Department of Health, Exercise Science, & Recreation Management, Kevser Ermin Applied Physiology Laboratory, The University of Mississippi, University, MS, USA.
Faculty of Physical Education and Dance, Federal University of Goiás, Goiânia, Brazil.
Clin Physiol Funct Imaging. 2020 Nov;40(6):407-414. doi: 10.1111/cpf.12659. Epub 2020 Sep 14.
The purpose was to determine whether postactivation performance enhancement is specific to the muscle being conditioned or if it is also observed within the homologous muscles of the contralateral limb (after accounting for the warm-up and random error). We also investigated whether this differed based on training status or muscle size. One hundred seven participants (75 untrained; 32 trained) participated in four sessions. Visit 1 included baseline measurements and familiarization. Visits 2-4 included the completion of one of the three experimental conditions: (a) control, (b) same side and (c) crossover completed in a randomized order. The control condition completed all testing except for the conditioning contraction. The same side condition completed the conditioning contraction on the same side as the strength test. The crossover condition completed the conditioning on the arm opposite to the strength test. The variable of interest was the change from baseline in isokinetic strength. Our analysis indicated that of the hypotheses compared, the posterior probabilities (posterior probability of 0.506) favoured the hypothesis that the effect was local and greatest in those who were resistance trained [mean (SD) of 1.4 (2.2) Nm over the control in those resistance trained]. We found no relationship between muscle size and postactivation performance enhancement. In conclusion, there is an influence of training status pertaining to the postactivation performance enhancement effect but no influence from baseline muscle size. It appears unlikely that the effect is due to a systemic mechanism.
目的是确定肌肉激活后表现增强是特定于被调节的肌肉，还是在对侧肢体的同源肌肉中也观察到（在考虑热身和随机误差后）。我们还研究了这种情况是否因训练状态或肌肉大小而异。107 名参与者（75 名未训练；32 名训练）参加了四次访问。访问 1 包括基线测量和熟悉。访问 2-4 包括完成三种实验条件之一：（a）对照，（b）同侧和（c）交叉，以随机顺序完成。对照条件完成了除调节收缩外的所有测试。同侧条件在与力量测试相同的一侧完成调节收缩。交叉条件在与力量测试相对的手臂上完成调节收缩。感兴趣的变量是等速力量从基线的变化。我们的分析表明，在所比较的假设中，后验概率（后验概率为 0.506）支持这样的假设，即该效应是局部的，在进行抗阻训练的人群中最大[在那些进行抗阻训练的人群中，相对于对照组，平均（SD）增加 1.4（2.2）Nm]。我们没有发现肌肉大小与肌肉激活后表现增强之间的关系。总之，训练状态对肌肉激活后表现增强效应有影响，但肌肉大小的基线没有影响。似乎这种效应不是由于系统性机制引起的。
