Mirkov Dragan M, Nedeljkovic Aleksandar, Milanovic Sladjan, Jaric Slobodan
Department of Biophysics, School of Medicine, Belgrade University, Dr. Subotica 8, 11 000, Belgrade, Yugoslavia.
Eur J Appl Physiol. 2004 Mar;91(2-3):147-54. doi: 10.1007/s00421-003-0946-8. Epub 2003 Oct 2.
The purpose of the study was to evaluate four tests of explosive force production (EFP). Specifically, the main aims of the study were to assess the reliability of different EFP tests, to examine their relationship with maximum muscle strength, and to explore the relationship between EFP tests and functional movement performance. After an extensive preliminary familiarization with the tasks, subjects ( n=26) were tested on maximum explosive strength of the elbow extensor and flexor muscle, as well as on rapid elbow extension and flexion movements performed in both an oscillatory and a discrete fashion. In addition to maximum force ( F(max)), four different EFP tests were assessed from the recorded force-time curves: the time interval elapsed between achieving 30% and 70% of F(max) ( F(30-70%)), the maximum rate of force development (RFD), the same value normalized with respect to F(max) (RFD/ F(max)), and the force exerted 100 ms after the contraction initiation ( F(100 ms)). Excluding F(30--70%), all remaining EFP tests revealed either good or fair reliability (intraclass correlation coefficients being within 0.8-1 and 0.6-0.8 intervals, respectively) which was also comparable with the reliability of F(max). RFD and F(100 ms) demonstrated a positive relationship with F(max), but not T(30-70%) and RFD/ F(max). Stronger elbow flexor muscles also demonstrated higher values of RFD and F(100 ms) than weaker elbow extensor muscles, while no difference was observed between either T(30-70%) or RFD/ F(max) recorded from two muscles. Despite the simplicity of the tested movement tasks, the relationship observed between the EFP tests and the peak movement velocity remained moderate and partly insignificant. It was concluded that most of the EFP tests could be reliable for assessing neuromuscular function in their muscle-force- (or, indirectly, muscle size) dependent (such as RFD and F(100 ms)), or muscle-force-independent ( T(30-70%) and RFD/ F(max)) forms. However, their "external validity" when applied to assess the ability to perform rapid movements could be questioned.
本研究的目的是评估四种爆发力产生(EFP)测试。具体而言,该研究的主要目的是评估不同EFP测试的可靠性,检验它们与最大肌肉力量的关系,并探究EFP测试与功能性运动表现之间的关系。在对任务进行广泛的初步熟悉之后,对26名受试者进行了肘伸肌和屈肌最大爆发力测试,以及以振荡和离散方式进行的快速肘伸展和屈曲运动测试。除了最大力量(F(max))之外,还从记录的力-时间曲线中评估了四种不同的EFP测试:达到F(max)的30%至70%之间所经过的时间间隔(F(30 - 70%))、最大力量发展速率(RFD)、相对于F(max)归一化后的相同值(RFD/F(max))以及收缩开始后100毫秒时施加的力(F(100 ms))。排除F(30 - 70%)后,所有其余的EFP测试均显示出良好或尚可的可靠性(组内相关系数分别在0.8 - 1和0.6 - 0.8区间内),这也与F(max)的可靠性相当。RFD和F(100 ms)与F(max)呈正相关,但T(30 - 70%)和RFD/F(max)并非如此。更强壮的肘屈肌的RFD和F(100 ms)值也高于较弱的肘伸肌,而从两块肌肉记录的T(30 - 70%)或RFD/F(max)之间未观察到差异。尽管测试的运动任务简单,但EFP测试与峰值运动速度之间观察到的关系仍然适中且部分不显著。得出的结论是,大多数EFP测试在评估其与肌肉力量(或间接与肌肉大小)相关(如RFD和F(100 ms))或与肌肉力量无关(T(30 - 70%)和RFD/F(max))形式的神经肌肉功能时可能是可靠的。然而,当应用它们来评估快速运动能力时,其“外部效度”可能会受到质疑。