Changes in muscle coactivation during running: a comparison between two techniques, forefoot vs rearfoot

Q4 Health Professions Archivos de Medicina del Deporte Pub Date : 2021-11-15 DOI:10.18176/archmeddeporte.00059
Daniel Araya, Juan López, Germán Villalobos, R. Guzmán-Venegas, O. Valencia
{"title":"Changes in muscle coactivation during running: a comparison between two techniques, forefoot vs rearfoot","authors":"Daniel Araya, Juan López, Germán Villalobos, R. Guzmán-Venegas, O. Valencia","doi":"10.18176/archmeddeporte.00059","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Surface electromyography has been a technique used to describe muscle activity during running. However, there is little literature that analyses the behaviour of muscle coactivation in runners, describing the effect between two techniques associated with the initial contact, such as the use of rearfoot (RF) and forefoot (FF). Material and method: The purpose of this study was to compare muscle coactivation levels developed in the lower limb during two running techniques, FF vs RF. Fourteen amateur runners were evaluated (eight men, six women; age= 23.21 ± 3.58 years, mass= 63.89 ± 8.13 kg, height= 1.68 ± 0.08m). Surface electromyography was used to measure muscle activity during both running techniques evaluated on a treadmill, considering the muscle pairs: Rectus femoris- Biceps femoris (RFe-BF), Lateral Gastrocnemius–Tibialis Anterior (LG-TA), and Medial Gastrocnemius - Tibialis Anterior (MG-TA). These were calculated in three windows considering ten running cycles (0-5%, 80-100%, and 0-100%). To compare FF vs RF t-student test for paired data was used. Results: It was observed significant differences in the MG-TA pair (FF= 18.42 ± 11.84% vs RF = 39.05 ± 13.28%, p = 0.0018 during 0-5%, and RFe-BF pair (FF = 42.38 ± 18.11% vs RF = 28.37 ± 17.2%, p = 0.0331) during 80-100% of the race. Conclusion: Our findings show that the behaviour of muscle coactivation is different between FF vs RF techniques if we analyze little windows in the running cycle. This could be associated with an increase in the joint stability between these short intervals, represented in the initial and final regions of the running cycle.","PeriodicalId":38936,"journal":{"name":"Archivos de Medicina del Deporte","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archivos de Medicina del Deporte","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18176/archmeddeporte.00059","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Health Professions","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Surface electromyography has been a technique used to describe muscle activity during running. However, there is little literature that analyses the behaviour of muscle coactivation in runners, describing the effect between two techniques associated with the initial contact, such as the use of rearfoot (RF) and forefoot (FF). Material and method: The purpose of this study was to compare muscle coactivation levels developed in the lower limb during two running techniques, FF vs RF. Fourteen amateur runners were evaluated (eight men, six women; age= 23.21 ± 3.58 years, mass= 63.89 ± 8.13 kg, height= 1.68 ± 0.08m). Surface electromyography was used to measure muscle activity during both running techniques evaluated on a treadmill, considering the muscle pairs: Rectus femoris- Biceps femoris (RFe-BF), Lateral Gastrocnemius–Tibialis Anterior (LG-TA), and Medial Gastrocnemius - Tibialis Anterior (MG-TA). These were calculated in three windows considering ten running cycles (0-5%, 80-100%, and 0-100%). To compare FF vs RF t-student test for paired data was used. Results: It was observed significant differences in the MG-TA pair (FF= 18.42 ± 11.84% vs RF = 39.05 ± 13.28%, p = 0.0018 during 0-5%, and RFe-BF pair (FF = 42.38 ± 18.11% vs RF = 28.37 ± 17.2%, p = 0.0331) during 80-100% of the race. Conclusion: Our findings show that the behaviour of muscle coactivation is different between FF vs RF techniques if we analyze little windows in the running cycle. This could be associated with an increase in the joint stability between these short intervals, represented in the initial and final regions of the running cycle.
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
跑步过程中肌肉协同激活的变化:两种技术的比较,前脚和后脚
引言:表面肌电图是一种用来描述跑步过程中肌肉活动的技术。然而,很少有文献分析跑步者肌肉共激活的行为,描述与初始接触相关的两种技术之间的影响,例如使用后脚(RF)和前脚(FF)。材料和方法:本研究的目的是比较在两种跑步技术(FF和RF)中下肢肌肉共激活水平。对14名业余跑步者进行了评估(8名男性,6名女性;年龄=23.21±3.58岁,质量=63.89±8.13 kg,身高=1.68±0.08m)。在跑步机上评估的两种跑步技术中,考虑到肌肉对:股直肌-股二头肌(RFe BF)、腓肠肌-胫骨前外侧肌(LG-TA),和内侧腓肠肌-胫骨前肌(MG-TA)。这些是在考虑十个运行周期(0-5%、80-100%和0-100%)的三个窗口中计算的。为了比较FF和RF,使用配对数据的t研究检验。结果:在0-5%的比赛中,MG-TA对(FF=18.42±11.84%vs RF=39.05±13.28%,p=0.0018)和RFe-BF对(FF=42.38±18.11%vs RF=28.37±17.2%,p=0.0031)在80-100%的比赛中观察到显著差异。结论:我们的研究结果表明,如果我们分析跑步周期中的小窗口,FF和RF技术之间的肌肉共激活行为是不同的。这可能与这些短间隔之间的关节稳定性的增加有关,表现在跑步周期的初始和最终区域。
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
Archivos de Medicina del Deporte
Archivos de Medicina del Deporte Health Professions-Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
期刊最新文献
Evaluation of maximal oxygen uptake pre- and post-COVID-19 in elite footballers in Argentina A systematic review on the application of Aikido as a psychosomatic tool in therapeutic setting (Part I) The pre-participation physical evaluation: fact or fiction? Adductor functionality and strength in high-level rink hockey players Hemodynamic and motion demands of soccer referees: a comparison between series A and B of the State Championship of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
×
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