Resistance Training Laboratory, Department of Kinesiology, California State University, Northridge, California.
Department of Physical Education, Nove de Julho University, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
J Strength Cond Res. 2023 Oct 1;37(10):e541-e545. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000004504. Epub 2023 May 15.
Marchetti, PH, Gomes, WA, Da Silva, JJ, Magalhaes, RA, Teixeira, LFM, and Whiting, WC. Backseat inclination affects the myoelectric activation during the inclined leg press exercise in recreationally trained men. J Strength Cond Res 37(10): e541-e545, 2023-Changes in the angle between the seat and backrest during the inclined leg press (ILP) exercise may influence myoelectric activity. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the myoelectric activity between 2 different angles between the seat and backrest (90° and 125°) during the ILP exercise in recreationally trained men. Fifteen young, resistance-trained men (age: 26.8 ± 5.3 years, height: 173.8 ± 6.6 cm, total body mass: 81.6 ± 7.6 kg) performed 1 set of 10 repetitions at 70% of their body mass during the ILP exercise using 2 different angles between the seat and backrest (ILP90° and ILP125°). Surface electromyography (peak RMS 90 and iEMG) was used to measure the myoelectric activity of the vastus lateralis (VL), biceps femoris (BF), and gluteus maximus (GM). A paired t test was used to measure differences in knee and hip joint displacement, peak RMS 90 , and iEMG between ILP90 and ILP125. The hip angle presented a greater displacement during the ILP125 when compared with ILP90 ( p < 0.001), considering a similar knee joint displacement. For the VL, there was observed greater myoelectric activation (peak RMS 90 and iEMG) during ILP125 when compared with ILP90 ( p < 0.05). For the BF, there was observed greater myoelectric activation (peak RMS 90 and iEMG) during ILP90 when compared with ILP125 ( p < 0.05). However, GM did not present differences between ILP90 and ILP125. In conclusion, the angle between the seat and backrest (ILP90 or ILP125) altered the myoelectric activation of the VL and BF with no difference for the GM.
马切蒂、Gomes、达席尔瓦、马加良斯、特谢拉和惠廷,后靠背倾斜角度会影响休闲训练男性进行斜腿推举练习时的肌电激活。《力量与调节研究杂志》37(10):e541-e545,2023-斜腿推举练习中座椅与靠背之间的角度变化可能会影响肌电活动。本研究的目的是评估在休闲训练男性中,座椅与靠背之间 2 种不同角度(90°和 125°)进行斜腿推举练习时的肌电活动。15 名年轻的、受过抗阻训练的男性(年龄:26.8±5.3 岁,身高:173.8±6.6cm,总体重:81.6±7.6kg)在斜腿推举练习中使用 2 种不同的座椅与靠背角度(斜腿推举 90°和斜腿推举 125°)完成了 1 组 10 次重复,每组重复的负荷为 70%体重。表面肌电图(峰值 RMS 90 和 iEMG)用于测量股外侧肌(VL)、股二头肌(BF)和臀大肌(GM)的肌电活动。采用配对 t 检验比较斜腿推举 90°和斜腿推举 125°时膝关节和髋关节位移、峰值 RMS 90 和 iEMG 的差异。与斜腿推举 90°相比,斜腿推举 125°时髋关节的位移更大(p<0.001),但膝关节的位移相似。对于 VL,与斜腿推举 90°相比,斜腿推举 125°时观察到更大的肌电激活(峰值 RMS 90 和 iEMG)(p<0.05)。对于 BF,与斜腿推举 125°相比,斜腿推举 90°时观察到更大的肌电激活(峰值 RMS 90 和 iEMG)(p<0.05)。然而,GM 在斜腿推举 90°和斜腿推举 125°之间没有差异。总之,座椅与靠背之间的角度(斜腿推举 90°或斜腿推举 125°)改变了 VL 和 BF 的肌电激活,但 GM 没有差异。