Tweet
Friends,
Here is one more response to my queery about isokinetic vs. inverse
dynamic analyses.
I apologize to Tony Shield for this late submission.
Paul DeVita
> ----------
> From: Annelie Shield[SMTP:Shield2@bigpond.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 1999 6:58 PM
> To: Devita, Paul
> Subject: Re: Isokinetics and Inverse Dynamics
>
> Hi Paul
>
> We have recently performed a number of twitch interpolation investigations
> of quadriceps activation during isometric knee extension and one recent
> study in which we employed a similar technique during isokinetic knee
> extension.
>
> According to our studies with 50+ subjects, mean isometric quadriceps
> activation is in the region of 89% (SD 5%) when the contractions are
> performed 60 degrees from full extension. At 90 degrees from full
> extension
> the degree of activation is slightly greater (93%+ or - 3%) which is in
> close agreement with other recently published work (Roos et al that you
> mentioned plus those below). Our isokinetic work is far from complete, and
> the method is not as tight as the isometric technique, but it appears that
> the mean activation is similar with a greater SD (~10% - it may not even
> be
> normally distributed).
>
> It doesn't appear that these activation deficits could fully account for
> the
> sort of differences you have noted. I think that these results raise
> doubts
> about the significance of the EMG results that several people have
> commented
> on in replying to you.
>
> Kalmar., J. M., and Cafarelli, E., (1999) Journal of Applied Physiology,
> 87(2): 801-808.
>
> Jakobi and Cafarelli (1998) Journal of Applied Physiology, 84(1): 200-206.
>
>
> Tony Shield
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe send SIGNOFF BIOMCH-L to LISTSERV@nic.surfnet.nl
For information and archives: http://isb.ri.ccf.org/biomch-l
---------------------------------------------------------------
Here is one more response to my queery about isokinetic vs. inverse
dynamic analyses.
I apologize to Tony Shield for this late submission.
Paul DeVita
> ----------
> From: Annelie Shield[SMTP:Shield2@bigpond.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 1999 6:58 PM
> To: Devita, Paul
> Subject: Re: Isokinetics and Inverse Dynamics
>
> Hi Paul
>
> We have recently performed a number of twitch interpolation investigations
> of quadriceps activation during isometric knee extension and one recent
> study in which we employed a similar technique during isokinetic knee
> extension.
>
> According to our studies with 50+ subjects, mean isometric quadriceps
> activation is in the region of 89% (SD 5%) when the contractions are
> performed 60 degrees from full extension. At 90 degrees from full
> extension
> the degree of activation is slightly greater (93%+ or - 3%) which is in
> close agreement with other recently published work (Roos et al that you
> mentioned plus those below). Our isokinetic work is far from complete, and
> the method is not as tight as the isometric technique, but it appears that
> the mean activation is similar with a greater SD (~10% - it may not even
> be
> normally distributed).
>
> It doesn't appear that these activation deficits could fully account for
> the
> sort of differences you have noted. I think that these results raise
> doubts
> about the significance of the EMG results that several people have
> commented
> on in replying to you.
>
> Kalmar., J. M., and Cafarelli, E., (1999) Journal of Applied Physiology,
> 87(2): 801-808.
>
> Jakobi and Cafarelli (1998) Journal of Applied Physiology, 84(1): 200-206.
>
>
> Tony Shield
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe send SIGNOFF BIOMCH-L to LISTSERV@nic.surfnet.nl
For information and archives: http://isb.ri.ccf.org/biomch-l
---------------------------------------------------------------