Riccardo Di Giminiani1, Francesco Masedu2, Johnny Padulo3, Jozsef Tihanyi4, Marco Valenti2. 1. Department of Biotechnological and Applied Clinical Sciences, University of L'Aquila, Italy. Electronic address: riccardo.digiminiani@univaq.it. 2. Department of Biotechnological and Applied Clinical Sciences, University of L'Aquila, Italy. 3. University eCampus, Novedrate, COMO, Italy; Tunisian Research Laboratory "Sport Performance Optimization" National Center of Medicine and Science in Sports (CNMSS), Tunis, Tunisia. 4. Department of Biomechanics, Faculty of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To date are lacking methodological approaches to individualizing whole-body vibration (WBV) intensity. The aim of this study was: (1) to determine the surface-electromyography-root-mean-square (sEMG(RMS))-acceleration load relationship in the vastus lateralis (VL), vastus medialis (VM), rectus femoris (RF), lateral gastrocnemius (LG) muscles during synchronous WBV, and (2) to assess the reliability of the acceleration corresponding to the maximal sEMG(RMS). METHODS: Twenty-five sportsman voluntarily took part in this study with a single-group, repeated-measures design. All subjects postured themselves in an isometric half-squat during nine trials in the following conditions: no vibrations and random vibrations of different acceleration loads (from 0.12 to 5.72 g). RESULTS: The sEMG(RMS) were dependent on the acceleration loads in the VL (p = 0.0001), LG (p = 0.0001) and VM (p = 0.011) muscles; while RF was not affected by the acceleration loads (p = 0.508). The comparisons among the sEMG(RMS)-accelerations relationships revealed a significant difference between the LG and the others muscles (p = 0.001). No significant difference was found between the different thigh muscles (p > 0.05). The intra-class correlation coefficient ranged from 0.87 to 0.99 for the measurements performed on the LG, VL and VM. CONCLUSIONS: The sEMG(RMS)-acceleration relationship in the VL, VM and LG is a reliable test to individualize the WBV intervention.
PURPOSE: To date are lacking methodological approaches to individualizing whole-body vibration (WBV) intensity. The aim of this study was: (1) to determine the surface-electromyography-root-mean-square (sEMG(RMS))-acceleration load relationship in the vastus lateralis (VL), vastus medialis (VM), rectus femoris (RF), lateral gastrocnemius (LG) muscles during synchronous WBV, and (2) to assess the reliability of the acceleration corresponding to the maximal sEMG(RMS). METHODS: Twenty-five sportsman voluntarily took part in this study with a single-group, repeated-measures design. All subjects postured themselves in an isometric half-squat during nine trials in the following conditions: no vibrations and random vibrations of different acceleration loads (from 0.12 to 5.72 g). RESULTS: The sEMG(RMS) were dependent on the acceleration loads in the VL (p = 0.0001), LG (p = 0.0001) and VM (p = 0.011) muscles; while RF was not affected by the acceleration loads (p = 0.508). The comparisons among the sEMG(RMS)-accelerations relationships revealed a significant difference between the LG and the others muscles (p = 0.001). No significant difference was found between the different thigh muscles (p > 0.05). The intra-class correlation coefficient ranged from 0.87 to 0.99 for the measurements performed on the LG, VL and VM. CONCLUSIONS: The sEMG(RMS)-acceleration relationship in the VL, VM and LG is a reliable test to individualize the WBV intervention.
Authors: Rafael Sierra-Guzmán; Fernando Jiménez-Diaz; Carlos Ramírez; Paula Esteban; Javier Abián-Vicén Journal: J Athl Train Date: 2018-03-23 Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: Riccardo Di Giminiani; Aldo Giovannelli; Lorenzo Capuano; Pascal Izzicupo; Andrea Di Blasio; Francesco Masedu Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-11-21 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Elie-Jacques Fares; Nathalie Charrière; Jean-Pierre Montani; Yves Schutz; Abdul G Dulloo; Jennifer L Miles-Chan Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-03-14 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Johnny Padulo; Riccardo Di Giminiani; Antonio Dello Iacono; Alessandro M Zagatto; Gian M Migliaccio; Zoran Grgantov; Luca P Ardigò Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2016-06-16 Impact factor: 4.566
Authors: Lisa N Zaidell; Ross D Pollock; Darren C James; Joanna L Bowtell; Di J Newham; David P Sumners; Katya N Mileva Journal: Dose Response Date: 2019-01-06 Impact factor: 2.658