Literature DB >> 24150082

Comparison of the shake weight(®) modality exercises when compared to traditional dumbbells.

Jordan M Glenn1, Isaac Cook, Ro Di Brezzo, Michelle Gray, Jennifer L Vincenzo.   

Abstract

Individuals are continuously looking for faster, more efficient methods with which to develop physical fitness. This has led to the development of products and programs marketed towards increasing physical fitness in minimal time. The Shake Weight(®) (SW) has been advertised to increase muscular strength among other factors in less time than traditional weightlifting. The purpose of this study was to compare the electromyographic (EMG) muscle activity of the SW to a traditional dumbbell (DB) performing the same exercises. Twelve men (22.9 ± 1.6 years) and 13 women (23.0 ± 1.9 years) volunteered to participate in this study. Subjects performed the chest shake (CS), biceps shake (BS), and triceps shake (TS) using the SW and DW. Maximal voluntary isometric contractions (MVIC) were exhibited for all muscles. EMG activity was recorded for the pectoralis major (PM), triceps brachii (TB), biceps brachii (BB), anterior deltoid (AD), trapezius (TR), and rectus abdominus (RA) and compared to detect differences between modalities. EMG activity for each muscle group was reported as a percentage of each subject's individual MVIC. A repeated measures ANOVA revealed no significant differences between the SW and DB modalities during each exercise for all muscles except the BB (p < 0.05). During the CS exercise muscle activity was significantly greater for DB in the BB muscle when compared to the SW mode (50.8 ± 28.9%; 35.8 ± 30.8%). The SW did not have any advantage over the DB for any exercise, nor for any muscle group. Further, no muscle group during any of the SW trials exhibited an MVIC over 60%, the level necessary to increase muscular strength.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Physical activity; fitness products.; muscular endurance; muscular strength

Year:  2012        PMID: 24150082      PMCID: PMC3763318     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Sports Sci Med        ISSN: 1303-2968            Impact factor:   2.988


  18 in total

1.  Neuromuscular activation in conventional therapeutic exercises and heavy resistance exercises: implications for rehabilitation.

Authors:  Lars L Andersen; S Peter Magnusson; Michael Nielsen; John Haleem; Kenn Poulsen; Per Aagaard
Journal:  Phys Ther       Date:  2006-05

2.  Does the Shake Weight(®) live up to its hype?

Authors:  John Porcari; Jennah Hackbarth; Thomas Kernozek; Scott Doberstein; Carl Foster
Journal:  J Sports Sci Med       Date:  2011-09-01       Impact factor: 2.988

3.  Reliability of manual muscle testing with a computerized dynamometer.

Authors:  C Y Hsieh; R B Phillips
Journal:  J Manipulative Physiol Ther       Date:  1990-02       Impact factor: 1.437

4.  Angular Specificity and Test Mode Specificity of Isometric and lsokinetic Strength Training *.

Authors:  J J Knapik; R H Mawdsley; M U Ramos
Journal:  J Orthop Sports Phys Ther       Date:  1983       Impact factor: 4.751

5.  An electromyographic analysis of the upper extremity in pitching.

Authors:  N M Digiovine; F W Jobe; M Pink; J Perry
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2009-02-02       Impact factor: 3.019

6.  Specificity of joint angle in isometric training.

Authors:  T A Kitai; D G Sale
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol       Date:  1989

7.  Trunk muscle activation patterns, lumbar compressive forces, and spine stability when using the bodyblade.

Authors:  Janice M Moreside; Francisco J Vera-Garcia; Stuart M McGill
Journal:  Phys Ther       Date:  2007-01-23

8.  A comparison of trunk muscle activation: Ab Circle vs. traditional modalities.

Authors:  Jeffrey M Willardson; David G Behm; Stacey Y Huang; Maranda D Rehg; Mark S Kattenbraker; Fabio E Fontana
Journal:  J Strength Cond Res       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 3.775

9.  Comparison of muscle-activation patterns during the conventional push-up and perfect· pushup™ exercises.

Authors:  James W Youdas; Brian D Budach; Jay V Ellerbusch; Craig M Stucky; Kevin R Wait; John H Hollman
Journal:  J Strength Cond Res       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 3.775

10.  Skeletal muscle hypertrophy in response to isometric, lengthening, and shortening training bouts of equivalent duration.

Authors:  Gregory R Adams; Daniel C Cheng; Fadia Haddad; Kenneth M Baldwin
Journal:  J Appl Physiol (1985)       Date:  2004-05
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.