Use of Tensiomyography in Evaluating Sex-Based Differences in Resistance-Trained Individuals After Plyometric and Isometric Midthigh Pull Postactivation Potentiation Protocols

Abstract

Herring, CH, Goldstein, ER, and Fukuda, DH. Use of tensiomyography in evaluating sex-based differences in resistance-trained individuals after plyometric and isometric midthigh pull postactivation potentiation protocols. J Strength Cond Res 35(6): 1527–1534, 2021—The purposes of this study were to determine if there are sex-based differences in muscular contractile properties as measured by tensiomyography (TMG) and to determine if plyometrics or the isometric midthigh pull are effective methods of eliciting postactivation potentiation (PAP). Thirty strong, resistance-trained men (n = 15) and women (n = 15) underwent 3 testing days consisting of a PAP or control protocol, and pre-TMG and post-TMG and performance testing. Contractile properties from TMG were assessed in the gastrocnemius medial head (GMH), gluteus maximus (GM), rectus femoris (RF), and biceps femoris (BF). Performance testing included countermovement jumps (CMJs) and 30-m sprints. A time × sex interaction was found for GM delay time with women primarily influencing changes (mean difference = 2.74 ms) rather than men (mean difference = 1.32 ms). Main effects for time revealed an increase in GMH velocity of contraction (+0.004 mm·ms−1) and reductions in GM contraction time (−2.85 ms), GM delay time (−2.03 ms), RF delay time (−0.65 ms), CMJs (−2.74 cm), and 30-m time (0.05 seconds). Main effects for sex revealed greater values in women for GM contraction time (+15.50 ms), GM delay time (+6.65 ms), RF delay time (+2.26 ms), BF contraction time (+8.44 ms), BF delay time (+4.07 ms), BF maximal displacement (+2.27 mm), and 30-m time (+0.67 seconds), and lower values in women for GM velocity of contraction (−0.039 mm·ms−1) and CMJs (−13.46 cm).These findings may help practitioners optimize performance through enhanced assessments for injury risk, targeting specific muscles for training, and by selecting proper CAs and rest periods when using PAP.

Acute Effects of Different Intensities during Bench Press Exercise on the Mechanical Properties of Triceps Brachii Long Head

“…Non-invasive methods, such as tensiomyography and myotonometry, assess muscles' contractile and mechanical properties, respectively. However, it seems that tensiomyography has been used more often [19,20,[22][23][24][25] than myotonometry [21,26], despite the fact that the device for myotonometry measurement (the Myoton) is more practical, being faster due to no electrical stimulation being needed, as is the case with tensiomyography (after electrode placement, the protocol consists of increasing intensity, i.e., five steps of 10 mA with a 10 s interval in between to avoid potentiation and fatigue [27]), and the device is much smaller, making it easier to transport. Moreover, the Myoton device has been validated for measurement of muscle tone and stiffness in healthy participants with "good" to "excellent" (intra-and inter-rater) reliability [28] and shows a high level of agreement compared with measurements from shear-wave ultrasound elastography [29,30].…”

Acute Effects of Isometric Conditioning Activity on the Viscoelastic Properties of Muscles and Sprint and Jumping Performance in Handball Players

“…Recently, tensiomyography has been used to evaluate contractile properties due to CA-induced changes (6,22,37). However, as shown by the results of this and previous studies (related to fatigue), the measurement of acute changes in viscoelastic muscle properties may also be useful in examining the PAPE effect.…”

“…Recent studies have focused primarily on the assessment of changes in contractile properties of muscles due to the applied CA (6,22,37). However, as a result of PAPE protocols, muscles' viscoelastic properties may also be acutely affected (18).…”

Successful Powerlifting in a Unilateral, Transtibial Amputee: A Descriptive Case Series

“…The protocol was a concentric/concentric assessment, in which subjects completed 5 concentric knee extension and knee flexion actions in alternating order (i.e., maximal extension followed by maximal flexion). The first set was completed at a fixed velocity of 30°•s 21 , and the second set was completed at 180°•s 21 . Subjects were verbally encouraged throughout the protocol.…”