Cuff width does not affect discomfort ratings immediately following isometric handgrip exercise

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q3 PHYSIOLOGY Physiology international Pub Date : 2023-02-22 DOI:10.1556/2060.2023.00153
Robert W. Spitz, J. Song, Yujiro Yamada, Vickie Wong, Z. Bell, Ryo Kataoka, J. Loenneke
{"title":"Cuff width does not affect discomfort ratings immediately following isometric handgrip exercise","authors":"Robert W. Spitz, J. Song, Yujiro Yamada, Vickie Wong, Z. Bell, Ryo Kataoka, J. Loenneke","doi":"10.1556/2060.2023.00153","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Previous work has found that wide cuffs produce greater discomfort with elbow flexion exercise than narrower cuffs. It is our hypothesis that this is due to the balling up of the biceps underneath the cuff that is more pronounced with a wider cuff. One method to test this is through an upper body exercise where there is no contraction of the biceps.To investigate the effects of cuff width on discomfort following isometric handgrip exercise.One hundred participants completed this experiment. In a randomized order, the participants performed four sets of two-minute isometric handgrip contractions with thirty seconds of rest at thirty percent of their maximal voluntary contraction with a 5 and 12 cm cuff inflated to 40% of arterial occlusion pressure. Discomfort ratings (0–100) were given after the fourth set of exercise. Average force was recorded for all four sets.There was no difference in discomfort (BF10 = 0.158) [median difference (95% credible interval) −0.997 (−3.360, 1.283) arbitrary units], or in average force (BF10 = 0.132) [median difference (95% credible interval) 0.08 (−0.199, 0.372) kilograms], between cuff conditions. There did not appear to be a greater preference for either cuff. Forty people preferred the narrow cuff (BF10 = 0.325), forty people preferred the wide cuff (BF10 = 0.325), and twenty people had no preference (BF10 = 7.719).Cuff width does not appear to influence discomfort or the average force produced. This provides support for our hypothesis that the shape of the muscle may interact with wider cuff sizes, leading to greater discomfort.","PeriodicalId":20058,"journal":{"name":"Physiology international","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Physiology international","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1556/2060.2023.00153","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHYSIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Previous work has found that wide cuffs produce greater discomfort with elbow flexion exercise than narrower cuffs. It is our hypothesis that this is due to the balling up of the biceps underneath the cuff that is more pronounced with a wider cuff. One method to test this is through an upper body exercise where there is no contraction of the biceps.To investigate the effects of cuff width on discomfort following isometric handgrip exercise.One hundred participants completed this experiment. In a randomized order, the participants performed four sets of two-minute isometric handgrip contractions with thirty seconds of rest at thirty percent of their maximal voluntary contraction with a 5 and 12 cm cuff inflated to 40% of arterial occlusion pressure. Discomfort ratings (0–100) were given after the fourth set of exercise. Average force was recorded for all four sets.There was no difference in discomfort (BF10 = 0.158) [median difference (95% credible interval) −0.997 (−3.360, 1.283) arbitrary units], or in average force (BF10 = 0.132) [median difference (95% credible interval) 0.08 (−0.199, 0.372) kilograms], between cuff conditions. There did not appear to be a greater preference for either cuff. Forty people preferred the narrow cuff (BF10 = 0.325), forty people preferred the wide cuff (BF10 = 0.325), and twenty people had no preference (BF10 = 7.719).Cuff width does not appear to influence discomfort or the average force produced. This provides support for our hypothesis that the shape of the muscle may interact with wider cuff sizes, leading to greater discomfort.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
袖带宽度不会立即影响等长握力训练后的不适程度
先前的研究发现,宽袖口比窄袖口在屈肘运动中产生更大的不适感。我们的假设是,这是由于袖带下二头肌的成球,而袖带越宽,二头肌就越明显。测试这一点的一种方法是通过不收缩二头肌的上半身运动。研究袖带宽度对等长握力运动后不适的影响。一百名参与者完成了这个实验。按照随机顺序,参与者进行了四组两分钟的等长握力收缩,休息30秒,达到最大自主收缩的30%,分别为5和12 cm袖带充气至动脉闭塞压力的40%。第四组运动后给出不适评分(0-100)。记录了所有四组的平均力。袖带条件之间的不适感(BF10=0.158)[中位数差异(95%可信区间)−0.997(−3.360,1.283)任意单位]或平均力(BF10=0.0132)[中位数差(95%可信间隔)0.08(−0.199,0.372)kg]没有差异。似乎对这两种袖带都没有更大的偏好。40人喜欢窄袖口(BF10=0.325),40人喜欢宽袖口(BF0=0.325),20人不喜欢(BF10=7.719)。袖口宽度似乎不会影响不适感或产生的平均力。这为我们的假设提供了支持,即肌肉的形状可能与更宽的袖带尺寸相互作用,导致更大的不适。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Physiology international
Physiology international Medicine-Physiology (medical)
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
37
期刊介绍: The journal provides a forum for important new research papers written by eminent scientists on experimental medical sciences. Papers reporting on both original work and review articles in the fields of basic and clinical physiology, pathophysiology (from the subcellular organization level up to the oranizmic one), as well as related disciplines, including history of physiological sciences, are accepted.
期刊最新文献
Analysis of results of radiotherapy for oropharyngeal cancer. Respiratory system mechanics during noninvasive proportional assist ventilation: A model study. Aerobic capacity of healthy young men associated with muscle oxygen extraction rate of the vastus lateralis muscle. Effects of aerobic exercise at different intensities on articular cartilage in mice. Physiological characterization of a simulated kettlebell routine in experienced kettlebell athletes.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1