4.2 Article

Strength or power, which is more important to prevent slip-related falls?

期刊

HUMAN MOVEMENT SCIENCE
卷 44, 期 -, 页码 192-200

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.humov.2015.09.001

关键词

Fall prevention; Treadmill; Lower extremity; Standardized fall-induction

资金

  1. Retirement Research Foundation [2014-070]
  2. URI from The University of Texas at El Paso [146485]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Falls are a serious health and medical concern facing older adults worldwide. Both muscle strength and power have been related to falls among older adults. The primary purpose of this study was to identify which one of these two muscular performances is more important in preventing a slip-related fall. Twenty-six healthy young adults participated in this study. Their muscle strength (torque) and power capacities were assessed at the right knee under maximum voluntary isometric (flexion and extension) and isokinetic (concentric extension and flexion at three different contraction speeds: 60 deg/s, 120 deg/s, and 180 deg/s) contractions, respectively. They were then subjected to an identical and unannounced slip during gait on a treadmill under the protection of a safety harness after walking regularly for five times on the treadmill. Accuracy of predicting slip outcome (fall vs. recovery) was examined for each muscle performance measurement using logistic regression. Results showed that overall the joint power capacity measurements predicted the slip outcome among these subjects with higher accuracy than did the joint torque capacity measurements. Such results suggested that muscle power could be more closely related to a fall initiated by a slip during gait. The findings from the present study could provide guidance to identify individuals at increased risk of falling using the joint power capacity measurement and to design effective fall prevention training paradigms aiming at maximizing muscle power among older adults and others with physical disabilities. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.2
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