Muscle Stretch Shortening in Upper Extremity Explosiveness

After talking briefly about muscle stretch shortening in class, I thought this was an interesting topic and looked into some literature to better understand what is going on. I found a study that focused on upper-body explosive movements, and how load and stretch shortening cycles (SSC) affect the kinematics, kinetics, and muscle activation that occur. This was an interesting study because they looked at maximal effort bench throws, where much of the previous research focused only on lower-extremity exercises. Each subject performed an SSC throw and concentric only throws, comparing displacement, velocity, acceleration, force, power output and EMG from the pectoralis major, anterior deltoid, and triceps brachii. SSCs are usually performed before explosive movements (e.g. throwing, jumping) which lengthen the muscle preparing to contract to ensure maximal velocity is reached during the movement. When the muscle lengthens, elastic energy is stored which can then be released during the movement, however, if the time between lengthening and contracting is too long, the energy dissipates, leading to a slower contraction with less power.

As expected, the average velocity was lower for the concentric only throws when compared to the SSC throws, however, there was no difference in throw height between the two groups. Average and peak force and power output were both higher for the SSC through compared to the concentric only throw. The findings from this study agree with findings from previous studies focusing on vertical jump, showing that similar muscle kinetics are at play. Muscle kinetics are an extremely interesting area of study, and even though we only briefly discussed muscle length-tension, force-velocity, and power relationships in class, this is a huge field of study. Some groups choose to look at specific muscle groups, while others look at more complex movements that require multiple groups of muscles to be activated. This area of research has led to improvements in stretching suggestions for athletes; stretching before performing explosive movements is not actually as beneficial as we once thought. Stretching the muscle allows for elastic energy dissipation, instead of storing the energy for immediate release. However, stretching is still extremely beneficial after workouts, helping to prevent muscle soreness and excess inflammation. Additionally, there are some chronic adaptations to stretching including increasing flexibility for a wider range of motion during typical daily activities as well as athletic endeavors.

References:

  1. Newton, R. U., Murphy, A. J., Humphries, B. J., Wilson, G. J., Kraemer, W. J., & Häkkinen, K. (1997). Influence of load and stretch shortening cycle on the kinematics, kinetics and muscle activation that occurs during explosive upper-body movements. European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology, 75(4), 333–342. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004210050169
  2. Bosco, Carmelo, and Paavo V. Komi. (1979) Mechanical characteristics and fiber composition of human leg extensor muscles. European journal of applied physiology and occupational physiology4 (1979): 275-284.

Different ways to measure VO2max

After recently observed a VO2max test in class, I began wondering more about this type of measurement of maximal oxygen uptake. Is there a better, less exhausting way to measure metabolic limits and aerobic power? How do you measure VO2max in patients with paralysis? Is VO2max even useful to measure in impaired patients? I started looking into different ways to measure VO2max and found an interesting paper from 1980 (Epstein et al, A comparison of various methods for the determination of VO2max, Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol). Although this paper is relatively old, it is still being cited today and remains relevant. In this study, four different methods were used to determine VO2max including direct measurements using uphill treadmill running, cycling on an ergometer, and a step test, and indirect measurements using the Astrand-Rhyming procedure of predicting VO2max. The subjects were non-professional sportsmen, so the conclusions of this study can be applied to non-professional athletes, unlike a lot of the previous articles we have discussed in class that only applied to college-level or professional athletes.

Looking at Table 2, we can see that VO2max was highest when measured using the uphill treadmill test, in agreement with previous results. Interestingly, this method did not have a significantly higher heart rate, indicating that it may not be the most strenuous method. Additionally, the O2 pulse, a measure of cardiac performance, was consistent across the three direct measurement methods. These discrepancies have been attributed to differences in subject motivation or involvement of a varying volume of muscles necessary to perform each method. Even so, the methods in this study did not generate significantly different measures of VO2max, so we can conclude that any of the four methods tested here will adequately determine VO2max.

This study was interesting because it shows how measuring VO2max has not changed much in the past few decades, as we observed an uphill treadmill method in class the other day. However, how do we know these methods are accurate? I looked into the accuracy of VO2max tests, and found a more recent article from 2018 (Astorino, et. al., Verification testing to confirm VO2max attainment in persons with spinal cord injury, J Spinal Cord Med). This study used both incremental and verification VO2max tests using an upper body ergometer. Interestingly, the subjects were from two distinct groups: able-bodied men and women, and men and women with spinal cord injuries. Spinal cord injuries can lead to partial and full paralysis, so using the upper body ergometer is ideal because coordination and support is not necessary like for a treadmill or standing test.

Looking at Figure 1, we see a linear relationship between the incremental and verification measurements of VO2max, indicating that these methods are accurate. Although it looks like this is the case for both groups (able-bodied subjects in open circles, spinal cord injury subjects in filled circles), after statistical analysis the able-bodied subject group demonstrated a higher measured VO2max in the verification technique, while the spinal cord injury group did not. This is interesting because it is often difficult to measure VO2max in patients with spinal cord injury because VO2 often does not plateau for the incremental tests. Verification testing is a good option for these patients because a plateau is not necessary to find the ‘true’ VO2max.

In conclusion, I learned about a technique to measure VO2max in subjects with partial paralysis (verification VO2max test) that is as accurate as a traditional incremental test. Patients with motion impairment exhibit higher rate of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease than the general population, and VO2max is a good indicator of metabolic health. Even though this population is generally less active, knowing VO2max is useful for screening individuals for metabolic health and to encourage more activity in those who pose a high risk of heart disease.

 

References for further reading:

  1. Astorino, T. A., Bediamol, N., Cotoia, S., Ines, K., Koeu, N., Menard, N., … Cruz, G. V. (2018). Verification testing to confirm VO 2 max attainment in persons with spinal cord injury. The Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine, 268, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/10790268.2017.1422890
  2. Keren, G., Magazanik, A., & Epstein, Y. (1980). A comparison of various methods for the determination of VO2max. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol, 45(2–3), 117–124. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=7193123