No announcement yet.


This topic is closed.
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Active-ations

    I, too, have been following the discussion of terminology with interest and
    not a little nostalgia. Herman would be proud of the resurgence of

    I was moved to join in, though, by V. Baltzopoulos's comments about
    misunderstandings of the word "contraction". PLEASE!!! Let's not refer
    to activation as being eccentric, isometric, or concentric! Activation
    refers to a neurally referenced event while muscle velocity is mechanically
    determined, largely by external forces. I think it is very appropriate to
    refer to the state of muscle as activation, but the terms isometric,
    concentric, and eccentric might better be used to modify the word "action".
    Even "contraction", though misleading, would be better than "activation".

    With regard to R. Hinrichs's issue, I think I cast my vote for keeping only
    two divisions of net joint force, as that seems to be what we can explain
    and conceive most readily. Of course this should not prevent a detailed
    analysis from going into greater depth, but this simpler situation should
    hold the common ground on which most teaching and general work is based. I
    also like the suggestions for F2 being "contact force" or "non-muscular
    force". However we must be careful to recognize that much of the force
    applied via ligaments and other "passive" structures was really generated
    at some time by muscles. So all of these distinctions have very specific
    mechanical meanings and should not be used indiscriminately (e.g. to
    compare muscle vs non-muscle forces in an effort to estimate potential for
    Larry Abraham
    Kinesiology & Health Education
    The University of Texas at Austin