Muscular Response to Sudden Load

Wilder, David G.; Aleksiev, A.; Magnusson, Marianne; Pope, Malcolm H.; Spratt, Kevin F.; Goel, Vijay K.

doi:10.1097/00007632-199611150-00013

Cited by 252 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Like the study by Wilder et al (1996), the present study did not find differences in reaction times between trials. However, average EMG amplitude increased (enhancement of muscles forces) and stopping time decreased, which show that some subjects adapted to the series of unexpected load events on a short-term scale.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 70%

“…These studies suggest that some subjects show an optimising strategy for handling the sudden loading situation, which develops during a 1-2 week training period. Wilder et al (1996) applied unexpected loads in series of at least six (presumably within few minutes), but found no differences in EMG reaction time or peak amplitude between the six repetitions, i.e. the subjects did not learn to cope or adapt to a series of unexpected load events on a short-term scale.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…Laboratory setups for studying reactions to sudden loading events have been carried out by exposing subjects to impacts mediated by free-falling small loads, which does not involve a risk. Typically, the load (0.5-5 kg) is dropped (0.5-2 m) in a basket held by the subject, or the impact of the load is transmitted to the upper part of the trunk through a wiring system (Lavender et al, 1993(Lavender et al, , 2000Wilder et al, 1996). During such experiments, which normally are repeated several times, EMG is recorded from a number of muscles.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Adaptation to sudden unexpected loading of the low back—the effects of repeated trials

Skotte¹,

Fallentin²,

Pedersen³

et al. 2004

Journal of Biomechanics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 70%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Adaptation to sudden unexpected loading of the low back—the effects of repeated trials

Skotte¹,

Fallentin²,

Pedersen³

et al. 2004

Journal of Biomechanics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Since the reaction time of ES muscles after sudden trunk loading, which elicits the LLR, has been shown to be longer in patients with low back pain than in healthy control subjects (Wilder, Aleksiev, Magnusson, Pope, Spratt, Goel, 1996) DOMS-induced changes in the LLR response could have been expected in the present study. However, no changes were observed in the latency and amplitude of the LLR in the present study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 59%

The effect of delayed‐onset muscle soreness on stretch reflexes in human low back muscles

Hjortskov

Essendrop

Skotte

et al. 2005

Scandinavian Med Sci Sports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of the study was to investigate the effect of moderate delayed-onset muscle soreness (DOMS) on the short latency stretch reflex (SLR) and long latency stretch reflex (LLR) response i.e. electromyographic (EMG) onset latencies and EMG amplitudes in erector spinae (ES). Nine males with muscle soreness (DOMS group) were tested 24, 48 h, and 7 days post-exercise. Eight males (control group) were tested likewise. EMG was measured from ES bilaterally at the level of L3/L4. The SLR was elicited by mechanically tapping the ES at L3/L4, and the LLR was elicited by sudden loadings of the spine. Significant reductions in force during maximal voluntary contractions and range of motion, and a significant increase in muscle soreness (measured by pressure algometry) and subjective experience of soreness in the low back indicated DOMS 24, and 48 h post-exercise in the DOMS group. No changes were observed in the control group. The SLR and LLR response were unaffected by DOMS, i.e. no changes in EMG latencies and amplitudes were observed. In conclusion, despite changes in DOMS indicators, the reflex system protecting the stability of the lumbar spine is apparently capable of maintaining an appropriate triggering of SLR and LLR.

show abstract

“…Muscle fatigue causes a decrease in the force-generating capacity of muscles (Farina et al 2002) (Bigland-Ritchie and Woods 1984; De Luca 1984; Gandevia 2001). Muscle timing (Wilder et al 1996), coordination (Gorelick et al 2003), and force variability (Selen et al 2007) may be affected by muscle fatigue. Fatigue may also decrease proprioception (Myers et al 1999), alter reflexes (Wojtys et al 1996), increase response time (Wilder et al 1996; Lorist et al 2002), and increase a person’s perceived effort level (Gandevia 2001).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of local and widespread muscle fatigue on movement timing

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Repetitive movements can cause muscle fatigue, leading to motor reorganization, performance deficits, and/or possible injury. The effects of fatigue may depend on the type of fatigue task employed, however. The purpose of this study was to determine how local fatigue of a specific muscle group versus widespread fatigue of various muscle groups affected the control of movement timing. Twenty healthy subjects performed an upper-extremity low-load work task similar to sawing for 5 continuous minutes both before and after completing a protocol that either fatigued all the muscles used in the task (widespread fatigue) or a protocol that selectively fatigued the primary muscles used to execute the pushing stroke of the sawing task (localized fatigue). Subjects were instructed to time their movements with a metronome. Timing error, movement distance, and speed were calculated for each movement. Data were then analyzed using a goal-equivalent manifold (GEM) approach to quantify changes in goal-relevant and non-goal-relevant variability. We applied detrended fluctuation analysis to each time series to quantify changes in fluctuation dynamics that reflected changes in the control strategies used. After localized fatigue, subjects made shorter, slower movements and exerted greater control over non-goal-relevant variability. After widespread fatigue, subjects exerted less control over non-goal-relevant variability and did not change movement patterns. Thus, localized and widespread muscle fatigue affected movement differently. Local fatigue may reduce the available motor solutions and therefore cause greater movement reorganization than widespread muscle fatigue. Subjects altered their control strategies but continued to achieve the timing goal after both fatigue tasks.

show abstract

Muscular Response to Sudden Load

Cited by 252 publications

References 21 publications

Adaptation to sudden unexpected loading of the low back—the effects of repeated trials

Adaptation to sudden unexpected loading of the low back—the effects of repeated trials

The effect of delayed‐onset muscle soreness on stretch reflexes in human low back muscles

Effects of local and widespread muscle fatigue on movement timing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About