首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Journal of Human Kinetics >A Comparison of Muscle Activity in Concentric and Counter Movement Maximum Bench Press
【2h】

A Comparison of Muscle Activity in Concentric and Counter Movement Maximum Bench Press

机译:同心运动和反向运动最大卧推中肌肉活动的比较

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

The purpose of this study was to compare the kinematics and muscle activation patterns of regular free-weight bench press (counter movement) with pure concentric lifts in the ascending phase of a successful one repetition maximum (1-RM) attempt in the bench press. Our aim was to evaluate if diminishing potentiation could be the cause of the sticking region. Since diminishing potentiation cannot occur in pure concentric lifts, the occurrence of a sticking region in this type of muscle actions would support the hypothesis that the sticking region is due to a poor mechanical position. Eleven male participants (age 21.9 ± 1.7 yrs, body mass 80.7 ± 10.9 kg, body height 1.79 ± 0.07 m) conducted 1-RM lifts in counter movement and in pure concentric bench presses in which kinematics and EMG activity were measured. In both conditions, a sticking region occurred. However, the start of the sticking region was different between the two bench presses. In addition, in four of six muscles, the muscle activity was higher in the counter movement bench press compared to the concentric one. Considering the findings of the muscle activity of six muscles during the maximal lifts it was concluded that the diminishing effect of force potentiation, which occurs in the counter movement bench press, in combination with a delayed muscle activation unlikely explains the existence of the sticking region in a 1-RM bench press. Most likely, the sticking region is the result of a poor mechanical force position.
机译:这项研究的目的是比较常规自由重量卧推(反向运动)与纯同心举升在上升卧推成功一次重复(1-RM)尝试的上升阶段的运动学和肌肉激活方式。我们的目的是评估增强能力减弱是否可能是粘连区域的原因。由于在纯同心举重中不会出现递减的增强现象,因此在这种类型的肌肉动作中出现粘连区域将支持以下假设:粘连区域是由于不良的机械位置引起的。 11名男性参与者(年龄21.9±1.7岁,体重80.7±10.9 kg,身高1.79±0.07 m)进行反向运动和在纯同心卧推中进行1-RM抬举,以测量运动学和EMG活动。在这两种情况下,都会出现粘着区域。但是,两个台式压力机的粘着区开始不同。另外,在六向运动中的四块肌肉中,与同心卧推器相比,反向运动卧推器的肌肉活动更高。考虑到最大举升过程中六块肌肉的肌肉活动的发现,得出的结论是,在反向运动卧推中发生的力增强作用减弱,加上延迟的肌肉激活,不太可能解释了粘滞区域的存在。 1-RM卧推。粘附区域很可能是不良机械力位置的结果。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号