Are sEMG, Velocity and Power Influenced by Athletes’ Fixation in Paralympic Powerlifting?

Abstract

The bench press is performed in parapowerlifting with the back, shoulders, buttocks, legs and heels extended over the bench, and the use of straps to secure the athlete to the bench is optional. Thus, the study evaluated muscle activation, surface electromyography (sEMG), maximum velocity (MaxV) and mean propulsive velocity (MPV), and power in paralympic powerlifting athletes under conditions tied or untied to the bench. Fifteen experienced Paralympic powerlifting male athletes (22.27 ± 10.30 years, 78.5 ± 21.6 kg) took part in the research. The sEMG measurement was performed in the sternal portion of the pectoralis major (PMES), anterior deltoid (AD), long head of the triceps brachii (TRI) and clavicular portion of the pectoralis major (PMCL). The MaxV, MPV and power were evaluated using an encoder. Loads of 40%, 60%, 80% and 100% 1RM were analyzed under untied and tied conditions. No differences were found in muscle activation between the tied and untied conditions; however, sEMG showed differences in the untied condition between AD and TRI (F (3112) = 4.484; p = 0.005) in the 100% 1RM load, between PMCL and AD (F (3112) = 3.743; p = 0.013) in 60% 1RM load and in the tied condition, between the PMES and the AD (F (3112) = 4.067; p = 0.009). There were differences in MaxV (F (3112) = 213.3; p < 0.001), and MPV (F (3112) = 248.2; p < 0.001), between all loads in the tied and untied condition. In power, the load of 100% 1RM differed from all other relative loads (F (3112) = 36.54; p < 0.001) in both conditions. The tied condition seems to favor muscle activation, sEMG, and velocity over the untied condition.

Does the Level of Training Interfere with the Sustainability of Static and Dynamic Strength in Paralympic Powerlifting Athletes?

“…Thus, the evaluation of an athlete's training status and initial condition is the crucial point for the correct elaboration of a training program to be applied in different phases of the sports preparation [11]. In these initial conditions, some training variables are manipulated to prescribe and control resistance training programs such as: sets, time intervals, position and intensity [11][12][13]. On the other hand, in these initial conditions, there are possible disparities between different training methods to determine mechanical outputs in strengthpower exercises.…”

A Bibliometrics-Enhanced, PAGER-Compliant Scoping Review of the Literature on Paralympic Powerlifting: Insights for Practices and Future Research

“…Seven studies [ 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 ] were excluded with reason ( n = 2, not reporting sufficient details; n = 5, not disaggregating data according to para-sports discipline). Finally, 37 studies [ 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 ] were retained in the present scoping review. We found that the included studies focused on a range of aspects involving health, classification, the etiology of injuries, and performance.…”

“…Eight studies [ 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 ] investigated the biomechanics of BP in PP, including the performance of PP under two different BP conditions (namely, with the legs tied and untied [ 34 , 35 ]), the impact of the choice of a specific grip width [ 36 , 37 ], the effects of arched and flat techniques [ 38 ], the impact of a partial vs. full range of movement (ROM) training [ 39 ], the evaluation of strength and muscle activation indicators in sticking point region [ 40 ], and the force output during different phases of the PP BP movement [ 41 ].…”

“…Guerra et al [ 34 ] analyzed the variations in sEMG (muscle activity of triceps brachii —long head, anterior deltoid, and pectoralis major —sternal and clavicular portions), the velocity of the barbell displacement (maximum velocity and mean propulsive velocity), and power in the BP at various relative loads (40%, 60%, 80%, and 100% of 1RM) in a sample of 15 PP male athletes (aged 22.27 ± 10.30 years). The authors found no statistical differences in muscle activity in both BP conditions but indicated some intra-individual variability.…”

“…FANOVA, as well, has been very recently introduced in the field of biomechanics and neuromechanics and has enabled the uncovering of specific patterns that classical methodologies failed to discover. Biomechanical studies conducted in PP failed to detect significant differences or found only slight differences in terms of the performance of PP under different BP conditions (such as with the legs tied and untied [ 34 , 35 ], using different grip widths [ 36 , 37 ], with the arched and flat techniques [ 38 ], at different distances from the bar to the chest [ 40 ], and in different sub-phases of the BP movement [ 41 ]). The use of novel, cutting-edge techniques could potentially result in the discovery of subtle differences.…”