| 吴 媛,樊 静,赖小松,邓国政.三种常见划船运动对肩胛部、腹部和下背部肌肉激活的比较[J].中国康复医学杂志,2022,(9):1186~1191 |
| 三种常见划船运动对肩胛部、腹部和下背部肌肉激活的比较 点此下载全文 |
| 吴 媛 樊 静 赖小松 邓国政 |
| 广州医科大学附属第五医院神经内科，广州市，510700 |
| 基金项目：广州市加速康复腹部外科重点实验室（201905010004） |
| DOI：10.3969/j.issn.1001-1242.2022.09.006 |
| 摘要点击次数: 839 |
| 全文下载次数: 465 |
| 摘要： |
| 摘要
目的：评估和比较杠铃俯身划船、哑铃俯身划船、哑铃跪姿单臂划船对肩胛部、腹部和下背部的肌肉激活程度。
方法：本研究使用表面肌电图（sEMG）记录24例受试者的斜方肌中束、斜方肌下束、竖脊肌、腹直肌和腹外斜肌的最大等长收缩（MIVC）和划船运动时的表面肌电信号。MIVC的表面肌电信号采用徒手抗阻的方法采集，受试者使用并保持最大的、持续的力量收缩肌肉，记录最大表面肌电值。使用8最大重复值（8RM）的负荷进行划船运动，肌肉的激活程度用划船运动的表面肌电值占MIVC的表面肌电值的百分比表示，即% MIVC。使用Freidman检验和Dunn-Bonferroni后续检验分析三种划船练习之间肌肉激活程度的差异。
结果：在杠铃俯身划船、哑铃俯身划船和哑铃跪姿单臂划船时，腹外斜肌的激活程度分别为16.98% MIVC、17.02% MIVC和35.23% MIVC；腹直肌的激活程度分别为12.02% MIVC、9.28% MIVC和11.64% MIVC；竖脊肌的激活程度分别为109.09% MIVC、106.30% MIVC和54.38% MIVC；斜方肌中束的激活程度分别为100.91% MIVC、109.31% MIVC和107.82% MIVC；斜方肌下束的激活程度分别为58.47% MIVC、53.91% MIVC和60.12% MIVC。与杠铃俯身划船和哑铃俯身划船相比，哑铃跪姿单臂划船引起更高程度的腹外斜肌激活（P≤0.05）和更低程度的竖脊肌激活（P≤0.05）。杠铃俯身划船和哑铃俯身划船的肌肉激活程度差异无显著性意义（P>0.05）。
结论：与杠铃俯身划船和哑铃俯身划船相比，哑铃跪姿单臂划船对腹部和下背部的肌肉激活程度不同。对于腹部肌肉较弱的个体，建议使用杠铃俯身划船和哑铃俯身划船作为初阶练习。对于下背部肌肉较弱的个体，可选择哑铃跪姿单臂划船作为初阶练习。 |
| 关键词：肌肉激活 表面肌电图 稳定性 划船练习 |
| A comparison of the activation of scapular stabilizers， abdominal muscles， and lower back muscles between three common rowing exercises Download Fulltext |
|
| The Fifth Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University， Guangzhou， 510700 |
| Fund Project: |
| Abstract: |
| Abstract
Objective： To assess and compare the activation of scapular stabilizers， abdominal muscles， and lower back muscles between the barbell row， 2-arm dumbbell row， and 1-arm dumbbell row.
Method： Myoelectric signals of the middle and lower trapezius， erector spinae， rectus abdominis， and external oblique of twenty-four healthy participants during the maximum isometric voluntary contraction (MIVC) test and rowing exercises were recorded using surface electromyography (sEMG). Subject produced and maintained a maximal and consistent effort to test the MIVC and record the sEMG signal. The 8 repetition maximum (8RM）load was used to perform rowing exercises and record the sEMG signal. Averaged max sEMG values obtained from the rowing exercise were normalized to the peak magnitude obtained from the corresponding MIVC tests， and was expressed as a percentage of the maximal effort i.e. %MIVC. Freidman tests and Dunn-Bonferroni post hoc tests were used to review differences between the three rowing exercises.
Result： During the barbell row， 2-arm dumbbell row， and 1-arm dumbbell row， the activation of external oblique were 16.98% MIVC， 7.02% MIVC and 35.23% MIVC， respectively， the activation of rectus abdominis were 12.02% MIVC，9.28% MIVC and 11.64% MIVC， respectively， the activation of middle trapezius were 100.91% MIVC，109.31% MIVC and 107.82% MIVC， the activation of lower thapezius were 58.47% MIVC， 53.91% MIVC and 60.12% MIVC. The 1-arm dumbbell row elicited higher EO activation (P≤0.05) but lower activation of ML and ES (P≤0.05) than the barbell row and 2-arm dumbbell row. There was no significant difference in muscle activation between the barbell row and 2-arm dumbbell row (P>0.05).
Conclusion： Muscles on the abdominal region and low back region were differently activated by 1-arm dumbbell row compared to barbell row and 2-arm dumbbell row. Subjects with weak abdominal muscles are suggested to use barbell row and 2-arm dumbbell row as primary level rowing exercises. Subjects with back muscles weakness are suggested to use 1-arm dumbbell row as primary level rowing exercises. |
| Keywords:muscle activation surface electromyography stability rowing exercises |
|
| 查看全文 查看/发表评论 |
