Article

Averaged EMG profiles in jogging and running at different speeds

Center for Human Movement Sciences, University of Groningen, 9700 AD Groningen, The Netherlands.
Gait & Posture (Impact Factor: 2.3). 05/2007; 25(4):604-14. DOI: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2006.06.013
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT EMGs were collected from 14 muscles with surface electrodes in 10 subjects walking 1.25-2.25 ms(-1) and running 1.25-4.5 ms(-1). The EMGs were rectified, interpolated in 100% of the stride, and averaged over all subjects to give an average profile. In running, these profiles could be decomposed into 10 basic patterns, 8 of which represented only a single burst. Muscles could be divided into a quadriceps, hamstrings, calf and gluteal group, the profiles of which were composed of the same basic patterns. The amplitude of some bursts was constant, but other ones varied with running speed. This speed dependency was generally different between muscles of the same group. Many muscles show a similar profile in running as in walking. The most notable exception is the calf group, which shows activation in early stance (86-125%), together with quadriceps, instead of in late stance (26-55%) as in walking. This is also visible in low-speed running, 'jogging', where stance extends to 46% or 57%, instead of 30-37% as in normal running. Jogging shows some additional differences with normal running, related to this prolonged stance phase.

1 Bookmark
 · 
194 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: While running on uneven ground, humans are able to negotiate visible but also camouflaged changes in ground level. Previous studies have shown that the leg kinematics before touch down change with ground level. The present study experimentally investigated the contributions of visual perception (visual feedback), proprioceptive feedback and feed-forward patterns to the muscle activity responsible for these adaptations. The activity of three bilateral lower limb muscles (m. gastrocnemius medialis, m. tibialis anterior and m. vastus medialis) of nine healthy subjects was recorded during running across visible (drop of 0, −5 and −10 cm) and camouflaged changes in ground level (drop of 0 and −10 cm). The results reveal that at touchdown with longer flight time, m. tibialis anterior activation decreases and m. vastus medialis activation increases purely by feed-forward driven (flight time-dependent) muscle activation patterns, while m. gastrocnemius medialis activation increase is additionally influenced by visual feedback. Thus, feed-forward driven muscle activation patterns are sufficient to explain the experimentally observed adjustments of the leg at touchdown.
    Journal of Experimental Biology 02/2015; 218(3):451-457. DOI:10.1242/jeb.113688 · 3.00 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Running research has focused on reducing injuries by changing running technique. One proposed method is to change from rearfoot striking (RFS) to forefoot striking (FFS) because FFS is thought to be a more natural running pattern that may reduce loading and injury risk. Muscle activity affects loading and influences running patterns; however, the differences in muscle activity between natural FFS runners and natural RFS runners are unknown. The purpose of this study was to measure muscle activity in natural FFS runners and natural RFS runners. We tested the hypotheses that tibialis anterior activity would be significantly lower while activity of the plantarflexors would be significantly greater in FFS runners, compared to RFS runners, during late swing phase and early stance phase. Gait kinematics, ground reaction forces and electromyographic patterns of ten muscles were collected from twelve natural RFS runners and ten natural FFS runners. The root mean square (RMS) of each muscle's activity was calculated during terminal swing phase and early stance phase. We found significantly lower RMS activity in the tibialis anterior in FFS runners during terminal swing phase, compared to RFS runners. In contrast, the medial and lateral gastrocnemius showed significantly greater RMS activity in terminal swing phase in FFS runners. No significant differences were found during early stance phase for the tibialis anterior or the plantarflexors. Recognizing the differences in muscle activity between FFS and RFS runners is an important step toward understanding how foot strike patterns may contribute to different types of injury.
    Journal of Biomechanics 11/2014; DOI:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2014.10.015 · 2.66 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Breast support has previously been shown to influence surface EMG of the pectoralis major during running. Reductions in muscle activity have previously been associated with a reduction in energy cost, which may be advantageous for female runners. Ten female participants performed two self-paced (average pace 9 km h−1) 5 km treadmill runs under two breast support conditions (low and high); an additional bare-breasted 2 min run was also conducted. Surface EMG electrodes were positioned on the pectoralis major, anterior deltoid, medial deltoid, and upper trapezius, with data collected during the first 2 min of running and each kilometer interval thereafter. Reductions in peak EMG of the pectoralis major, anterior and medial deltoid were reported when participants ran in the high breast support during the initial intervals of the run (up to the second kilometer). The increased activation in the pectoralis major, anterior and medial deltoid in the low breast support may be due to increased tension within these muscles, induced by the greater breast pain experienced in the low breast support. This may be a strategy to reduce the independent breast movement causing the pain through increased muscular activation. This study further promotes the use of a high breast support during running with potential benefits for treadmill running associated with reductions in muscular demand during a 5 km run.
    Human Movement Science 09/2014; 38:74–83. DOI:10.1016/j.humov.2014.06.001 · 2.03 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
974 Downloads
Available from
Jun 5, 2014