Search

Electrical muscle stimulation (EMS) is an increasingly popular training method and has become the focus of research in recent years. New EMS devices offer a wide range of mobile applications for whole-body EMS (WB-EMS) training, e.g., the intensification of dynamic low-intensity endurance exercises through WB-EMS. The present study aimed to determine the differences in exercise intensity between WB-EMS-superimposed and conventional walking (EMS-CW), and CON and WB-EMS-superimposed Nordic walking (WB-EMS-NW) during a treadmill test. Eleven participants (52.0 ± years; 85.9 ± 7.4 kg, 182 ± 6 cm, BMI 25.9 ± 2.2 kg/m2) performed a 10 min treadmill test at a given velocity (6.5 km/h) in four different test situations, walking (W) and Nordic walking (NW) in both conventional and WB-EMS superimposed. Oxygen uptake in absolute (VO2) and relative to body weight (rel. VO2), lactate, and the rate of perceived exertion (RPE) were measured before and after the test. WB-EMS intensity was adjusted individually according to the feedback of the participant. The descriptive statistics were given in mean ± SD. For the statistical analyses, one-factorial ANOVA for repeated measures and two-factorial ANOVA [factors include EMS, W/NW, and factor combination (EMS*W/NW)] were performed (α = 0.05). Significant effects were found for EMS and W/NW factors for the outcome variables VO2 (EMS: p = 0.006, r = 0.736; W/NW: p < 0.001, r = 0.870), relative VO2 (EMS: p < 0.001, r = 0.850; W/NW: p < 0.001, r = 0.937), and lactate (EMS: p = 0.003, r = 0.771; w/NW: p = 0.003, r = 0.764) and both the factors produced higher results. However, the difference in VO2 and relative VO2 is within the range of biological variability of ± 12%. The factor combination EMS*W/NW is statistically non-significant for all three variables. WB-EMS resulted in the higher RPE values (p = 0.035, r = 0.613), RPE differences for W/NW and EMS*W/NW were not significant. The current study results indicate that WB-EMS influences the parameters of exercise intensity. The impact on exercise intensity and the clinical relevance of WB-EMS-superimposed walking (WB-EMS-W) exercise is questionable because of the marginal differences in the outcome variables., Zweitveröffentlichungen der Universität Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe; 760

Introduction Injury prevention programs (IPPs) are an inherent part of training in recreational and professional sports. Providing performance-enhancing benefits in addition to injury prevention may help adjust coaches and athletes’ attitudes towards implementation of injury prevention into daily routine. Conventional thinking by players and coaches alike seems to suggest that IPPs need to be specific to one’s sport to allow for performance enhancement. The systematic literature review aims to firstly determine the IPPs nature of exercises and whether they are specific to the sport or based on general conditioning. Secondly, can they demonstrate whether general, sports-specific or even mixed IPPs improve key performance indicators with the aim to better facilitate long-term implementation of these programs? Methods PubMed and Web of Science were electronically searched throughout March 2018. The inclusion criteria were randomized control trials, publication dates between Jan 2006 and Feb 2018, athletes (11–45 years), injury prevention programs and included predefined performance measures that could be categorized into balance, power, strength, speed/agility and endurance. The methodological quality of included articles was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration assessment tools. Results Of 6619 initial findings, 22 studies met the inclusion criteria. In addition, reference lists unearthed a further 6 studies, making a total of 28. Nine studies used sports specific IPPs, eleven general and eight mixed prevention strategies. Overall, general programs ranged from 29–57% in their effectiveness across performance outcomes. Mixed IPPs improved in 80% balance outcomes but only 20–44% in others. Sports-specific programs led to larger scale improvements in balance (66%), power (83%), strength (75%), and speed/agility (62%). Conclusion Sports-specific IPPs have the strongest influence on most performance indices based on the significant improvement versus control groups. Other factors such as intensity, technical execution and compliance should be accounted for in future investigations in addition to exercise modality., Postprints der Universität Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe, 591

Background Back pain patients (BPP) show delayed muscle onset, increased co-contractions, and variability as response to quasi-static sudden trunk loading in comparison to healthy controls (H). However, it is unclear whether these results can validly be transferred to suddenly applied walking perturbations, an automated but more functional and complex movement pattern. There is an evident need to develop research-based strategies for the rehabilitation of back pain. Therefore, the investigation of differences in trunk stability between H and BPP in functional movements is of primary interest in order to define suitable intervention regimes. The purpose of this study was to analyse neuromuscular reflex activity as well as three-dimensional trunk kinematics between H and BPP during walking perturbations. Methods Eighty H (31m/49f;29±9yrs;174±10cm;71±13kg) and 14 BPP (6m/8f;30±8yrs;171±10cm;67±14kg) walked (1m/s) on a split-belt treadmill while 15 right-sided perturbations (belt decelerating, 40m/s2, 50ms duration; 200ms after heel contact) were randomly applied. Trunk muscle activity was assessed using a 12-lead EMG set-up. Trunk kinematics were measured using a 3-segment-model consisting of 12 markers (upper thoracic (UTA), lower thoracic (LTA), lumbar area (LA)). EMG-RMS ([%],0-200ms after perturbation) was calculated and normalized to the RMS of unperturbed gait. Latency (TON;ms) and time to maximum activity (TMAX;ms) were analysed. Total motion amplitude (ROM;[°]) and mean angle (Amean;[°]) for extension-flexion, lateral flexion and rotation were calculated (whole stride cycle; 0-200ms after perturbation) for each of the three segments during unperturbed and perturbed gait. For ROM only, perturbed was normalized to unperturbed step [%] for the whole stride as well as the 200ms after perturbation. Data were analysed descriptively followed by a student´s t-test to account for group differences. Co-contraction was analyzed between ventral and dorsal muscles (V:R) as well as side right:side left ratio (Sright:Sleft). The coefficient of variation (CV;%) was calculated (EMG-RMS;ROM) to evaluate variability between the 15 perturbations for all groups. With respect to unequal distribution of participants to groups, an additional matched-group analysis was conducted. Fourteen healthy controls out of group H were sex-, age- and anthropometrically matched (group Hmatched) to the BPP. Results No group differences were observed for EMG-RMS or CV analysis (EMG/ROM) (p>0.025). Co-contraction analysis revealed no differences for V:R and Srigth:Sleft between the groups (p>0.025). BPP showed an increased TON and TMAX, being significant for Mm. rectus abdominus (p = 0.019) and erector spinae T9/L3 (p = 0.005/p = 0.015). ROM analysis over the unperturbed stride cycle revealed no differences between groups (p>0.025). Normalization of perturbed to unperturbed step lead to significant differences for the lumbar segment (LA) in lateral flexion with BPP showing higher normalized ROM compared to Hmatched (p = 0.02). BPP showed a significant higher flexed posture (UTA (p = 0.02); LTA (p = 0.004)) during normal walking (Amean). Trunk posture (Amean) during perturbation showed higher trunk extension values in LTA segments for H/Hmatched compared to BPP (p = 0.003). Matched group (BPP vs. Hmatched) analysis did not show any systematic changes of all results between groups. Conclusion BPP present impaired muscle response times and trunk posture, especially in the sagittal and transversal planes, compared to H. This could indicate reduced trunk stability and higher loading during gait perturbations.

In the context of back pain, great emphasis has been placed on the importance of trunk stability, especially in situations requiring compensation of repetitive, intense loading induced during high-performance activities, e.g., jumping or landing. This study aims to evaluate trunk muscle activity during drop jump in adolescent athletes with back pain (BP) compared to athletes without back pain (NBP). Eleven adolescent athletes suffering back pain (BP: m/f: n = 4/7; 15.9 +/- 1.3 y; 176 +/- 11 cm; 68 +/- 11 kg; 12.4 +/- 10.5 h/we training) and 11 matched athletes without back pain (NBP: m/f: n = 4/7; 15.5 +/- 1.3 y; 174 +/- 7 cm; 67 +/- 8 kg; 14.9 +/- 9.5 h/we training) were evaluated. Subjects conducted 3 drop jumps onto a force plate (ground reaction force). Bilateral 12-lead SEMG (surface Electromyography) was applied to assess trunk muscle activity. Ground contact time [ms], maximum vertical jump force [N], jump time [ms] and the jump performance index [m/s] were calculated for drop jumps. SEMG amplitudes (RMS: root mean square [%]) for all 12 single muscles were normalized toMIVC (maximum isometric voluntary contraction) and analyzed in 4 time windows (100 ms pre- and 200 ms post-initial ground contact, 100 ms pre- and 200 ms post-landing) as outcome variables. In addition, muscles were grouped and analyzed in ventral and dorsal muscles, as well as straight and transverse trunk muscles. Drop jump ground reaction force variables did not differ between NBP and BP (p > 0.05). Mm obliquus externus and internus abdominis presented higher SEMG amplitudes (1.3-1.9-fold) for BP (p < 0.05). Mm rectus abdominis, erector spinae thoracic/lumbar and latissimus dorsi did not differ (p > 0.05). The muscle group analysis over the whole jumping cycle showed statistically significantly higher SEMG amplitudes for BP in the ventral (p = 0.031) and transverse muscles (p = 0.020) compared to NBP. Higher activity of transverse, but not straight, trunk muscles might indicate a specific compensation strategy to support trunk stability in athletes with back pain during drop jumps. Therefore, exercises favoring the transverse trunk muscles could be recommended for back pain treatment.