College of P.E. and Sports, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China.
Department of Physical Education, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi'an, ShanXi, China.
PeerJ. 2024 Aug 28;12:e17839. doi: 10.7717/peerj.17839. eCollection 2024.
The objective of this study was to compare and analyze the representative opening and closing movement of Tai Chi elastic band exercise with the reverse fly movement of elastic band resistance training. The aim was to explore the biomechanical differences between the two exercises and provide theoretical support for the application of Tai Chi elastic band exercise in health intervention.
A total of 26 male participants were recruited and randomly divided into two groups in a 1:1 ratio. There were 13 participants in each Tai Chi elastic band exercise group and elastic band resistance training group. Both groups of participants used an elastic band to perform movement in the experiment. Experimental data were collected using the Vicon infrared motion capture system and Delsys surface EMG system. The AnyBody software was utilized to simulate the creation of a musculoskeletal model for both exercises.
The study found that the Tai Chi elastic band exercise group exhibited smaller horizontal abduction angle and flexion angle of the shoulder joint, as well as normalized RMS of the anterior deltoid and triceps brachii, compared to the elastic band resistance training group ( < 0.01); the Tai Chi elastic band exercise group exhibited greater elbow flexion angle, elbow flexion torque, and muscle strength of the infraspinatus, coracobrachialis, biceps brachii, brachialis and brachioradialis, compared to the elastic band resistance training group ( < 0.01); the Tai Chi elastic band exercise group exhibited smaller horizontal abduction angular velocity of the shoulder joint and a lower normalized RMS of the posterior deltoid, compared to the elastic band resistance training group ( < 0.05).
(1) The opening and closing movement of Tai Chi elastic band exercise is characterized by a large elbow flexion angle, a small shoulder joint horizontal angle and flexion angle, and a slow and uniform speed of movement. The reverse fly movement of elastic band resistance training is characterized by a large horizontal abduction angle of the shoulder joint, a large flexion angle of the shoulder joint, a small flexion angle of the elbow joint, and a fast and uneven speed. (2) The opening and closing movement exerts a greater torque on the elbow flexion, while the reverse fly movement exerts a greater torque on the shoulder joint horizontal abduction and external rotation. (3) The opening and closing movement provide greater stimulation to the infraspinatus, coracobrachialis, and elbow flexor, while the reverse fly movement provides greater stimulation to the posterior deltoid, anterior deltoid, subscapularis, and elbow extensor. In summary, the variation in joint angle, joint angular velocity, and hand position could be the factor contributing to the differences in joint torque and muscle activity between the opening and closing movement of Tai Chi elastic band exercise and the reverse fly movement of elastic band resistance training.
本研究旨在比较和分析太极弹带运动的代表性开合动作与弹带抗阻训练的反向飞鸟动作，探讨两种运动的生物力学差异，为太极弹带运动在健康干预中的应用提供理论支持。
共招募 26 名男性参与者，按 1:1 的比例随机分为两组，每组 13 人。两组参与者均使用弹带进行实验中的运动。实验数据采用 Vicon 红外运动捕捉系统和 Delsys 表面肌电系统采集。AnyBody 软件用于模拟两种运动的肌肉骨骼模型创建。
研究发现，与弹带抗阻训练组相比，太极弹带运动组的肩关节水平外展角度和前屈角度较小，三角肌前束和肱三头肌均方根振幅（RMS）归一化值较小（<0.01）；太极弹带运动组的肘关节屈曲角度、肘关节屈曲力矩以及冈下肌、喙肱肌、肱二头肌、肱桡肌和前臂肌的肌肉力量均大于弹带抗阻训练组（<0.01）；太极弹带运动组的肩关节水平外展角速度较小，三角肌后束均方根振幅（RMS）归一化值较低，与弹带抗阻训练组相比差异有统计学意义（<0.05）。
（1）太极弹带运动的开合动作以较大的肘关节屈曲角度、较小的肩关节水平角度和前屈角度、较慢且均匀的运动速度为特征；弹带抗阻训练的反向飞鸟动作以较大的肩关节水平外展角度、较大的肩关节前屈角度、较小的肘关节屈曲角度和较快且不均匀的运动速度为特征。（2）太极弹带运动的开合动作对肘关节屈曲产生更大的力矩，而反向飞鸟动作对肩关节水平外展和外旋产生更大的力矩。（3）太极弹带运动的开合动作对冈下肌、喙肱肌和肘屈肌的刺激更大，而反向飞鸟运动对三角肌后束、三角肌前束、肩胛下肌和肘伸肌的刺激更大。综上所述，关节角度、关节角速度和手的位置的变化可能是导致太极弹带运动的开合动作与弹带抗阻训练的反向飞鸟动作在关节力矩和肌肉活动方面存在差异的因素。
