三种常见划船运动对肩胛部、腹部和下背部肌肉激活的比较  

A comparison of the activation of scapular stabilizers,abdominal muscles,and lower back muscles between three common rowing exercises

作　　者：吴媛[1,2] 樊静 赖小松[2,3] 邓国政 WU Yuan;FAN Jing;LAI Xiaosong(Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University,Guangzhou,510700)

机构地区：[1]广州医科大学附属第五医院神经内科,广州市510700 [2]广州市加速康复腹部外科重点实验室 [3]广州医科大学附属第五医院康复医学科

出　　处：《中国康复医学杂志》2022年第9期1186-1191,共6页Chinese Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine

基　　金：广州市加速康复腹部外科重点实验室(201905010004)。

摘　　要：目的:评估和比较杠铃俯身划船、哑铃俯身划船、哑铃跪姿单臂划船对肩胛部、腹部和下背部的肌肉激活程度。方法:本研究使用表面肌电图(s EMG)记录24例受试者的斜方肌中束、斜方肌下束、竖脊肌、腹直肌和腹外斜肌的最大等长收缩(MIVC)和划船运动时的表面肌电信号。MIVC的表面肌电信号采用徒手抗阻的方法采集,受试者使用并保持最大的、持续的力量收缩肌肉,记录最大表面肌电值。使用8最大重复值(8RM)的负荷进行划船运动,肌肉的激活程度用划船运动的表面肌电值占MIVC的表面肌电值的百分比表示,即%MIVC。使用Freidman检验和Dunn-Bonferroni后续检验分析三种划船练习之间肌肉激活程度的差异。结果:在杠铃俯身划船、哑铃俯身划船和哑铃跪姿单臂划船时,腹外斜肌的激活程度分别为16.98%MIVC、17.02%MIVC和35.23%MIVC;腹直肌的激活程度分别为12.02%MIVC、9.28%MIVC和11.64%MIVC;竖脊肌的激活程度分别为109.09%MIVC、106.30%MIVC和54.38%MIVC;斜方肌中束的激活程度分别为100.91%MIVC、109.31%MIVC和107.82%MIVC;斜方肌下束的激活程度分别为58.47%MIVC、53.91%MIVC和60.12%MIVC。与杠铃俯身划船和哑铃俯身划船相比,哑铃跪姿单臂划船引起更高程度的腹外斜肌激活(P≤0.05)和更低程度的竖脊肌激活(P≤0.05)。杠铃俯身划船和哑铃俯身划船的肌肉激活程度差异无显著性意义(P>0.05)。结论:与杠铃俯身划船和哑铃俯身划船相比,哑铃跪姿单臂划船对腹部和下背部的肌肉激活程度不同。对于腹部肌肉较弱的个体,建议使用杠铃俯身划船和哑铃俯身划船作为初阶练习。对于下背部肌肉较弱的个体,可选择哑铃跪姿单臂划船作为初阶练习。Objective:To assess and compare the activation of scapular stabilizers,abdominal muscles,and lower back muscles between the barbell row,2-arm dumbbell row,and 1-arm dumbbell row.Method:Myoelectric signals of the middle and lower trapezius,erector spinae,rectus abdominis,and external oblique of twenty-four healthy participants during the maximum isometric voluntary contraction(MIVC) test and rowing exercises were recorded using surface electromyography(s EMG). Subject produced and maintained a maximal and consistent effort to test the MIVC and record the s EMG signal. The 8 repetition maximum(8RM)load was used to perform rowing exercises and record the s EMG signal. Averaged max s EMG values obtained from the rowing exercise were normalized to the peak magnitude obtained from the corresponding MIVC tests,and was expressed as a percentage of the maximal effort i.e. %MIVC. Freidman tests and Dunn-Bonferroni post hoc tests were used to review differences between the three rowing exercises.Result:During the barbell row,2-arm dumbbell row,and 1-arm dumbbell row,the activation of external oblique were 16.98% MIVC,7.02% MIVC and 35.23% MIVC,respectively,the activation of rectus abdominis were 12.02% MIVC,9.28% MIVC and 11.64% MIVC, respectively, the activation of middle trapezius were 100.91% MIVC,109.31% MIVC and 107.82% MIVC,the activation of lower thapezius were 58.47% MIVC, 53.91% MIVC and 60.12% MIVC. The 1-arm dumbbell row elicited higher EO activation(P≤0.05) but lower activation of ML and ES(P≤0.05) than the barbell row and 2-arm dumbbell row. There was no significant difference in muscle activation between the barbell row and 2-arm dumbbell row(P>0.05).Conclusion:Muscles on the abdominal region and low back region were differently activated by 1-arm dumbbell row compared to barbell row and 2-arm dumbbell row. Subjects with weak abdominal muscles are suggested to use barbell row and 2-arm dumbbell row as primary level rowing exercises. Subjects with back muscles weakness are suggested to use 1-arm dumbbell ro

关 键 词：肌肉激活 表面肌电图 稳定性 划船练习 

分 类 号：R741.0[医药卫生—神经病学与精神病学] R493[医药卫生—临床医学]