| Literature DB >> 26557188 |
Gennaro Boccia1, Luisa Pizzigalli2, Donato Formicola2, Marco Ivaldi2, Alberto Rainoldi2.
Abstract
Neuromuscular assessment of rock climbers has been mainly focused on forearm muscles in the literature. We aimed to extend the body of knowledge investigating on two other upper limb muscles during sport-specific activities in nine male rock climbers. We assessed neuromuscular manifestations of fatigue recording surface electromyographic signals from brachioradialis and teres major muscles, using multi-channel electrode arrays. Participants performed two tasks until volitional exhaustion: a sequence of dynamic pull-ups and an isometric contraction sustaining the body at half-way of a pull-up (with the elbows flexed at 90°). The tasks were performed in randomized order with 10 minutes of rest in between. The normalized rate of change of muscle fiber conduction velocity was calculated as the index of fatigue. The time-to-task failure was significantly shorter in the dynamic (31 ±10 s) than isometric contraction (59 ±19 s). The rate of decrease of muscle fiber conduction velocity was found steeper in the dynamic than isometric task both in brachioradialis (isometric: -0.2 ±0.1%/s; dynamic: -1.2 ±0.6%/s) and teres major muscles (isometric: -0.4±0.3%/s; dynamic: -1.8±0.7%/s). The main finding was that a sequence of dynamic pull-ups lead to higher fatigue than sustaining the body weight in an isometric condition at half-way of a pull-up. Furthermore, we confirmed the possibility to properly record physiological CV estimates from two muscles, which had never been studied before in rock climbing, in highly dynamic contractions.Entities:
Keywords: brachioradialis; electromyography; fatigue; rock climbing; teres major
Year: 2015 PMID: 26557188 PMCID: PMC4633265 DOI: 10.1515/hukin-2015-0059
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Hum Kinet ISSN: 1640-5544 Impact factor: 2.193
Figure 1Experimental setup: climbers performed pull-ups hanged on a A) Pan Gullich bar; two linear arrays of electrodes were positioned on B) brachioradialis and C) teres major muscles; two electrogoniometers were fixed to the D) elbow and to the E) hip
Figure 3In this diagram, ECC and CON phases are considered separately to detect differences for different angles within each phase and not to compare ECC with respect to CON. The first row represents the six epochs (three for ECC and three for CON) of 125 ms of length, centred on the time instants corresponding to 25–50–75% of the maximum ROM of the elbow joint angle, where 100% corresponded to maximum elbow flexion. Second and third rows show, respectively, the initial values (mean ±SD) of ARV estimated from teres major (top) and brachioradialis (bottom) in the END task. Post hoc significant differences were marked as follows: * p<0.05
Figure 2Representative example of recorded signals from brachioradialis during END. B) the time course of the elbow angle is represented. The dots identify the epochs 125 ms long, centered on the time instant corresponding to the crossing of 25%, 50%, and 75% of the elbow ROM, when the EMG variables were estimated. A) Three single differential EMG signals recorded during the first (left) and last (right) pull up are shown. The concentric and eccentric phases are plotted in light grey and black, respectively. Only the channels used for the processing are reported. C) “Fatigue plot” diagram is represented: ARV (grey line), CV (dotted line), and MNF (black line) are normalized with respect to their initial values (that are the intercepts of the regression lines) to compare their percentage changes. The slopes of the linear regressions represent indexes of myoelectric fatigue. In this example, the estimates are calculated at 50% of the ROM in the CON contraction.
Initial values (mean ±SD) and Normalized slope of sEMG variables for brachioradialis (top) and teres major muscles (bottom) during ISO, and for CON and ECC phases of END. EMG variables in END were estimated at 50% of the ROM (both in CON and ECC phases). Friedman test’s p values are shown for each comparison. Post hoc significant differences were marked as follows: # different with respect to ISO; * different with respect to END ECC
| Initial values | Normalized slopes (%/s) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||||
| ISO | END ECC | END CON | p | ISO | END ECC | END CON | p | |
| MNF (Hz) | 125±20 | 125±29 | 133±33 | 0.18 | −0.4±0.3 | −0.9±0.7 | −1.5±0.4** | |
| ARV (μV) | 141±86 | 162±103 | 318±174*# | 0.4±1.6 | 1.3±1.6 | 2.5±1.9** | ||
| CV (m/s) | 4.2±0.3 | 4.3±0.4 | 4.4±0.4 | 0.30 | −0.2±0.1 | −0.9±0.4 | −1.2±0.6* | |
| MNF (Hz) | 90±16 | 79±21 | 94±15# | −0.5±0.5 | −0.7±0.8 | −1.6±0.7* | ||
| ARV (μV) | 133±128 | 169±77 | 236±125*# | 0.5±0.7 | 1.5±1.9 | 1.3±1.3 | 0.27 | |
| CV (m/s) | 4.3±0.8 | 3.4±1.4 | 3.6±1.2 | 0.45 | −0.4±0.3 | −1.5±1.2 | −1.8±0.7* | |