| Literature DB >> 35330561 |
Leonardo Cesanelli1, Nerijus Eimantas2, Angelo Iovane3, Giuseppe Messina4, Danguole Satkunskiene2.
Abstract
Age-related changes in the neuromuscular system functions may affect profoundly high-level athletes' performance across their careers. The present study aimed to analyse the fatiguing effect of a maximal intensity sprint session (MISS) on competitive athletes of different ages. Thirty-one competitive endurance athletes completed a knee extensors and flexors' maximal-voluntary-isometric-contraction (MVC) test before and after a maximal-intensity-sprint-session (MISS) consisting of 4x15s Wingate-tests. The data have been stratified considering three age categories (18-28, n=11, 29-38; n=10; 39-43, n=10). Overall, both quadricep and hamstring muscles early and late rate of torque development (RTD) dropped significantly more than the maximal voluntary torque (MVT) (p<.05). Age had a significant effect on early RTD, with older athletes exhibiting greater RTD (p<.05). A significant effect of age also emerged for the changes in surface sEMG variables, in which the frequency spectrum variables dropped significantly more than the sEMG amplitude (RMS) (p<.05). The dynamics of changes in neuromuscular performance markers after a MISS suggested that getting older competitive athletes may potentially experience a greater loss in early explosive strength compared to maximal or late explosive strength.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35330561 PMCID: PMC8992664 DOI: 10.4081/ejtm.2022.10378
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur J Transl Myol ISSN: 2037-7452
Fig 1.Descriptive representation of the study protocol. The subjects performed in sequence a maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) test for knee extensors and flexors (3x5s contractions), followed by a maximal intensity sprint session (MISS) on a Wingate cycloergometer and by a second MVIC test for knee extensors and flexors (3x5s contractions).
Fig 2.Differences in ΔQMVT and ΔQRTD, and ΔHMVT and ΔHRTD, between the three age groups. Notes: *: p<0.05; **: p<0.01; ***: p<0.001.
Fig 3.Differences between ΔQMDF and ΔQMNF, and between ΔHMDF and ΔHMNF. Notes: **: p<0.01.
Fig 4.Scatter plot showing the linear regression between age and early ΔRTD.