Matthew M Mallette1, Lara A Green2, David A Gabriel2, Stephen S Cheung2. 1. Department of Kinesiology, Brock University, 1812 Sir Isaac Brock Way, St. Catharines, Ontario, L2S 3A1, Canada. matt.mallette@brocku.ca. 2. Department of Kinesiology, Brock University, 1812 Sir Isaac Brock Way, St. Catharines, Ontario, L2S 3A1, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE:Muscle cooling impairs maximal force. Using needle electromyography (EMG) to assess motor unit properties during muscle cooling, is limited and equivocal. Therefore, we aimed to determine the impact of local muscle cooling on motor unit firing properties using surface EMG decomposition. METHODS:Twenty participants (12 M, 8 F) completed maximal, evoked, and trapezoidal contractions during thermoneutral and cold muscle conditions. Forearm muscle temperature was manipulated using 10-min neutral (~ 32 °C) or 20-min cold (~ 3 °C) water baths. Twitches and maximal voluntary contractions were performed prior to, and after, forearm immersion in neutral or cold water. Motor unit properties were assessed during trapezoidal contractions to 50% baseline force using surface EMG decomposition. RESULTS: Impaired contractile properties from muscle cooling were evident in the twitch amplitude, duration, and rate of force development indicating that the muscle was successfully cooled from the cold water bath (all d ≥ 0.5, P < 0.05). Surface EMG decomposition showed muscle cooling increased the number of motor units (d = 0.7, P = 0.01) and motor unit action potential (MUAP) duration (d = 0.6, P < 0.001), but decreased MUAP amplitude (d = 0.2, P = 0.012). Individually, neither motor unit firing rates (d = 0.1, P = 0.843) nor recruitment threshold (d = 0.1, P = 0.746) changed; however, the relationship between the recruitment threshold and motor unit firing rate was steeper (d = 1.0, P < 0.001) and had an increased y-intercept (d = 0.9, P = 0.007) with muscle cooling. CONCLUSIONS: Since muscle contractility is impaired with muscle cooling, these findings suggest a compensatory increase in the number of active motor units, and small but coupled changes in motor unit firing rates and recruitment threshold to produce the same force.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Muscle cooling impairs maximal force. Using needle electromyography (EMG) to assess motor unit properties during muscle cooling, is limited and equivocal. Therefore, we aimed to determine the impact of local muscle cooling on motor unit firing properties using surface EMG decomposition. METHODS: Twenty participants (12 M, 8 F) completed maximal, evoked, and trapezoidal contractions during thermoneutral and cold muscle conditions. Forearm muscle temperature was manipulated using 10-min neutral (~ 32 °C) or 20-min cold (~ 3 °C) water baths. Twitches and maximal voluntary contractions were performed prior to, and after, forearm immersion in neutral or cold water. Motor unit properties were assessed during trapezoidal contractions to 50% baseline force using surface EMG decomposition. RESULTS: Impaired contractile properties from muscle cooling were evident in the twitch amplitude, duration, and rate of force development indicating that the muscle was successfully cooled from the cold water bath (all d ≥ 0.5, P < 0.05). Surface EMG decomposition showed muscle cooling increased the number of motor units (d = 0.7, P = 0.01) and motor unit action potential (MUAP) duration (d = 0.6, P < 0.001), but decreased MUAP amplitude (d = 0.2, P = 0.012). Individually, neither motor unit firing rates (d = 0.1, P = 0.843) nor recruitment threshold (d = 0.1, P = 0.746) changed; however, the relationship between the recruitment threshold and motor unit firing rate was steeper (d = 1.0, P < 0.001) and had an increased y-intercept (d = 0.9, P = 0.007) with muscle cooling. CONCLUSIONS: Since muscle contractility is impaired with muscle cooling, these findings suggest a compensatory increase in the number of active motor units, and small but coupled changes in motor unit firing rates and recruitment threshold to produce the same force.
Authors: Marius Brazaitis; Henrikas Paulauskas; Albertas Skurvydas; Henning Budde; Laura Daniuseviciute; Nerijus Eimantas Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2016-12-01 Impact factor: 4.566
Authors: Matthew M Mallette; Lara A Green; Gary J Hodges; Reno E Fernley; David A Gabriel; Michael W R Holmes; Stephen S Cheung Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2019-03-05 Impact factor: 3.078