Pectoralis major and triceps brachii cross-sectional area measured on different planes: the effect on the muscle size-strength relationship.

BACKGROUND: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a well-used technique to assess muscle size and can be acquired on different planes. Pectoralis major (PM) and triceps brachii (TB) muscles are often acquired and analyzed on the axial plane, however it is unknown if anatomical cross-sectional area (CSA) calculated from different planes will affect the muscle size-strength relationship. Thus, the first aim of the present study was to identify if the CSA of the PM and TB measured on different planes presents a similar muscle size-strength relationship. A secondary aim was to investigate if the quantification of CSA of the PM and TB muscles are similar between sagittal and axial plane. METHODS: Fifteen males underwent an MRI examination, and after that, one-repetition maximum (1RM) test was performed. RESULTS: There was a significant relationship between 1RM and PM CSA measured on the axial and sagittal plane (r≤0.81), while the relationship with TB CSA was only good on the axial plane (r=0.65) and not significant on the sagittal plane (r=0.27). ICC between planes was excellent for PM CSA (0.96) with Bland-Altman procedure showing agreement between planes (d=0.376; P=0.612). Contrarily, TB CSA ICC was week (0.07), with Bland-Altman procedure showing no agreement between planes (d=-24.49; P=0.022). CONCLUSIONS: CSA measured at axial plane from PM and TB muscles showed a significant relationship with 1RM, while only PM CSA on the sagittal plane showed a significant relationship with 1RM. Finally, it was demonstrated that PM images showed a great reliability between planes, which was not true for TB muscle.

Different types of mechanical vibration application on EMG response and strength performance

Abstract Aim: The present study aimed to compare the strength performance and the neuromuscular activity during one maximum repetition test (1RM), and the maximum voluntary isometric contractions (MVIC) performed with whole-body vibration (WBV), local vibration (LV), and no vibration (NV). Methods: The sample consisted of 15 males, experienced in strength training for at least 6 months, which performed all strength tests in the barbell curl exercise across randomized trials on the following conditions: NV, WBV, and LV. During all tests, the normalized root means square values of the electromyographic signals (EMGRMS) of the biceps brachii and brachioradialis were recorded and compared between the conditions. The one-way ANOVAs with repeated measures were used to compare the results of 1RM and MVIC tests and the normalized EMGRMS between the conditions. When necessary, a post hoc Scott-Knott test was used to identify the differences reported in the ANOVAs. The significance level adopted was α < 0.05. Results: The EMGRMS response of the biceps brachii and brachioradialis muscles during the 1RM and MVIC tests presented significantly higher values at LV compared to WBV, and NV (p < 0.001). The 1RM tests, and the MVIC results were similar between conditions (p = 0.9803; p = 0.061, respectively). Conclusion: These results indicate that the application of MV was not sufficient to increase strength performance.