals familiarise to such a unique training modality. OBJECTIVE: To examine longitudinal variation in power output and lower limb muscle activation during familiarisation to maximal recumbent isokinetic eccentric cycling. METHODS: Twelve male volunteers, unfamiliar with eccentric cycling, completed four trials, separated by 7-10 days, each comprising 6 x 10 s maximal isokinetic eccentric efforts between 20-120 rpm. Peak power and average power output (PO), and surface electromyography (sEMG) of the rectus femoris (RF), vastus lateralis (VL), biceps femoris (BF), and medial gastrocnemius (MG) were recorded throughout. Systematic error across repeated trials was assessed using one-way ANOVA, and random error quantified using coefficient of variation (CV, %). RESULTS: Average PO at 60 rpm and RF activation at 20 rpm increased from trial 1-2 (p < 0.05), with no other systematic error between trials at any cadence. Across all cadences, the CV for peak PO (similar to 13%), average PO (similar to 10%), VL activation (similar to 13%) and RF activation (similar to 19%) was moderate and plateaued after one familiarisation (i.e. T2-T3). However, for BF (similar to 24%) and MG (similar to 22%) activation reliability was generally poor. For the majority of variables the reliability was best at 60 rpm. CONCLUSIONS: Therefore, with one familiarisation, 60 rpm is recommended to achieve moderate between-session reliability in the measurement of power output and lower limb muscle activation during recumbent, eccentric cycling.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据