Differences in lower limb muscle activation between global and selective instability devices in single-leg stance in healthy active subjects.

Background: Balance and strength training are frequent strategies to address lower limb injuries, including ankle injuries, which are usually performed in single-leg stance on global instability devices, producing generalized muscular activation of the lower limb. In this context, new specific instability devices arise from the need to selectively work the ankle, specifically the peroneus longus. This study aimed to compare the EMG muscle activation of the peroneus longus, as well as other lower limbs muscles, in a single-leg stance on different balance training devices (BOSU, wobble board, power board, and Blackboard) in standing or squatting positions. Methods: Twenty healthy recreationally trained subjects participated in the study. Subjects performed three repetitions of 15 s (one for familiarization and two for measurement) in standing and squatting positions on the floor, BOSU, wobble board, power board, and Blackboard. Surface electromyography (EMG) was used to record activity of the peroneus longus, soleus, gastrocnemius medialis, tibialis anterior, rectus femoris, and gluteus maximus. Results: The main outcome was that no differences were found for the peroneus longus normalized EMG, neither between devices (p = 0.09) nor between conditions (p = 0.11), nor in the interaction between them (p = 0.16). For the normalized EMG of the other muscles, there were multiple differences between devices and conditions. Of the devices studied, the Blackboard was the one that implied a lower activation of the lower limb muscles and a lower degree of instability, activating the peroneus longus similarly to global instability devices. The BOSU and wobble board achieved high levels of EMG muscle activation for most muscles of the lower limbs. Therefore, they should be considered as potential devices for work in highly unstable conditions or when high activation levels are sought.

Analysis of Compliance with Time under Tension and Force during Strengthening Exercises with Elastic Bands.

Quantifying training variables of a physical exercise modality is essential for an appropriate dosage. In training with elastic bands, time under tension (TUT) and force represent the duration and intensity of this force-training modality. The aims of this study were to evaluate the degree of compliance to TUT prescription for three different scenarios of two exercises and the comparison of the force values obtained versus the estimate values. A total of 29 healthy volunteers were evaluated in a clinical environment under controlled conditions in 3 different scenarios (different velocities or ROMs) of both shoulder abduction and knee extension in 2 sets of 10 repetitions per scenario within a single session. Concentric and isometric phases showed a higher degree of compliance for their TUTs than the eccentric phase TUTs for all scenarios of both exercises, whereas the degree of compliance was higher for the total TUT than for the phases' TUTs. Additionally, the eccentric phase showed a general tendency to develop for longer time periods than prescribed, whilst the fast scenario showed a higher degree of compliance for isometric phase TUTs and total TUTs than the extant two scenarios in both exercises. On the other hand, the force of the elastic bands tends to be overestimated according to the estimates of the manufacturers. These findings, both those related to the degree of compliance with TUTs and the force analysis, can be used by physiotherapists and other exercise professionals as a reference to achieve a good dosage of routine exercises with elastic bands.

Intra- and Inter-Rater Reliability of Strength Measurements Using a Pull Hand-Held Dynamometer Fixed to the Examiner's Body and Comparison with Push Dynamometry.

Hand held dynamometers (HHDs) are the most used method to measure strength in clinical sitting. There are two methods to realize the assessment: pull and push. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the intra- and inter-rater reliability of a new measurement modality for pull HHD and to compare the inter-rater reliability and agreement of the measurements. Forty healthy subjects were evaluated by two assessors with different body composition and manual strength. Fifteen isometric tests were performed in two sessions with a one-week interval between them. Reliability was examined using the intra-class correlation (ICC) and the standard error of measurement (SEM). Agreement between raters was examined using paired t-tests. Intra- and inter-rater reliability for the tests performed with the pull HHD showed excellent values, with ICCs ranging from 0.991 to 0.998. For tests with values higher than 200 N, push HHD showed greater differences between raters than pull HHD. Pull HHD attached to the examiner's body is a method with excellent reliability to measure isometric strength and showed better agreement between examiners, especially for those tests that showed high levels of strength. Pull HHD is a new alternative to perform isometric tests with less rater dependence.

Validity and reliability of the DiCI for the measurement of shoulder flexion and abduction strength in asymptomatic and symptomatic subjects.

BACKGROUND: A higher risk of shoulder injury in the athletic and non-athletic population is frequently associated with strength deficits. Therefore, shoulder strength assessment can be clinically useful to identify and to quantify the magnitude of strength deficit. Thus, the aim of this study was to evaluate the validity and reliability of a DiCI (a new hand-held dynamometer) for the measurement of shoulder flexion and abduction strength in asymptomatic and symptomatic subjects. METHODS: Forty-three recreational athletes (29 males and 14 females; age: 22.1 ± 0.47 years; body mass: 68.7 ± 13.1 kg; height = 173.3 ± 9.7 cm) and 40 symptomatic subjects (28 males and 12 females; age: 49.9 ± 8.1 years; body mass: 70.6 ± 14.3 kg; height = 171.7 ± 9.0 cm) completed shoulder flexion and abduction strength tests in two identical sessions one-week apart. Both types of movement were evaluated at 45º and 90º. RESULTS: Relative reliability analysis showed excellent intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) for all evaluated movements (ICC range = 0.90 to 0.99). Absolute reliability analysis showed a standard error of measurement (SEM) ranging from 1.36% to 2.25%, and minimal detectable change (MDC) ranging from 3.93% to 6.25%. In conclusion, the DiCI is a valid and reliable device for assessing shoulder strength both in recreational athletes and in subjects with restricted mobility and loss of strength.