Program in Physical Therapy, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
J Strength Cond Res. 2010 Dec;24(12):3404-14. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181f1598c.
This study compared a conventional pull-up and chin-up with a rotational exercise using Perfect·Pullup™ twisting handles. Twenty-one men (24.9 ± 2.4 years) and 4 women (23.5 ± 1 years) volunteered to participate. Electromyographic (EMG) signals were collected with DE-3.1 double-differential surface electrodes at a sampling frequency of 1,000 Hz. The EMG signals were normalized to peak activity in the maximum voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) trial and expressed as a percentage. Motion analysis data of the elbow were obtained using Vicon Nexus software. One-factor repeated measures analysis of variance examined the muscle activation patterns and kinematic differences between the 3 pull-up exercises. Average EMG muscle activation values (%MVIC) were as follows: latissimus dorsi (117-130%), biceps brachii (78-96%), infraspinatus (71-79%), lower trapezius (45-56%), pectoralis major (44-57%), erector spinae (39-41%), and external oblique (31-35%). The pectoralis major and biceps brachii had significantly higher EMG activation during the chin-up than during the pull-up, whereas the lower trapezius was significantly more active during the pull-up. No differences were detected between the Perfect·Pullup™ with twisting handles and the conventional pull-up and chin-up exercises. The mean absolute elbow joint range of motion was 93.4 ± 14.6°, 100.6 ± 14.5°, and 99.8 ± 11.7° for the pull-up, chin-up, and rotational exercise using the Perfect·Pullup™ twisting handles, respectively. For each exercise condition, the timing of peak muscle activation was expressed as a percentage of the complete pull-up cycle. A general pattern of sequential activation occurred suggesting that pull-ups and chin-ups were initiated by the lower trapezius and pectoralis major and completed with biceps brachii and latissimus dorsi recruitment. The Perfect·Pullup™ rotational device does not appear to enhance muscular recruitment when compared to the conventional pull-up or chin-up.
本研究比较了传统的引体向上和悬垂举腿与使用 Perfect·Pullup™扭转手柄的旋转运动。21 名男性(24.9 ± 2.4 岁)和 4 名女性(23.5 ± 1 岁)志愿者参与了这项研究。使用 DE-3.1 双差分表面电极以 1000 Hz 的采样频率采集肌电图(EMG)信号。EMG 信号被归一化为最大自主等长收缩(MVIC)试验中的峰值活动,并以百分比表示。使用 Vicon Nexus 软件获得肘部的运动分析数据。使用单因素重复测量方差分析检查了 3 种引体向上运动的肌肉激活模式和运动学差异。平均 EMG 肌肉激活值(%MVIC)如下:背阔肌(117-130%)、肱二头肌(78-96%)、冈下肌(71-79%)、下斜方肌(45-56%)、胸大肌(44-57%)、竖脊肌(39-41%)和腹外斜肌(31-35%)。在悬垂举腿中,胸大肌和肱二头肌的 EMG 激活明显高于引体向上,而下斜方肌在引体向上中更为活跃。在 Perfect·Pullup™扭转手柄与传统的引体向上和悬垂举腿之间没有发现差异。使用 Perfect·Pullup™扭转手柄的旋转运动、引体向上和悬垂举腿的平均绝对肘关节活动范围分别为 93.4 ± 14.6°、100.6 ± 14.5°和 99.8 ± 11.7°。对于每种运动条件,肌肉激活的峰值时间表示为完整引体向上周期的百分比。出现了一种顺序激活的一般模式,表明引体向上和悬垂举腿由下斜方肌和胸大肌发起,然后由肱二头肌和背阔肌完成。与传统的引体向上或悬垂举腿相比,Perfect·Pullup™旋转装置似乎并没有增强肌肉募集。