Displaying all 4 publications

  1. Selvanayagam VS, Riek S, DE Rugy A, Carroll TJ
    Med Sci Sports Exerc, 2016 09;48(9):1835-46.
    PMID: 27116648 DOI: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000000956
    PURPOSE: Goal-directed movements tend to resemble the characteristics of previously executed actions. Here we investigated whether a single bout of strength training, which typically involves stereotyped actions requiring strong neural drive, can bias subsequent aiming behavior toward the direction of trained forces.

    METHODS: In experiment 1 (n = 10), we tested the direction of force exerted in an isometric aiming task before and after 40 repetitions of 2-s maximal-force ballistic contractions toward a single directional target. In experiment 2 (n = 12), each participant completed three training conditions in a counterbalanced crossover design. In two conditions, both the aiming task and the training were conducted in the same (neutral) forearm posture. In one of these conditions, the training involved weak forces to determine whether the level of neural drive during training influences the degree of bias. In the third condition, high-force training contractions were performed in a 90° pronated forearm posture, whereas the low-force aiming task was performed in a neutral forearm posture. This dissociated the extrinsic training direction from the pulling direction of the trained muscles during the aiming task.

    RESULTS: In experiment 1, we found that aiming direction was biased toward the training direction across a large area of the work space (approximately ±135°; tested for 16 targets spaced 22.5° apart), whereas in experiment 2, we found systematic bias in aiming toward the training direction defined in extrinsic space, but only immediately after high-force contractions.

    CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that bias effects of training involving strong neural drive generalize broadly to untrained movement directions and are expressed according to extrinsic rather than muscle-based coordinates.

  2. Ampomah K, Amano S, Wages NP, Volz L, Clift R, Ludin AFM, et al.
    Med Sci Sports Exerc, 2019 09;51(9):1817-1827.
    PMID: 30913160 DOI: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000001984
    PURPOSE: The goal of this trial was to determine whether low-load blood flow-restricted (BFR) exercise of appendicular muscles induces a cross-transfer of effect to the trunk extensor (TE) muscles, such that low-load TE exercise would enhance TE size and function to a greater extent than standard low-load exercise in people with recurrent low back pain (LBP). We also investigated the direct effects of BFR exercise in the appendicular muscles.

    METHODS: Thirty-two adults with recurrent, nonspecific LBP were randomized into two groups: Appendicular BFR exercise (BFR exercise) or control exercise (CON exercise). All participants trained (two times per week) for 10 wk, with a 12-wk follow-up. Participants performed three sets of leg extension (LE), plantar flexion (PF), and elbow flexion (EF) exercises followed by low-load TE exercise without BFR. Outcome measures included magnetic resonance imaging-derived muscle size (quadriceps and TE), strength (LE, PF, EF, and TE), and endurance (LE and TE).

    RESULTS: There was no evidence for a cross-transfer of effect to the TE. There was also no statistically significant enhancement of limb skeletal muscle size or function of BFR relative to CON exercise at any time point; though, moderate effect sizes for BFR exercise were observed for enhanced muscle size and strength in the leg extensors.

    CONCLUSIONS: Low-load BFR exercise of the appendicular muscles did not result in a cross-transfer of effect to the TE musculature. There was also no significant benefit of low-load BFR exercise on the appendicular muscle size and function, suggesting no benefit from low-load BFR exercise in adults with recurrent, nonspecific LBP.

Related Terms
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator (tengcl@gmail.com)

External Links