The aim of this project was to evaluate both the surface electromyography (sEMG) and perceived exertion (RPE) responses to the resistance exercise of bench press, across different positions of the loads on the barbell, different relative loads, and different average speeds of lifting. Eleven male collegiate students participated in seven experimental sessions, which were designed in order to measure both the sEMG signals (pectoralis major and triceps of both sides) and RPE values (OMNI-RES scale) throughout the exercise reps performed with the combinations of 2 positions of the loads (wide and narrow), 3 relative loads (50%, 65%, 80% of 1 repetition maximum, 1-RM), and 3 relative power outputs (50%, 70%, 90% of the maximal power output, Pmax). The total area under the curve (AUCt) of the time-normalized sEMG signals was calculated using the trapezoid method, while the RPE at fatigue (RPEf) and the repetition percentage at fatigue (%Rf) were determined when the visual inspection of the repetitions revealed an involuntary reduction of the lifting speed (i.e. fatigue). Three separate 3-way repeated measure ANOVA were run along with Bonferroni pairwise comparisons. Significance was set at p<0.05. Results revealed that load positioning does not exert any main effect on all the parameters studied, while combined with power, the wide positioning significantly increases the AUCt (at 80% of 1-RM and 70% of Pmax) and reduces the %Rf as the power output increases. Conversely, load and power exert both main and interaction effects on the parameters studied. An increase in either load or power resulted in a significant increase of AUCt and RPEf, and in a reduction of the %Rf. Combined together, load and power did not affect differently AUCt and RPEf, but their increase reduced %Rf only when load position was wide, while combining load and position did not yield any significant effect. In conclusion, load positioning only marginally affects sEMG and RPE of the bench press, while load, and particularly power, needs to be carefully prescribed because their control both results in different effects on sEMG and RPE and, at high loads and power outputs, needs for load positioning to be accounted for.

Scopo di questo progetto era valutare le risposte elettromiografiche di superficie (sEMG) e la percezione dello sforzo (RPE) all’esecuzione dell’esercizio contro resistenza di panca piana effettuato con differenti posizionamenti del carico, con differenti carichi relativi e con differenti velocità medie di sollevamento. Undici studenti universitari di sesso maschile hanno partecipato a sette sessioni sperimentali, le quali erano state disegnate per misurare i segnali sEMG (grande pettorale e capo lungo del tricipite di entrambi i lati) e i valori di RPE (scala OMNI-RES) per tutte le ripetizioni dell’esercizio effettuato combinando 2 posizionamenti del carico (largo e stretto), 3 carichi relativi (50%, 65%, e 80% di 1 ripetizione massima; 1-RM), e 3 potenze relative (50%, 70% e 90% della potenza massima; Pmax). L’area sotto la curva totale (AUCt) dei segnali sEMG tempo normalizzati è stata calcolata con il metodo dei trapezoidi, mentre la RPE all’insorgenza della fatica (RPEf) e la percentuale di ripetizioni alla fatica (%Rf) sono state determinate quando all’ispezione visiva delle ripetizioni si verificava un’involontaria riduzione della velocità di sollevamento (cioè la fatica). Sono state lanciate tre ANOVA a 3 vie per misure ripetute e le comparazioni a coppie con correzione di Bonferroni quando possibile. La significatività è stata fissata a p<0,05. I risultati hanno rivelato che il posizionamento del carico non esercita alcun effetto principale sui parametri studiati, mentre in associazione con la potenza, il posizionamento largo incrementa significativamente la AUCt (all’80% di 1-RM e 70% della Pmax) e riduce la %Rf con l’aumentare della potenza. Al contrario, il carico e la potenza esercitano degli effetti principali e degli effetti di interazione sui parametri studiati. Un incremento del carico o della potenza hanno infatti determinato un significativo incremento della AUCt e della RPEf, e una riduzione della %Rf. Combinate insieme, carico e potenza non hanno invece influito sulla AUCt e sulla RPEf, ma il loro incremento ha significativamente ridotto la %Rf con la posizione larga del carico. La combinazione carico per posizione non ha prodotto effetti significativi. 2 In conclusione, il posizionamento del carico influisce solo marginalmente sull’attivazione sEMG e sulla RPE, mentre il carico, e particolarmente la potenza, necessitano di essere prescritte con accuratezza perché il loro controllo determina sia differenti effetti sulla sEMG e sulla RPE, sia, con carichi e potenze esecutive alte, implicazioni legate al posizionamento del carico.

Attivazione muscolare e percezione dello sforzo nell’esercizio di ‘panca piana con bilanciere’ effettuato con differenti velocità esecutive e posizionamenti del carico

SHOAEI, VAHID
2015

Abstract

The aim of this project was to evaluate both the surface electromyography (sEMG) and perceived exertion (RPE) responses to the resistance exercise of bench press, across different positions of the loads on the barbell, different relative loads, and different average speeds of lifting. Eleven male collegiate students participated in seven experimental sessions, which were designed in order to measure both the sEMG signals (pectoralis major and triceps of both sides) and RPE values (OMNI-RES scale) throughout the exercise reps performed with the combinations of 2 positions of the loads (wide and narrow), 3 relative loads (50%, 65%, 80% of 1 repetition maximum, 1-RM), and 3 relative power outputs (50%, 70%, 90% of the maximal power output, Pmax). The total area under the curve (AUCt) of the time-normalized sEMG signals was calculated using the trapezoid method, while the RPE at fatigue (RPEf) and the repetition percentage at fatigue (%Rf) were determined when the visual inspection of the repetitions revealed an involuntary reduction of the lifting speed (i.e. fatigue). Three separate 3-way repeated measure ANOVA were run along with Bonferroni pairwise comparisons. Significance was set at p<0.05. Results revealed that load positioning does not exert any main effect on all the parameters studied, while combined with power, the wide positioning significantly increases the AUCt (at 80% of 1-RM and 70% of Pmax) and reduces the %Rf as the power output increases. Conversely, load and power exert both main and interaction effects on the parameters studied. An increase in either load or power resulted in a significant increase of AUCt and RPEf, and in a reduction of the %Rf. Combined together, load and power did not affect differently AUCt and RPEf, but their increase reduced %Rf only when load position was wide, while combining load and position did not yield any significant effect. In conclusion, load positioning only marginally affects sEMG and RPE of the bench press, while load, and particularly power, needs to be carefully prescribed because their control both results in different effects on sEMG and RPE and, at high loads and power outputs, needs for load positioning to be accounted for.
2015
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
phd_uniurb_257660.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia: DT
Licenza: Creative commons
Dimensione 1.17 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
1.17 MB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11576/2629191
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact