4.4 Article

MUSCLE TWITCH TORQUE DURING TWO DIFFERENT IN VOLUME ISOMETRIC EXERCISE PROTOCOLS: FATIGUE EFFECTS ON POSTACTIVATION POTENTIATION

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002311

关键词

torque potentiation; rate of torque development; maximum voluntary contraction; plantar flexion; nerve stimulation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of this study was to quantify the effect of the contraction duration of 2 isometric exercise protocols on the postactivation potentiation of 14 well-trained men (age: 22.6 +/- 2.8 years, height: 180.3 +/- 5.9 cm, and body mass: 72.3 +/- 37.9 kg). The protocols consisted of 4 x 6 maximal plantar flexions, of 3-second (P3) or 6-second (P6) duration, performed in random order, with a 2-minute and 15-second intervals between the sets and repetitions, respectively. The torque during maximal isometric voluntary contraction (MIVC), the peak twitch torque (TT), and the rate of torque development (RTD) after each MIVC were analyzed for the first and the last trial of each set, the average of all trials of each set, and the trials within each set that had the highest peak TT. The MIVC had an overall greater reduction during P6 compared with P3 (P3: -4.6 +/- 2.3 vs. P6: -16.0 +/- 1.9%). P6 showed higher potentiation in TT during the initial repetitions of the first 2 sets (p > 0.05) in contrast to the P3, which revealed a lower potentiation but for a longer period along the exercise session. However, both protocols had on average the same potential for potentiation (P3: 81.6 +/- 6.1 vs. P6: 79.8 +/- 6.3%). The twitch RTD presented no systematic difference between the 2 protocols (p > 0.05). These data demonstrate the dependence of the TT potentiation on the conditioning stimulus and verify the cumulative effect of potentiation, suggesting the implementation of longer contractions to achieve maximal but temporal TT potentiation and shorter contractions for less variable but prolonged potentiation.

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

4.4
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