| Literature DB >> 26350942 |
P J Marín1, M T García-Gutiérrez, M E Da Silva-Grigoletto, T J Hazell.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of performing battling rope exercise with and without the addition of whole-body vibration (WBV) on muscle activity of the leg, trunk, and upper body.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26350942 PMCID: PMC5601236
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact ISSN: 1108-7161 Impact factor: 2.041
Figure 1Experiment setup.
Figure 2EMGrms activity of the (a) gastrocnemius medialis (GM), (b) vastus medialis oblique (VMO), and (c) vastus lateralis (VL), during 6 experimental conditions. a Significantly different than Alt_No condition (p<0.05). b Significantly different than Alt_30 Hz-L condition (p<0.05). c Significantly different than Double_No condition (p<0.05). d Significantly different than Double_30 Hz-L condition (p<0.05). * Difference from alternate motion at the same condition (p<0.01) (n=28).
EMG median frequency (Hz) activity of the gastrocnemius medialis (GM), vastus medialis oblique (VMO), vastus lateralis (VL), rectus abdominis (RA), multifidus (MF), biceps brachii (BB), and triceps brachii (TB) muscles during 6 experimental conditions.
| GM | VMO | VL | RA | MF | BB | TB | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alt_No WBV | 106.8±32.1 | 78.6±17.1 | 80.8±14.3 | 48.9±15.6 | 57.4±10.6 | 68.9±10.3 | 70.1±11.7 |
| Alt_30Hz-L | 100.0±29.2 | 74.8[ | 76.3±15.4 | 47.9±15.1 | 58.3±11.1 | 68.0±10.7 | 69.3±12.9 |
| Alt_50Hz-H | 103.4±31.6 | 75.5±16.7 | 73.8[ | 48.3±14.0 | 60.0±8.8 | 67.5±11.0 | 69.8±11.8 |
| Double_No WBV | 100.0 | 79.6±16.5 | 79.0±11.9 | 48.9±10.9 | 63.9 | 68.4±13.7 | 66.9 |
| Double_30Hz-L | 95.7 | 75.7 | 74.1±13.4 | 46.5±11.5 | 61.2 | 67.1±12.1 | 66.9 |
| Double_50Hz-H | 98.2 | 77.3±17.2 | 72.7 | 45.9±10.1 | 62.3 | 65.8±12.4 | 68.3 |
Significantly different than Alt_No condition (p<0.05).
Significantly different than Double_No motion (p<0.05).
Significantly different than Double_NO WBV condition (p<0.05).
Difference from alternate motion at the same condition (p<0.05).
Difference from alternate motion at the same condition (p<0.01) (n=28).
Figure 3EMGrms activity of the rectus abdominis (RA), and multifidus (MF) muscles during 6 experimental conditions. a Significantly different than Alt_No condition (p<0.05). c Significantly different than Double_No condition (p<0.05). * Difference from alternate motion at the same condition (p<0.01) (n=28).
Figure 4EMGrms activity of the biceps brachii (BB) and triceps brachii (TB) muscles during 6 experimental conditions. a Significantly different than Alt_No condition (p<0.05). b Significantly different than Alt_30 Hz-L condition (p<0.05). c Significantly different than Double_No condition (p<0.05) (n=28).
Figure 5Arm motion (a) frequencies during 6 experimental conditions in the (b) y-coordinate, (c) z-coordinate, and (d) x-coordinate. a Significantly different than Alt_No condition (p<0.05). c Significantly different than Double_No condition (p<0.05). * Difference from alternate motion at the same condition (p<0.01) (n=28).
Figure 6Beats per minute (bpm) heart rate average (a) and maximum (b) during 6 experimental conditions. a Significantly different than Alt_No condition (p<0.05). c Significantly different than Double_ No condition (p<0.05). * Difference from alternate motion at the same condition (p<0.05) (n=28).