| Literature DB >> 29910993 |
Alex Caravan1, John O Scheffey1, Sam J Briend2, Kyle J Boddy1.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine differences in the Electromyography (EMG) amplitude of the serratus anterior between 45° kettlebell carries and 90° kettlebell carries. Thirty-three men aged roughly between 19 and 23 and who were either college or professional baseball pitchers were chosen and randomly assigned to either perform the 45° kettlebell carry followed by the 90° kettlebell carry (n = 17) or the 90° kettlebell carry followed by the 45° kettlebell carry (n = 16). Each pitcher was instructed in the proper usage of the exercise and assigned a short break between the two carries. Changes in EMG amplitude were examined after proper band-pass filtering, normalization, and moving average-smoothing of the raw EMG signal. Differences of the EMG amplitude mean frequencies were examined between each subject's individual carries and the clumped groups of all 45° and 90° carries. Among each individual comparison, eight pitchers had "large" Effect Size differences between the EMG amplitudes of their two carries, with seven of them signaling the 45° carry as the larger value. In addition, when examining the grouped mean differences of the EMG amplitudes, we found the 45° carries to be significantly higher (p-value of 0.018).Entities:
Keywords: EMG; Electromyographical; Kettlebell; Muscles; Posture; Serratus anterior; Weightlifting
Year: 2018 PMID: 29910993 PMCID: PMC6003386 DOI: 10.7717/peerj.5044
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PeerJ ISSN: 2167-8359 Impact factor: 2.984
Figure 1Kettlebell carry at 90°.
An example of a subject carrying the kettlebell at approximately 90° of horizontal shoulder abduction. Photo credit: John O. Scheffey.
Figure 2KB carry at 45°.
An example of a subject carrying the kettlebell at approximately 45° of horizontal shoulder abduction. Photo credit: John O. Scheffey.
Figure 3EMG application example.
Application of the Somaxis EMG sensor to the subject. Photo credit: John O. Scheffey.
Figure 4MVIC test 1.
The first MVIC test done on subjects. Photo credit: John O. Scheffey.
Figure 5MVIC test 2.
The second image in the MVIC test series. Photo credit: John O. Scheffey.
Figure 6Dynamic Time Warping example.
An example of Dynamic Time Warping as produced by R-Studio.
Looking at overall group differences.
| Mean ( | SEM | |
|---|---|---|
| 45° mean frequencies | 9.799 | 0.152 |
| 90° mean frequencies | 9.354 | 0.161 |
| 45° median frequencies | 0.071 | 0.003 |
| 90° median frequencies | 0.077 | 0.006 |
Note:
An analysis of the total group differences in the subject pool.
Group differences subset by order of walk.
| Mean 1st group ( | SEM | Mean 2nd group ( | SEM | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 45(°) walk MNF | 9.754 | 0.202 | 9.848 | 0.235 |
| 90(°) walk MNF | 9.202 | 0.203 | 9.516 | 0.253 |
| 45(°) walk MDF | 0.073 | 0.005 | 0.069 | 0.007 |
| 90(°) walk MDF | 0.083 | 0.007 | 0.072 | 0.010 |
Note:
Examining if the order of the posture changes made a significant difference. Photo credit: Alex Caravan.