Mariève Houle1, Catherine Daneau2, Arianne Lessard1, Marie-Andrée Mercier1, Martin Descarreaux1, Jacques Abboud3. 1. Department of Human Kinetics, Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, 3351 Boul. des Forges, C.P. 500, Trois-Rivières, QC, G8Z 4M3, Canada. 2. Department of Anatomy, Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, 3351 Boul. des Forges, Trois-Rivières, QC, G8Z 4M3, Canada. 3. Department of Human Kinetics, Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, 3351 Boul. des Forges, C.P. 500, Trois-Rivières, QC, G8Z 4M3, Canada. jacques.abboud@uqtr.ca.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of lumbar muscle delayed-onset muscle soreness (DOMS) on the ability of the trunk muscles to reproduce different levels of force. METHODS: Twenty healthy adults (10 males and 10 females) were recruited for this study. Force reproduction in trunk extension and flexion was assessed at 50 and 75% of participants' maximal isometric voluntary contraction in flexion and extension before and after a lumbar muscle DOMS protocol. Trunk proprioception was evaluated and compared between these conditions using different variables such as constant errors (CE), absolute errors (AE), variable errors (VE) and time to peak force (TPF). For each variable, repeated measure ANOVAs were conducted. RESULTS: AE were higher when participants had to reach the target post-DOMS protocol in extension compared to flexion and in the presence of higher demand of force (p = 0.02). For VE, results showed that participants were more variable in extension than in flexion when the required force was higher (p = 0.04). CE variable was higher when participants had to reach the force target in extension compared to flexion under the effect of DOMS (p = 0.02). Results also showed that participants took less time to reach the force target post-DOMS protocol in extension (0.62 ± 0.20 s) and in flexion (0.53 ± 0.19 s) than pre-DOMS protocol in extension (0.55 ± 0.15) and in flexion (0.50 ± 0.20) (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Lumbar muscle DOMS affects trunk proprioception during force reproduction tasks especially in trunk extension and at higher force.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of lumbar muscle delayed-onset muscle soreness (DOMS) on the ability of the trunk muscles to reproduce different levels of force. METHODS: Twenty healthy adults (10 males and 10 females) were recruited for this study. Force reproduction in trunk extension and flexion was assessed at 50 and 75% of participants' maximal isometric voluntary contraction in flexion and extension before and after a lumbar muscle DOMS protocol. Trunk proprioception was evaluated and compared between these conditions using different variables such as constant errors (CE), absolute errors (AE), variable errors (VE) and time to peak force (TPF). For each variable, repeated measure ANOVAs were conducted. RESULTS: AE were higher when participants had to reach the target post-DOMS protocol in extension compared to flexion and in the presence of higher demand of force (p = 0.02). For VE, results showed that participants were more variable in extension than in flexion when the required force was higher (p = 0.04). CE variable was higher when participants had to reach the force target in extension compared to flexion under the effect of DOMS (p = 0.02). Results also showed that participants took less time to reach the force target post-DOMS protocol in extension (0.62 ± 0.20 s) and in flexion (0.53 ± 0.19 s) than pre-DOMS protocol in extension (0.55 ± 0.15) and in flexion (0.50 ± 0.20) (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Lumbar muscle DOMS affects trunk proprioception during force reproduction tasks especially in trunk extension and at higher force.
Entities:
Keywords:
Delayed-onset muscle soreness; Lumbar; Pain; Proprioception; Sensorimotor control
Authors: Gregory E P Pearcey; David J Bradbury-Squires; Jon-Erik Kawamoto; Eric J Drinkwater; David G Behm; Duane C Button Journal: J Athl Train Date: 2014-11-21 Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: Jean-Alexandre Boucher; Jacques Abboud; François Nougarou; Martin C Normand; Martin Descarreaux Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-08-26 Impact factor: 3.240