Análise biomecânica dos músculos do core em praticantes de diferentes modalidades de treinamento
Carregando...
Data
2016-05-04
Autores
Carlos, Lucas Caetano [UNESP]
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título de Volume
Editor
Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)
Resumo
O Colégio Americano de Ciências do Esporte, descreve a importância do treinamento do core para melhorar a estabilidade da coluna e prevenir lesões. Alguns exercícios são utilizados visando uma maior ativação desses músculos a fim de obter tais benefícios. No entanto pouco se encontra na literatura sobre os efeitos crônicos de diferentes práticas corporais focadas nesse grupamento muscular. Portanto, essa dissertação teve como objetivo analisar parâmetros biomecânicos relacionados aos músculos do core em indivíduos com experiência em diferentes tipos de treinamentos. As coletas foram realizadas em 32 participantes do sexo feminino com idade entre 18 e 30 anos, e pelo menos 6 meses de experiência nas modalidades Crossfit (GCF), Pilates (GP) e Musculação (M). O grupo controle foi composto por sedentárias (GS). As participantes realizaram dois experimentos: O primeiro consistiu em testes de funcionalidade (FMS e Squat test), flexibilidade (Banco de Wells) e resistência (Sorensen e prancha Lateral) para os músculos do tronco. Já o segundo, em avaliações no dinamômetro isocinético, sendo os testes de contração isométrica voluntária máxima (CIVM) para flexão e extensão do tronco, a fim de obter valores para normalização e Taxa de desenvolvimento de torque (TDT), manutenção de força e senso de força e senso de posição, juntamente com a eletromiografia (EMG) dos músculos (Reto do abdômen, obliquo interno/transverso do abdômen, obliquo externo, longuíssimo do tórax e multífido). Resultados: Para o teste de resistência, o GP obteve desempenho superior para os testes de Sorensen e Prancha lateral em relação ao GS, enquanto o GCF apresentou desempenho melhor que o grupo controle apenas em Prancha lateral. No teste FMS, os grupos que realizavam algum treinamento estão com valores dentro da normalidade, apenas GS encontra-se abaixo do recomendado, já para o Squat test o GM e GCF apresentaram valores significantemente maiores quando comparados ao GS. Valores de flexibilidade para o GP, GM e GCF foram superiores ao Sedentário. No segundo experimento, o GCF foi significantemente superior a todos os grupos na maioria dos valores de TDT. Para os dados eletromiográficos, destacamos a cocontração, onde encontramos um aumento significante da ativação do Obliquo interno/transverso do abdômen em situação de fadiga, no GP, diferente dos demais grupos. Todas as medidas proprioceptivas não apresentaram diferenças significante entre os grupos. Discussão: Podemos observar que as principais diferenças foram em favor das práticas específicas para o core, sendo o GP que apresentou a melhor resistência dos extensores e flexores, bem como a capacidade de cocontrair em situações de fadiga, algo usualmente instruído durante as sessões de treinamento. Já o GCF, apresenta valores superiores para resistência dos flexores e uma capacidade superior na TDT, tanto para flexão quanto extensão da coluna, específico de exercícios balísticos realizados na modalidade. Conclusão: Ambas as práticas específicas apresentam resultados iguais ou superiores a práticas não específicas, destacando a resistência e a capacidade de cocontração no Pilates e a resistência e a taxa de desenvolvimento de torque para o Crossfit.
The American College of Sports Medicine, describes the importance of core training in the improvement of the stability of the spine and prevent injury. Several exercises are used for greater activation of these muscles in order to obtain such benefits. However little is known about the chronic effects of different physical practices focused on this muscle group. Therefore, this dissertation aimed to analyze biomechanical parameters related to the core muscles in individuals who perform different types of training. The sample consisted of 32 female participants aged between 18 and 30 years, the modalities evaluated were Crossfit, Pilates, Weight training and the control group consisted of sedentary women. The participants performed two experiments. The first consisted of functional tests (FMS® and squat test), flexibility (Sit and Reach) and endurance (Sorensen and Side Plank) for trunk muscles. The second experiment involved evaluations at the isokinetic dynamometer: Maximum voluntary isometric contraction test (MVIC) for flexion and extension of the trunk (in order to obtain values for standardization), and rate of torque development (RTD), force maintenance and sense of force to 25% and 50% of MVIC for flexion and trunk extension, respectively, and sense of position, along with electromyography (EMG) of the main trunk muscles (Rectus abdominis, oblique internus/transversus abdominis, oblique externus abdominis, erector spinae longissimus and multifidus). Results: For the endurance test, compared to Sedentary, Pilates group presented significantly higher performance levels in the Sorensen and side plank tests while Crossfit did so only in the side plank test. In the FMS test, the groups that performed some training presented normal values, only the Sedentary is below the recommended, as for the Squat test the Weight training and Crossfit group had significantly higher values compared to Sedentary group. Flexibility values for the groups Weigth training, Pilates and Crossfit were superior to Sedentary. On the second day, Crossfit group had significantly higher RTD values compared to all groups. For the electromyography data, we highlight the RMS of the muscles acting as antagonists (co-contraction) where we found a significant increase in the activation of the e Internus/transversus abdominis when fatigued, in the Pilates group, unlike the other groups. All proprioceptive measures showed no significant differences between groups. Discussion: We can conclude the main differences in favor of the specific practices to the core, in which Pilates group presented the best endurance of extensors and flexors, and the co-contraction capacity in fatigue situations, possibly to maintain the stability of the spine, something usually taught during the training sessions. However Crossfit, shows superior edurance values of flexors and superior RTD for both flexion and extension, specific exercises performed in ballistic mode can explain this results for the Crossfit group. Conclusion: Both specific practices show results equal to or greater than non-specific core practices, highlighting the resistance and capacity in co-contraction of Pilates and the endurance and RDT for Crossfit.
The American College of Sports Medicine, describes the importance of core training in the improvement of the stability of the spine and prevent injury. Several exercises are used for greater activation of these muscles in order to obtain such benefits. However little is known about the chronic effects of different physical practices focused on this muscle group. Therefore, this dissertation aimed to analyze biomechanical parameters related to the core muscles in individuals who perform different types of training. The sample consisted of 32 female participants aged between 18 and 30 years, the modalities evaluated were Crossfit, Pilates, Weight training and the control group consisted of sedentary women. The participants performed two experiments. The first consisted of functional tests (FMS® and squat test), flexibility (Sit and Reach) and endurance (Sorensen and Side Plank) for trunk muscles. The second experiment involved evaluations at the isokinetic dynamometer: Maximum voluntary isometric contraction test (MVIC) for flexion and extension of the trunk (in order to obtain values for standardization), and rate of torque development (RTD), force maintenance and sense of force to 25% and 50% of MVIC for flexion and trunk extension, respectively, and sense of position, along with electromyography (EMG) of the main trunk muscles (Rectus abdominis, oblique internus/transversus abdominis, oblique externus abdominis, erector spinae longissimus and multifidus). Results: For the endurance test, compared to Sedentary, Pilates group presented significantly higher performance levels in the Sorensen and side plank tests while Crossfit did so only in the side plank test. In the FMS test, the groups that performed some training presented normal values, only the Sedentary is below the recommended, as for the Squat test the Weight training and Crossfit group had significantly higher values compared to Sedentary group. Flexibility values for the groups Weigth training, Pilates and Crossfit were superior to Sedentary. On the second day, Crossfit group had significantly higher RTD values compared to all groups. For the electromyography data, we highlight the RMS of the muscles acting as antagonists (co-contraction) where we found a significant increase in the activation of the e Internus/transversus abdominis when fatigued, in the Pilates group, unlike the other groups. All proprioceptive measures showed no significant differences between groups. Discussion: We can conclude the main differences in favor of the specific practices to the core, in which Pilates group presented the best endurance of extensors and flexors, and the co-contraction capacity in fatigue situations, possibly to maintain the stability of the spine, something usually taught during the training sessions. However Crossfit, shows superior edurance values of flexors and superior RTD for both flexion and extension, specific exercises performed in ballistic mode can explain this results for the Crossfit group. Conclusion: Both specific practices show results equal to or greater than non-specific core practices, highlighting the resistance and capacity in co-contraction of Pilates and the endurance and RDT for Crossfit.
Descrição
Palavras-chave
Estabilidade, Core, Crossfit, Pilates, Stability, Core, Pilates, Crossfit