Division of Motor Research, Pathophysiology and Biomechanics, Experimental Trauma Surgery, Department for Hand, Reconstructive, and Trauma Surgery, Jena University Hospital, Friedrich-Schiller University Jena, Jena, Germany.
PLoS One. 2022 Sep 13;17(9):e0273856. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0273856. eCollection 2022.
In modern developed societies, heavy physical demands are decreasing and getting replaced by longer periods of static, low-exertion activities such as sitting or standing. To counteract this lack of physical activity, more and more people are engaging in physical activity through exercise and training. Virtually opposite training modalities are endurance and strength. We asked if back muscle endurance capacity is influenced by training mode. 38 healthy male subjects (age range 19-31 years, mean age 22.6 years) were investigated: sedentary (Control, n = 12), endurance trained (ET, n = 13), and strength trained participants (ST, n = 13). They underwent a ten-minutes isometric extension task at 50% of their upper body weight. Surface EMG was measured in the low-back region utilizing quadratic 4*4 monopolar electrode montages per side. Relative amplitude and mean frequency changes were analysed with respect to electrode position and group during the endurance task. Eight ST subjects failed to complete the endurance task. Relative amplitude and frequency changes were largest in the ST group, followed by Control and ET groups (amplitude: F 6.389, p 0.004, frequency: F 11.741, p<0.001). Further, independent of group largest amplitude increase was observed for the most upper and laterally positioned electrodes. Mean frequency changes showed no systematic spatial distribution pattern. Although, in the light of an aging population, strength training has its merits our results question the functional suitability of frequent and isolated high-impact strength training for everyday endurance requirements like doing the dishes. Fatigue related amplitude elevations are systematically distributed in the back region, showing least fatigue signs for the most caudal and medial, i.e. the lumbar paravertebral region.
在现代发达社会中,体力活动的强度逐渐降低,取而代之的是长时间的静态、低强度活动,如坐着或站着。为了弥补缺乏体力活动的问题,越来越多的人通过运动和训练来进行体力活动。几乎完全相反的训练方式是耐力和力量。我们想知道背部肌肉耐力是否受到训练方式的影响。研究了 38 名健康男性受试者(年龄范围 19-31 岁,平均年龄 22.6 岁):久坐组(对照组,n = 12)、耐力训练组(ET 组,n = 13)和力量训练组(ST 组,n = 13)。他们进行了十分钟的 50%上半身重量的等长伸展任务。使用每侧 4*4 单极电极排列的表面肌电图测量下背部区域。在耐力任务期间,根据电极位置和组分析相对幅度和平均频率变化。有 8 名 ST 受试者未能完成耐力任务。ST 组的相对幅度和频率变化最大,其次是对照组和 ET 组(幅度:F6.389,p0.004,频率:F11.741,p<0.001)。此外,无论组如何,最大幅度增加都发生在最上部和最外侧的电极上。平均频率变化没有表现出系统的空间分布模式。尽管力量训练对于老龄化人口有其优点,但我们的结果质疑频繁和孤立的高强度力量训练对日常耐力需求(如洗碗)的功能适用性。与疲劳相关的幅度升高在背部区域系统地分布,最尾部和内侧(即腰椎旁区域)的疲劳迹象最少。