Generalization of Muscle Strength Capacities as Assessed From Different Variables, Tests, and Muscle Groups.

Cuk, I, Prebeg, G, Sreckovic, S, Mirkov, DM, and Jaric, S. Generalization of muscle strength capacities as assessed from different variables, tests, and muscle groups. J Strength Cond Res 31(2): 305-312, 2017-The muscle strength capacities to exert force under various movement conditions have been indiscriminately assessed from various strength tests and variables applied on different muscles. We tested the hypotheses that the distinctive strength capacities would be revealed (H1) through different strength tests, and (H2) through different strength variables. Alternatively, (H3) all strength variables independent of the selected test could depict the same strength capacity of the tested muscle. Sixty subjects performed both the standard strength test and the test of alternating contractions of 6 pairs of antagonistic muscles acting in different leg and arm joints. The dependent variables obtained from each test and muscle were the maximum isometric force and the rate of force development. A confirmatory principle component analysis set to 2 factors explained 31.9% of the total variance. The factor loadings discerned between the tested arm and leg muscles, but not between the strength tests and variables. An exploratory analysis applied on the same data revealed 6 factors that explained 60.1% of the total variance. Again, the individual factors were mainly loaded by different tests and variables obtained from the same pair of antagonistic muscles. Therefore, a comprehensive assessment of the muscle strength capacity of the tested individual should be based on a single strength test and variable obtained from a number of different muscles, than on a single muscle tested through different tests and variables. The selected muscles should act in different limbs and joints, while the maximum isometric force should be the variable of choice.

Force control in manipulation tasks: comparison of two common methods of grip force calculation.

We compared two standard methods routinely used to assess the grip force (GF; perpendicular force that hand exerts upon the hand-held object) in the studies of coordination of GF and load force (LF; tangential force) in manipulation tasks. A variety of static tasks were tested, and GF-LF coupling (i.e., the maximum cross-correlation between the forces) was assessed. GF was calculated either as the minimum value of the two opposing GF components acting upon the hand-held object (GFmin) or as their average value (GFavg). Although both methods revealed high GF-LF correlation coefficients, most of the data revealed the higher values for GFavg than for GFmin. Therefore, we conclude that the CNS is more likely to take into account GFavg than GFmin when controlling static manipulative actions as well as that GFavg should be the variable of choice in kinetic analyses of static manipulation tasks.

Effects of muscle fatigue on grip and load force coordination and performance of manipulation tasks.

Muscle fatigue is known to be associated with a deteriorated muscle coordination and impaired movement performance in variety of voluntary movements. The aim of this study was to investigate the generally underexplored effect of muscle fatigue on both the coordination between grip force (GF; the force component perpendicular to the hand-object contact area that provides friction) and load force (LF; the parallel force component that can move the object or support the body) as well as movement performance in manipulation tasks. Fifteen participants performed a variety of static and dynamic manipulations both with and without a preceding procedure designed to fatigue the arm and hand muscles. The tasks involved exertion of ramp-and-hold and oscillation patterns of LF against an externally fixed instrumented device, and a simple lift of a freely moving device. The results revealed a fatigue-associated decrease in GF scaling (i.e., the magnitude of GF relative to LF) and GF-LF coupling (correlation between GF and LF), while the task performance regarding the accuracy of exertion of the prescribed LF profiles remained unaffected. We conclude that muscle fatigue both partly decouples GF from LF and reduces the overall GF magnitude, which could potentially explain why hand-held objects are more likely to drop when manipulated with fatigued muscles. However, the unaffected task performance could be explained either by the relatively low level of muscle forces required by the tested tasks, the moderate level of the fatigue imposed, or both.

Relationships among the muscle strength properties as assessed through various tests and variables.

We tested the hypotheses that the individual strength properties depend on the applied test and the variable extracted, rather than on the muscle group tested. Flexor and extensor muscles acting in the knee and elbow joint were tested in 58 participants. The standard strength test (SST; based on sustained maximum contraction) and alternating consecutive maximum contractions (ACMCs; alternating contractions of antagonistic muscles) performed under static conditions were separately applied to provide the maximum force (F) and the rate of force development (RFD) of each tested muscle. The principal component analysis applied on all 16 variables revealed three factors that explained 85.5% of the total variance. Contrary to our hypotheses, the individual factors were loaded with the variables recorded from individual muscles, rather than with either the particular variables or tests. The present findings suggest that recording both F and RFD in routine strength testing procedures could be redundant since they may assess the same strength property of the tested muscle. In addition, ACMC may be a feasible alternative to SST since it could assess the same strength properties from two antagonist muscles through a single trial, while being based on relatively low and transient forces.