PURPOSE: To examine inter-individual variability versus composite models for the patterns of responses for electromyography (EMG) and mechanomyography (MMG) versus time relationships during moderate and heavy cycle ergometry using a rating of perceived exertion (RPE) clamp model. METHODS: EMG amplitude (amplitude root-mean-square, RMS), EMG mean power frequency (MPF), MMG-RMS, and MMG-MPF were collected during two, 60-min rides at a moderate (RPE at the gas exchange threshold; RPEGET) and heavy (RPE at 15 % above the GET; RPEGET+15 %) intensity when RPE was held constant (clamped). Composite (mean) and individual responses for EMG and MMG parameters were compared during each 60-min ride. RESULTS: There was great inter-individual variability for each EMG and MMG parameters at RPEGET and RPEGET+15 %. Composite models showed decreases in EMG-RMS (r (2) = -0.92 and R (2) = 0.96), increases in EMG-MPF (R (2) = 0.90), increases in MMG-RMS (r (2) = 0.81 and 0.55), and either no change or a decrease (r (2) = 0.34) in MMG-MPF at RPEGET and RPEGET+15 %, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the present study indicated that there were differences between composite and individual patterns of responses for EMG and MMG parameters during moderate and heavy cycle ergometry at a constant RPE. Thus, composite models did not represent the unique muscle activation strategies exhibited by individual responses when cycling in the moderate and heavy intensity domains when using an RPE-clamp model.
PURPOSE: To examine inter-individual variability versus composite models for the patterns of responses for electromyography (EMG) and mechanomyography (MMG) versus time relationships during moderate and heavy cycle ergometry using a rating of perceived exertion (RPE) clamp model. METHODS: EMG amplitude (amplitude root-mean-square, RMS), EMG mean power frequency (MPF), MMG-RMS, and MMG-MPF were collected during two, 60-min rides at a moderate (RPE at the gas exchange threshold; RPEGET) and heavy (RPE at 15 % above the GET; RPEGET+15 %) intensity when RPE was held constant (clamped). Composite (mean) and individual responses for EMG and MMG parameters were compared during each 60-min ride. RESULTS: There was great inter-individual variability for each EMG and MMG parameters at RPEGET and RPEGET+15 %. Composite models showed decreases in EMG-RMS (r (2) = -0.92 and R (2) = 0.96), increases in EMG-MPF (R (2) = 0.90), increases in MMG-RMS (r (2) = 0.81 and 0.55), and either no change or a decrease (r (2) = 0.34) in MMG-MPF at RPEGET and RPEGET+15 %, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the present study indicated that there were differences between composite and individual patterns of responses for EMG and MMG parameters during moderate and heavy cycle ergometry at a constant RPE. Thus, composite models did not represent the unique muscle activation strategies exhibited by individual responses when cycling in the moderate and heavy intensity domains when using an RPE-clamp model.
Authors: M J Saunders; E M Evans; S A Arngrimsson; J D Allison; G L Warren; K J Cureton Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2000-12 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Moh H Malek; Terry J Housh; Jared W Coburn; Joseph P Weir; Richard J Schmidt; Travis W Beck Journal: J Neurosci Methods Date: 2005-08-24 Impact factor: 2.390
Authors: Joshua L Keller; Terry J Housh; Ethan C Hill; Cory M Smith; Richard J Schmidt; Glen O Johnson Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2018-08-27 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: Haley C Bergstrom; Terry J Housh; Taylor K Dinyer; Travis M Byrd; Nathaniel D M Jenkins; Kristen C Cochrane-Snyman; Pasquale J Succi; Richard J Schmidt; Glen O Johnson; Jorge M Zuniga Journal: J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact Date: 2020-03-03 Impact factor: 2.041
Authors: Maciej Jurasz; Michał Boraczyński; Zbigniew Wójcik; Piotr Gronek Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-07-21 Impact factor: 4.614