BACKGROUND/ PURPOSE: While elastic resistance training, targeting the upper body is effective for strength training, the effect of elastic resistance training on lower body muscle activity remains questionable. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the EMG-angle relationship of the quadriceps muscle during 10-RM knee-extensions performed with elastic tubing and an isotonic strength training machine. METHODS: 7 women and 9 men aged 28-67 years (mean age 44 and 41 years, respectively) participated. Electromyographic (EMG) activity was recorded in 10 muscles during the concentric and eccentric contraction phase of a knee extension exercise performed with elastic tubing and in training machine and normalized to maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVC) EMG (nEMG). Knee joint angle was measured during the exercises using electronic inclinometers (range of motion 0-90°). RESULTS: When comparing the machine and elastic resistance exercises there were no significant differences in peak EMG of the rectus femoris (RF), vastus lateralis (VL), vastus medialis (VM) during the concentric contraction phase. However, during the eccentric phase, peak EMG was significantly higher (p<0.01) in RF and VM when performing knee extensions using the training machine. In VL and VM the EMG-angle pattern was different between the two training modalities (significant angle by exercise interaction). When using elastic resistance, the EMG-angle pattern peaked towards full knee extension (0°), whereas angle at peak EMG occurred closer to knee flexion position (90°) during the machine exercise. Perceived loading (Borg CR10) was similar during knee extensions performed with elastic tubing (5.7±0.6) compared with knee extensions performed in training machine (5.9±0.5). CONCLUSION: Knee extensions performed with elastic tubing induces similar high (>70% nEMG) quadriceps muscle activity during the concentric contraction phase, but slightly lower during the eccentric contraction phase, as knee extensions performed using an isotonic training machine. During the concentric contraction phase the two different conditions displayed reciprocal EMG-angle patterns during the range of motion. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 5.
BACKGROUND/ PURPOSE: While elastic resistance training, targeting the upper body is effective for strength training, the effect of elastic resistance training on lower body muscle activity remains questionable. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the EMG-angle relationship of the quadriceps muscle during 10-RM knee-extensions performed with elastic tubing and an isotonic strength training machine. METHODS: 7 women and 9 men aged 28-67 years (mean age 44 and 41 years, respectively) participated. Electromyographic (EMG) activity was recorded in 10 muscles during the concentric and eccentric contraction phase of a knee extension exercise performed with elastic tubing and in training machine and normalized to maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVC) EMG (nEMG). Knee joint angle was measured during the exercises using electronic inclinometers (range of motion 0-90°). RESULTS: When comparing the machine and elastic resistance exercises there were no significant differences in peak EMG of the rectus femoris (RF), vastus lateralis (VL), vastus medialis (VM) during the concentric contraction phase. However, during the eccentric phase, peak EMG was significantly higher (p<0.01) in RF and VM when performing knee extensions using the training machine. In VL and VM the EMG-angle pattern was different between the two training modalities (significant angle by exercise interaction). When using elastic resistance, the EMG-angle pattern peaked towards full knee extension (0°), whereas angle at peak EMG occurred closer to knee flexion position (90°) during the machine exercise. Perceived loading (Borg CR10) was similar during knee extensions performed with elastic tubing (5.7±0.6) compared with knee extensions performed in training machine (5.9±0.5). CONCLUSION: Knee extensions performed with elastic tubing induces similar high (>70% nEMG) quadriceps muscle activity during the concentric contraction phase, but slightly lower during the eccentric contraction phase, as knee extensions performed using an isotonic training machine. During the concentric contraction phase the two different conditions displayed reciprocal EMG-angle patterns during the range of motion. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 5.
Entities:
Keywords:
Electromyography; perceived exertion; quadriceps; strength training
Authors: Emil Sundstrup; Markus D Jakobsen; Christoffer H Andersen; Mette K Zebis; Ole S Mortensen; Lars L Andersen Journal: J Strength Cond Res Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 3.775
Authors: Markus D Jakobsen; Emil Sundstrup; Christoffer H Andersen; Mette K Zebis; Peter Mortensen; Lars L Andersen Journal: J Strength Cond Res Date: 2012-09 Impact factor: 3.775
Authors: Ingrid Eitzen; Thomas J Eitzen; Inger Holm; Lynn Snyder-Mackler; May Arna Risberg Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2010-01-28 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: P Aagaard; J L Andersen; P Dyhre-Poulsen; A M Leffers; A Wagner; S P Magnusson; J Halkjaer-Kristensen; E B Simonsen Journal: J Physiol Date: 2001-07-15 Impact factor: 5.182
Authors: K Thorborg; T Bandholm; J Petersen; K M Ø Weeke; C Weinold; B Andersen; A Serner; S P Magnusson; P Hölmich Journal: Scand J Med Sci Sports Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 4.221
Authors: Lars L Andersen; Michael Kjaer; Christoffer H Andersen; Peter B Hansen; Mette K Zebis; Klaus Hansen; Gisela Sjøgaard Journal: Phys Ther Date: 2008-03-13
Authors: Kristian Thorborg; Thomas Bandholm; Mette Zebis; Lars Louis Andersen; Jesper Jensen; Per Hölmich Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2015-03-22 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Jonas Vinstrup; Sebastian Skals; Joaquin Calatayud; Markus Due Jakobsen; Emil Sundstrup; Matheus Daros Pinto; Mikel Izquierdo; Yuling Wang; Mette K Zebis; Lars Louis Andersen Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2017-04-26 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: Marko D M Stojanović; Mladen J Mikić; Zoran Milošević; Jovan Vuković; Tatjana Jezdimirović; Vlatko Vučetić Journal: J Sports Sci Med Date: 2021-03-01 Impact factor: 2.988
Authors: Kasper Krommes; Thomas Bandholm; Markus D Jakobsen; Lars L Andersen; Andreas Serner; Per Hölmich; Kristian Thorborg Journal: Int J Sports Phys Ther Date: 2017-06
Authors: Mikkel Brandt; Markus Due Jakobsen; Kristian Thorborg; Emil Sundstrup; Kenneth Jay; Lars L Andersen Journal: Int J Sports Phys Ther Date: 2013-12
Authors: Emil Sundstrup; Markus D Jakobsen; Mikkel Brandt; Kenneth Jay; Per Aagaard; Lars L Andersen Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2016-02-27 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Mark Lidegaard; Rene B Jensen; Christoffer H Andersen; Mette K Zebis; Juan C Colado; Yuling Wang; Thomas Heilskov-Hansen; Lars L Andersen Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2013-12-31 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Jonas Vinstrup; Emil Sundstrup; Mikkel Brandt; Markus D Jakobsen; Joaquin Calatayud; Lars L Andersen Journal: Scientifica (Cairo) Date: 2015-10-18