Dufner Trevor J, Rodriguez Jonathan M, Kitterman McKenna J, Dawlabani Jennifer C, Moon Jessica M, Wells Adam J
Exercise Physiology Intervention and Collaboration Lab, School of Kinesiology and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL 32816, USA.
J Funct Morphol Kinesiol. 2024 Sep 16;9(3):165. doi: 10.3390/jfmk9030165.
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: This study examined the differences in participant force production and pain between a squat maximal voluntary isometric contraction (IMVIC) performed with either a waist belt (WB) or full-body harness (FBH) on the Desmotec D.EVO isoinertial device (D.EVO). Agreement between FBH IMVIC and a traditional force plate squat MVIC (TMVIC) was also assessed.
Twenty adults completed FBH, WB, and TMVIC assessments on two separate occasions. Two-way treatment x time ANOVAs were conducted to compare force outputs and pain between treatments (FBH vs. WB) across time. Test-retest reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients. Associations between outcomes were determined using Pearson's r. Standard error of estimate, constant error, total error, and Bland-Altman plots were used to assess agreement between IMVIC and TMVIC.
FBH and WB IMVIC exhibited good to excellent reliability (ICC = 0.889-0.994) and strong associations (r = 0.813 and 0.821, respectively) when compared to TMVIC. However, agreement between FBH and TMVIC was poor. No significant interaction or main effects were observed for pain. FBH maximum isometric force (MIF) was significantly higher than WB MIF. WB IMVIC was the only significant predictor of TMVIC (R = 0.674).
Our findings indicate that the D.EVO should not be utilized as a replacement for a traditional MVIC setup.
背景/目的：本研究在Desmotec D.EVO等惯性装置（D.EVO）上，比较了使用腰带（WB）或全身吊带（FBH）进行深蹲最大自主等长收缩（IMVIC）时参与者的力量产生和疼痛差异。还评估了FBH IMVIC与传统测力台深蹲最大自主收缩（TMVIC）之间的一致性。
20名成年人在两个不同的时间点完成了FBH、WB和TMVIC评估。进行双向治疗×时间方差分析，以比较各治疗组（FBH与WB）随时间的力量输出和疼痛情况。使用组内相关系数评估重测信度。使用Pearson相关系数r确定结果之间的关联。使用估计标准误差、恒定误差、总误差和Bland-Altman图来评估IMVIC与TMVIC之间的一致性。
与TMVIC相比，FBH和WB IMVIC表现出良好至优秀的信度（ICC = 0.889 - 0.994）和强相关性（分别为r = 0.813和0.821）。然而，FBH与TMVIC之间的一致性较差。未观察到疼痛的显著交互作用或主效应。FBH最大等长力（MIF）显著高于WB MIF。WB IMVIC是TMVIC的唯一显著预测因子（R = 0.674）。
我们的研究结果表明，D.EVO不应被用作传统MVIC设置的替代品。
