Teste de força e resistência muscular localizada: identificação e uso de parâmetros para prescrição de exercício resistido em diferentes ferramentas de avaliação
Carregando...
Data
2019-11-12
Autores
Micheletti, Jéssica Kirsch
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título de Volume
Editor
Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)
Resumo
Introdução: A verificação da progressão de indivíduos submetidos à programas de treinamento é realizada por testes diagnósticos com o foco muitas vezes na força e resistência muscular. Diversas ferramentas de avaliação são utilizadas, entretanto, observa-se falta de padronização dos testes e escassez na exploração de algumas ferramentas e de alguns grupos musculares. A observação é muitas vezes restrita à um design de estudo particular, o que dificulta comparações mesmo na utilização da mesma ferramenta. Assim, incluir diferentes possibilidades clínicas no mesmo cenário pode enriquecer a discussão sobre o tema. Objetivo: Desenvolver e analisar a confiabilidade intra-avaliador de um teste de força muscular máxima e de um teste de resistência muscular localizada para os músculos rotadores externos de ombro, em três diferentes porcentagens de força máxima (70%, 80%, 90%) e em diferentes ferramentas. Além de caracterizar por meio da resposta fisiológica o teste de resistência muscular localizada. Método: Amostra de 50 participantes de ambos os gêneros, submetidos à 3 etapas. Na Etapa 1 foi realizada, em três sessões, cinco testes de força máxima com ferramentas distintas (bandas elásticas, polia, halter, dinamômetro digital e dinamômetro isocinético). Na Etapa 2, composta por 6 sessões, foi realizado teste e reteste do teste de resistência muscular com diferentes cargas (70%, 80% e 90% da força máxima), com os mesmos dispositivos da etapa 1, exceto o dinamômetro digital. Na Etapa 3 foi realizado a caracterização fisiológica do teste de resistência muscular por meio da análise do parâmetro anaeróbio (análise de excesso de consumo de oxigênio pós-exercício – EPOC) e aeróbio (valores de VO2). Foi utilizado o pacote estatístico SPSS Statistics versão 22.0 para conduzir as análises. Resultados: O teste de força máxima apresentou valores entre 4,6 quilos à 11,29. Confiabilidade excelente entre os valores de teste e reteste foi observada para as ferramentas banda elástica CCI: 0,917 (0,855; 0,953), polia CCI: 0,918 (0,855; 0,954), dinamômetro isocinético CCI: 0,914 (0,85; 0,951), dinamômetro isocinético ajustado pelo peso corporal CCI: 0,904 (0,833; 0,945) e halter CCI: 0,963 (0,933;0,980), com p>0,05 na comparação entre médias das sessões, eliminando risco de viés sistemático. Para o halter esse risco foi eliminado já entre as sessões de familiarização e teste (p>0,05), apresentando também confiabilidade excelente, CCI: 0,901 (0,828; 0944). O dinamômetro digital apresentou confiabilidade boa CCI: 0,882 (0,798;0,933). Na correlação entre as ferramentas, destacam-se fortes correlações entre os testes realizados na banda elástica versus halter (r=0,808) e banda elástica versus polia (r=0,854). O teste de resistência muscular localizado apresentou valores medianos de tempo de 28 à 60,5, 27 à 54,4 e 18 à 41,5 segundos, e número de repetições de 16 à 33,5, 14 à 30 e 10 à 23 para as porcentagens 70%, 80% e 90% da força máxima, respectivamente. Valores de confiabilidade foram maiores para a ferramenta banda elástica com o teste realizado à 80% CCI: 0,856 (0,751; 0,919) para variável tempo, e CCI: 0,865 (0,765; 0,924) para variável repetição. A porcentagem de 80% também apresentou valores de CCI melhores para a ferramenta polia, CCI tempo: 0,628 (0,411; 0,778), e CCI repetição: 0,607 (0,384; 0,764). Para as ferramentas halter e dinamômetro isocinético 90% da força máxima foi a melhor porcentagem (Halter – CCI tempo: 0,678 (0,481; 0,81), CCI repetição: 0,733 (0,561; 0,844); Dinamômetro isocinético – CCI tempo: 0,77 (0,615; 0,868) e CCI repetição: 0,759 (0,598; 0, 861). O teste apresentou predominância anaeróbia significativa para todas as ferramentas, exceto para ferramenta Halter, em que a participação aeróbia representa 40,29±22,25% e a anaeróbica 59,71±22,25%, p=0,066. Conclusão: O teste de força máxima de rotadores externos de ombro pode ser realizado com confiabilidade alta (boa e excelente) para todas as ferramentas, com destaque para o halter que não necessita de uma sessão prévia de familiarização. Para o teste de resistência muscular, diferentes porcentagens devem ser utilizadas para obter confiabilidade melhor para cada ferramenta, com destaque para banda elástica à 80%. Por fim, o teste apresenta contribuição anaeróbica significativamente maior comparada à contribuição aeróbica para todas as ferramentas exceto para o halter, informação importante para escolha da ferramenta e do teste dependendo do objetivo do tratamento.
Introduction: The progression of individuals undergoing training programs is verified by diagnostic tests, often focusing on muscle strength and endurance. Several assessment tools are used, however, there is a lack of standardization of tests and scarcity in the exploration of some devices and some muscle groups. Observation is often restricted to a particular study design which makes comparisons difficult even with the use of the same tool. Thus, including different clinical possibilities in the same scenario can enrich discussion on the topic. Objective: To develop and analyze the intra-rater reliability of a maximal muscle strength test, and a localized muscle endurance test for external shoulder rotator muscles at three different percentages of maximal strength (70%, 80%, 90%) in different tools. Besides characterizing through the physiological response the localized muscular endurance test. Method: A sample of 50 participants of both genders was submitted to 3 stages. In the Stage 1 was performed on three occasions, five maximal strength tests with different tools (elastic bands, pulley, dumbbell, digital dynamometer and isokinetic dynamometer). In the Stage 2, composed of 6 sessions, was performed test and retest of the muscular endurance test with different loads (70%, 80% and 90% of the maximal force) with the same devices of Stage 1, except the digital dynamometer. In Satge 3, the physiological characterization of the muscular endurance test was performed by analyzing the anaerobic parameter (analysis of excess post-exercise oxygen consumption - EPOC) and aerobic (VO2 values). The SPSS Statistics 22.0 statistical package was used to conduct the analyzes. Results: The maximum strength test presented values between 4.6 pounds and 11.29. Excellent reliability between test and retest values were observed for the ICC elastic band: 0.917 (0.855; 0.953), ICC pulley: 0.918 (0.855), ICC kinetic dynamometer: 0.914 (0.85; 0.951), isokinetic dynamometer tools adjusted by ICC body weight: 0.904 (0.833; 0.945) and ICC dumbbell: 0.963 (0.933; 0.980), with p> 0.05 comparing session averages, eliminating risk of systematic bias. For the dumbbell this risk was eliminated already between the familiarization and test sessions (p> 0.05) also presenting excellent reliability, ICC: 0.901 (0.828; 0944). The digital dynamometer showed good ICC reliability: 0.882 (0.798; 0.933). In the correlation between the tools, there are strong correlations between the tests performed on elastic band versus dumbbell (r = 0.808) and elastic band versus pulley (r = 0.854). The localized muscular endurance test presented median time values between 28 to 60.5, 27 to 54.4, and 18 to 41.5 seconds, and repetition number between 16 to 33.5, 14 to 30 and 10 to 23 for the percentages 70%, 80% and 90% of the maximum force, respectively. Reliability values were higher for the elastic band tool with the 80% ICC test: 0.856 (0.751; 0.919) for time variable, and ICC: 0.865 (0.765; 0.924) for repetition variable. The 80% percentage also presented better ICC values for the pulley tool, ICC time: 0.628 (0.411; 0.778), and repetition ICC: 0.607 (0.384; 0.764). For halter and isokinetic dynamometer tools 90% of the maximum force was the best percentage (Halter - ICC time: 0.678 (0.481; 0.81), repetition ICC: 0.733 (0.561; 0.844); Isokinetic dynamometer - ICC time: 0.77 (0.615; 0.868) and repetition ICC: 0.759 (0.598; 0.861) The test showed significant anaerobic predominance for all tools except Halter tools, where aerobic participation represents 40.29±22.25% and anaerobic participation 59,71±22.25%, p = 0.066. Conclusion: The maximal strength test of external shoulder rotators can be performed with high reliability (good and excellent) for all tools, especially the dumbbell that does not require a familiarization session. For the muscular endurance test different percentages should be used to obtain better reliability for each tool, with emphasis for elastic band test at 80%. Finally, the test presents significantly higher anaerobic contribution compared to the aerobic contribution to all tools except the dumbbell, important information for tool choice and testing depending on the treatment objective.
Introduction: The progression of individuals undergoing training programs is verified by diagnostic tests, often focusing on muscle strength and endurance. Several assessment tools are used, however, there is a lack of standardization of tests and scarcity in the exploration of some devices and some muscle groups. Observation is often restricted to a particular study design which makes comparisons difficult even with the use of the same tool. Thus, including different clinical possibilities in the same scenario can enrich discussion on the topic. Objective: To develop and analyze the intra-rater reliability of a maximal muscle strength test, and a localized muscle endurance test for external shoulder rotator muscles at three different percentages of maximal strength (70%, 80%, 90%) in different tools. Besides characterizing through the physiological response the localized muscular endurance test. Method: A sample of 50 participants of both genders was submitted to 3 stages. In the Stage 1 was performed on three occasions, five maximal strength tests with different tools (elastic bands, pulley, dumbbell, digital dynamometer and isokinetic dynamometer). In the Stage 2, composed of 6 sessions, was performed test and retest of the muscular endurance test with different loads (70%, 80% and 90% of the maximal force) with the same devices of Stage 1, except the digital dynamometer. In Satge 3, the physiological characterization of the muscular endurance test was performed by analyzing the anaerobic parameter (analysis of excess post-exercise oxygen consumption - EPOC) and aerobic (VO2 values). The SPSS Statistics 22.0 statistical package was used to conduct the analyzes. Results: The maximum strength test presented values between 4.6 pounds and 11.29. Excellent reliability between test and retest values were observed for the ICC elastic band: 0.917 (0.855; 0.953), ICC pulley: 0.918 (0.855), ICC kinetic dynamometer: 0.914 (0.85; 0.951), isokinetic dynamometer tools adjusted by ICC body weight: 0.904 (0.833; 0.945) and ICC dumbbell: 0.963 (0.933; 0.980), with p> 0.05 comparing session averages, eliminating risk of systematic bias. For the dumbbell this risk was eliminated already between the familiarization and test sessions (p> 0.05) also presenting excellent reliability, ICC: 0.901 (0.828; 0944). The digital dynamometer showed good ICC reliability: 0.882 (0.798; 0.933). In the correlation between the tools, there are strong correlations between the tests performed on elastic band versus dumbbell (r = 0.808) and elastic band versus pulley (r = 0.854). The localized muscular endurance test presented median time values between 28 to 60.5, 27 to 54.4, and 18 to 41.5 seconds, and repetition number between 16 to 33.5, 14 to 30 and 10 to 23 for the percentages 70%, 80% and 90% of the maximum force, respectively. Reliability values were higher for the elastic band tool with the 80% ICC test: 0.856 (0.751; 0.919) for time variable, and ICC: 0.865 (0.765; 0.924) for repetition variable. The 80% percentage also presented better ICC values for the pulley tool, ICC time: 0.628 (0.411; 0.778), and repetition ICC: 0.607 (0.384; 0.764). For halter and isokinetic dynamometer tools 90% of the maximum force was the best percentage (Halter - ICC time: 0.678 (0.481; 0.81), repetition ICC: 0.733 (0.561; 0.844); Isokinetic dynamometer - ICC time: 0.77 (0.615; 0.868) and repetition ICC: 0.759 (0.598; 0.861) The test showed significant anaerobic predominance for all tools except Halter tools, where aerobic participation represents 40.29±22.25% and anaerobic participation 59,71±22.25%, p = 0.066. Conclusion: The maximal strength test of external shoulder rotators can be performed with high reliability (good and excellent) for all tools, especially the dumbbell that does not require a familiarization session. For the muscular endurance test different percentages should be used to obtain better reliability for each tool, with emphasis for elastic band test at 80%. Finally, the test presents significantly higher anaerobic contribution compared to the aerobic contribution to all tools except the dumbbell, important information for tool choice and testing depending on the treatment objective.
Descrição
Palavras-chave
Fadiga, Aptidão física, Força muscular