The aim of this study was to examine strategies to absorb impact shock during RaceRunning in participants with neurological motor disorders. For this purpose, 8 RaceRunning athletes (4 male and 4 female) voluntarily took part in the study. Each participant performed a series of 100-m sprints with a RaceRunning bike. Acceleration of the tibia and head was measured with 2 inertial measurement units and used to calculate foot-impact shock measures. Results showed that RaceRunning pattern was characterized by a lack of impact peak in foot–ground contact time and the existence of an active peak after foot contact. Due to the ergonomic properties of the RaceRunning bike, shock is attenuated throughout the stance phase. In conclusion, the results revealed that RaceRunning athletes with neurological motor disorders are capable of absorbing impact shock during assisted RaceRunning using a strategy that mimics runners without disabilities.
Mohsen Shafizadeh, Nicola Theis, and Keith Davids
Paul Head, Mark Waldron, Nicola Theis, and Stephen David Patterson
Context: Neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) combined with blood flow restriction (BFR) has been shown to improve muscular strength and size better than NMES alone. However, previous studies used varied methodologies not recommended by previous NMES or BFR research. Objective: The present study investigated the acute effects of NMES combined with varying degrees of BFR using research-recommended procedures to enhance understanding and the clinical applicability of this combination. Design: Randomized crossover. Setting: Physiology laboratory. Participants: A total of 20 healthy adults (age 27  y; height 177  cm; body mass 77  kg). Interventions: Six sessions separated by at least 7 days. The first 2 visits served as familiarization, with the experimental conditions performed in the final 4 sessions: NMES alone, NMES 40% BFR, NMES 60% BFR, and NMES 80% BFR. Main Outcome Measures: Maximal voluntary isometric contraction, muscle thickness, blood pressure, heart rate, rating of perceived exertion, and pain were all recorded before and after each condition. Results: The NMES 80% BFR caused greater maximal voluntary isometric contraction decline than any other condition (−38.9 [22.3] N·m, P < .01). Vastus medialis and vastus lateralis muscle thickness acutely increased after all experimental conditions (P < .05). Pain and ratings of perceived exertion were higher after NMES 80% BFR compared with all other experimental conditions (P < .05). No cardiovascular effects were observed between conditions. Conclusion: The NMES combined with 80% BFR caused greater acute force decrement than the other conditions. However, greater perceptual ratings of pain and ratings of perceived exertion were observed with NMES 80% BFR. These acute observations must be investigated during chronic interventions to corroborate any relationship to changes in muscle strength and size in clinical populations.
Ryan Mahaffey, Megan Le Warne, Stewart C. Morrison, Wendy I. Drechsler, and Nicola Theis
Context: The assessment of pediatric muscle strength is necessary in a range of applications, including rehabilitation programs. Handheld dynamometry (HHD) is considered easy to use, portable, and low cost, but validity to measure lower limb muscle strength in children has not been assessed. Objective: To determine the concurrent validity of lower limb torque from HHD compared with isokinetic dynamometry (ID) in children aged from 7 to 11 years old. Design: A descriptive assessment of concurrent validity of lower limb joint torques from HHD compared with ID. Methods: Sixty-one typically developing children underwent assessment of maximal hip, knee, and ankle isometric torque by HHD and ID using standardized protocols. Joint positions were selected to represent maximal strength and were replicated between devices. Concurrent validity was determined by Pearson correlation, limits of agreement, and Bland–Altman plots. Results: Correlations between HHD and ID were moderate to large for knee extension (r 95% CI, .39 to .73), small to large for plantar flexion (r 95% CI, .29 to .67), knee flexion (r 95% CI, .16 to .59), hip flexion (r 95% CI, .21 to .57), hip extension (r 95% CI, .18 to .54), and hip adduction (r 95% CI, .12 to .56), and small to moderate for dorsiflexion (r 95% CI, −.11 to .39) and hip abduction (r 95% CI, −.02 to .46). Limits of agreement for all joint torques were greater than 10% indicating large error in HHD measured torque compared with ID. A positive proportional bias was detected for plantarflexion, indicating that HHD underestimated torque to a greater extent in participants with higher torque values. Conclusions: Maximal torque values from HHD and ID are consistent with those previously reported in the literature. Poor concurrent validity of HHD may have arisen from issues around joint position, joint stabilization, and the experience of the tester to prevent an isokinetic contraction. Pediatric lower limb muscle strength assessed by HHD should be interpreted with caution.