A comparison of knee-extension torque production with biphasic versus Russian current
Deutscher übersetzter Titel: | Ein Vergleich der Kniestreck-Kraftentwicklung bei Anwendung von biphasischer versus Russischer Elektrostimulation |
---|---|
Autor: | Holcomb, W.R.; Golestani, S.; Hill, S. |
Erschienen in: | Journal of sport rehabilitation |
Veröffentlicht: | 9 (2000), 3, S. 229-239, Lit. |
Format: | Literatur (SPOLIT) |
Publikationstyp: | Zeitschriftenartikel |
Medienart: | Gedruckte Ressource |
Sprache: | Englisch |
ISSN: | 1056-6716, 1543-3072 |
Schlagworte: | |
Online Zugang: | |
Erfassungsnummer: | PU199912500545 |
Quelle: | BISp |
Abstract des Autors
Context: Neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) can be used to prevent the atrophy and strength loss associated with immobilization. Objective: To compare the effects of biphasic current and the modulated "Russian" current on muscular torque production during different contraction conditions. Design, Setting, and Participants: In a within-subjects design, 10 healthy subjects in an athletic training laboratory received NMES. Interventions: Isometric knee-extension torque was recorded with the Biodex under 4 conditions: maximum voluntary contraction (MVC; control), MVC superimposed with low-intensity stimulation (sham), MVC superimposed with high-intensity stimulation, and high-intensity stimulation only. Main Outcome Measure: Data normalized for body weight were analyzed using a 2 (current type) x 4 (condition) repeated-measures analysis of variance. Results: The main effect for current type was not significant, F1,9=.03, P=.87. Conclusions: There is no difference in the effectiveness of biphasic and Russian currents when they are used to elicit forceful muscular contractions. Verf.-Referat