Force production and muscle activation during partial vs. full range of motion in Paralympic Powerlifting

Mendonça, Tanise Pires; Aidar, Felipe José; Matos, Dihogo Gama de; Souza, Raphael Fabrício de; Marçal, Anderson Carlos; Almeida-Neto, Paulo Francisco de; Cabral, Breno Guilherme de Araújo Tinôco; Garrido, Nuno Domingos; Neiva, Henrique P.; Marinho, Daniel A.; Marques, Mário C.; Reis, Víctor Machado

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0257810

Cited by 18 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Seven studies [ 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 ] were excluded with reason ( n = 2, not reporting sufficient details; n = 5, not disaggregating data according to para-sports discipline). Finally, 37 studies [ 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 ] were retained in the present scoping review. We found that the included studies focused on a range of aspects involving health, classification, the etiology of injuries, and performance.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Bibliometrics-Enhanced, PAGER-Compliant Scoping Review of the Literature on Paralympic Powerlifting: Insights for Practices and Future Research

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Paralympic powerlifting (PP), formerly known as “International Paralympic Committee” (IPC) powerlifting, is the format of powerlifting adapted for athletes with disabilities, and it differs from the version for able-bodied athletes in that it consists of bench press only. According to the mandate of the IPC, PP athletes should be enabled to achieve sporting excellence. As such, rigorous evidence is needed. However, to the best of our knowledge, there exists no systematic assessment of the body of scholarly evidence in the field of PP. Therefore, the present study was conducted to fill in this gap of knowledge, by conducting a scoping review of the literature enhanced by a bibliometrics analysis and by mining two major scholarly databases (MEDLINE via PubMed and Scopus). The aim was to provide a review/summary of the findings to date to help practitioners and athletes. Thirty-seven studies were retained in the present study. These covered the following thematic areas: (i) warm-up strategies (n = 2); (ii) aspects of training (n = 2); (iii) physiological aspects and responses (n = 2); (iv) psychological aspects and responses (n = 2); (v) biomechanics of bench press (n = 8); (vi) recovery strategy (n = 5); (vii) impact of the disability and type of disability (n = 4); (viii) epidemiology of PP (n = 6); and (ix) new analytical/statistical approaches for kinematics assessments, internal load monitoring, and predictions of mechanical outputs in strength exercises and in PP (n = 6). Bibliometrics analysis of the PP-related scientific output revealed that, despite having already become a paralympic sports discipline in 1984, only in the last few years, PP has been attracting a lot of interest from the community of researchers, with the first scholarly contribution dating back to 2012, and with more than one-third of the scientific output being published this year (2022). As such, this scholarly discipline is quite recent and young. Moreover, the community dealing with this topic is poorly interconnected, with most authors contributing to just one article, and with one single author being a hub node of the author network. Distributions of the number of articles and the authors/co-authors were found to be highly asymmetrical, indicating that this research is still in its infancy and has great room as well as great potential to grow. Reflecting this, many research topics are also overlooked and underdeveloped, with the currently available evidence being based on a few studies.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Bibliometrics-Enhanced, PAGER-Compliant Scoping Review of the Literature on Paralympic Powerlifting: Insights for Practices and Future Research

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The electromyographic signals were captured using through double type electrodes positioned on the right side of the body in parallel to the muscle fibers, located 2 cm from the center at the point of the area of greatest muscle amplitude. The ground electrode was placed over the olecranon [ 2 , 13 , 14 ]. The area of skin used for electrode placement was shaved and cleaned with alcohol before the electrode fixation procedure.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are sEMG, Velocity and Power Influenced by Athletes’ Fixation in Paralympic Powerlifting?

Guerra¹,

Aidar

Greco

et al. 2022

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The bench press is performed in parapowerlifting with the back, shoulders, buttocks, legs and heels extended over the bench, and the use of straps to secure the athlete to the bench is optional. Thus, the study evaluated muscle activation, surface electromyography (sEMG), maximum velocity (MaxV) and mean propulsive velocity (MPV), and power in paralympic powerlifting athletes under conditions tied or untied to the bench. Fifteen experienced Paralympic powerlifting male athletes (22.27 ± 10.30 years, 78.5 ± 21.6 kg) took part in the research. The sEMG measurement was performed in the sternal portion of the pectoralis major (PMES), anterior deltoid (AD), long head of the triceps brachii (TRI) and clavicular portion of the pectoralis major (PMCL). The MaxV, MPV and power were evaluated using an encoder. Loads of 40%, 60%, 80% and 100% 1RM were analyzed under untied and tied conditions. No differences were found in muscle activation between the tied and untied conditions; however, sEMG showed differences in the untied condition between AD and TRI (F (3112) = 4.484; p = 0.005) in the 100% 1RM load, between PMCL and AD (F (3112) = 3.743; p = 0.013) in 60% 1RM load and in the tied condition, between the PMES and the AD (F (3112) = 4.067; p = 0.009). There were differences in MaxV (F (3112) = 213.3; p < 0.001), and MPV (F (3112) = 248.2; p < 0.001), between all loads in the tied and untied condition. In power, the load of 100% 1RM differed from all other relative loads (F (3112) = 36.54; p < 0.001) in both conditions. The tied condition seems to favor muscle activation, sEMG, and velocity over the untied condition.

show abstract

“…Then, the subjects performed five repetitions with 40% of 1RM, followed by three repetitions with 50% of 1RM, one repetition with 70, one with 80, and one with 90% of 1RM. Between sets, participants rested for at least three minutes [ 37 , 38 ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, regarding PP, studies have focused more on the health issues related to the etiology of injuries [ 8 , 35 ]. In PP, the extended legs on the bench tend to reduce the transfer of force to lifting [ 36 ], in which affects the maintenance of force, power, velocity, and, and these are not well elucidated [ 16 , 37 , 38 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Force–velocity relationship in Paralympic powerlifting: two or multiple-point methods to determine a maximum repetition

Aidar

Brito

Matos

et al. 2022

BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Due to the absence of evidence in the literature on Paralympic Powerlifting the present study investigated various methods to assess bench press maximum repetition and the way each method influences the measurement of minimum velocity limit (MVT), load at zero velocity (LD0), and force–velocity (FV). Objective To evaluate the precision of the multi-point method using proximal loads (40, 50, 60, 70, 80, and 90% of one repetition maximum; 1RM) compared to the four-point method (50, 60, 70, and 80% of 1RM) and the two-point method using distant loads (40 and 80% and 50 and 80% of 1RM) in in the MVT, LD0, and FV, in bench press performed by Paralympic Powerlifters (PP). Methods To accomplish this, 15 male elite PP athletes participated in the study (age: 27.7 ± 5.7 years; BM: 74.0 ± 19.5 kg). All participants performed an adapted bench press test (free weight) with 6 loads (40, 50, 60, 70, 80, and 90% 1RM), 4 loads (50, 60, 70, and 80% 1RM), and 2 loads (40–80% and 50–80% 1RM). The 1RM predictions were made by MVT, LD0, and FV. Results The main results indicated that the multiple (4 and 6) pointsmethod provides good results in the MVT (R2 = 0.482), the LD0 (R2 = 0.614), and the FV (R2 = 0.508). The two-point method (50–80%) showed a higher mean in MVT [1268.2 ± 502.0 N; ICC95% 0.76 (0.31–0.92)], in LD0 [1504.1 ± 597.3 N; 0.63 (0.17–0.86)], and in FV [1479.2 ± 636.0 N; 0.60 (0.10–0.86)]. Conclusion The multiple-point method (4 and 6 points) and the two-point method (40–80%) using the MVT, LD0, and FV all showed a good ability to predict bench press 1RM in PP.

show abstract

Force production and muscle activation during partial vs. full range of motion in Paralympic Powerlifting

Cited by 18 publications

References 22 publications

A Bibliometrics-Enhanced, PAGER-Compliant Scoping Review of the Literature on Paralympic Powerlifting: Insights for Practices and Future Research

A Bibliometrics-Enhanced, PAGER-Compliant Scoping Review of the Literature on Paralympic Powerlifting: Insights for Practices and Future Research

Are sEMG, Velocity and Power Influenced by Athletes’ Fixation in Paralympic Powerlifting?

Force–velocity relationship in Paralympic powerlifting: two or multiple-point methods to determine a maximum repetition

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About