4.4 Article

Acute effects of passive stretching on the electromechanical delay and evoked twitch properties

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY
卷 108, 期 2, 页码 301-310

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00421-009-1214-3

关键词

Electromyography; Rate of force development; Electrical stimulation; Mechanical properties; Muscle mechanics

资金

  1. National Strength and Conditioning Association (NSCA) Foundation, Colorado Springs, CO

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of this study was to investigate the acute effects of passive stretching on the electromechanical delay (EMD), peak twitch force (PTF), rate of force development (RFD), and compound muscle action potential (M-wave) amplitude during evoked twitches of the plantar flexor muscles. 16 men (mean age +/- A SD = 21.1 +/- A 1.7 years; body mass = 75.9 +/- A 11.4 kg; height = 176.5 +/- A 8.6 cm) participated in this study. A single, square-wave, supramaximal transcutaneous electrical stimulus was delivered to the tibial nerve before and after passive stretching. The stretching protocol consisted of nine repetitions of passive assisted stretching designed to stretch the calf muscles. Each repetition was held for 135 s separated by 5-10 s of rest. Dependent-samples t tests (pre- vs. post-stretching) were used to analyze the EMD, PTF, RFD, and M-wave amplitude data. There were significant changes (P a parts per thousand currency sign 0.05) from pre- to post-stretching for EMD (mean +/- A SE = 4.84 +/- A 0.31 and 6.22 +/- A 0.34 ms), PTF (17.2 +/- A 1.3 and 15.6 +/- A 1.5), and RFD (320.5 +/- A 24.5 and 279.8 +/- A 28.2), however, the M-wave amplitude did not change (P > 0.05). These findings suggested that passively stretching the calf muscles affected the mechanical aspects of force production from the onset of the electrically evoked twitch to the peak twitch force. These results may help to explain the mechanisms underlying the stretching-induced force deficit that have been reported as either mechanical or electrical in origin.

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