Sentences with phrase «angle of peak»

This is known as the «angle of peak torque» or the optimum angle.

And training using full ranges of motion moves the angle of peak torque to longer muscle lengths (McMahon et al. 2014).

In any event, most long - term training studies have addressed the impact of eccentric training on the angle of peak torque or muscle strain injury risk in the hamstrings muscle group.

This suggests that increases in muscle fascicle length are partly responsible for the change in the angle of peak torque after strength training, although other factors are likely involved.

Eccentric (lengthening) exercise is able to shift this angle of peak torque towards longer muscle lengths, both immediately post-exercise and also over a long - term training program.

Changes in the angle of peak torque can be observed after both acute exercise (i.e. a single workout) and after long - term training (Brughelli & Cronin, 2007).

Alegre et al. (2014) reported that fascicle length remained unchanged in both groups, even though there was a change in the angle of peak torque in the group that trained at long muscle lengths.

After all, even if we get stronger overall, if the angle of peak torque changes, then we will find that some joint angles increase hugely in strength, while others do not improve strength very much at all.

Depending on how much each of these factors alters, the angle of peak torque can either move to a joint angle that corresponds to a shorter muscle length, or to a joint angle that corresponds to a longer muscle length.

Factors that shift the angle of peak torque to shorter muscle lengths after normal strength training include increases in neural drive at short muscle lengths, decreases in normalized fiber length, specific gains in regional muscle size, and increases in tendon stiffness.

The angle of peak moment is thought to be reflective of the optimum length at which muscle force can be developed (in accordance with the length - tension relationship), although it could also reflect the longest internal moment arm length, or a combination of both factors.

Factors that shift the angle of peak torque to longer muscle lengths after normal strength training include increases in neural drive at long muscle lengths, increases in normalized fiber length, specific gains in regional muscle size, and increases in muscle stiffness.

The angle of peak torque can change even after normal strength training, probably because of changes in many of these factors, including neural drive, normalized fiber length, regional muscle size, tendon stiffness, and muscle stiffness.

Moreover, there was a moderate correlation between the change in muscle fascicle length and the change in the angle of peak torque when measured concentrically (r = 0.57) but not when measured eccentrically (r = 0.17).

Even so, changes in the angle of peak moment are thought the reflect mainly changes in muscle length, as a result of sarcomerogenesis (Brughelli & Cronin, 2007).

And, although it is not well - known, training using partial ranges of motion actually moves the angle of peak torque to shorter muscle lengths (McMahon et al. 2014).

Often, a range of different angles are measured, in order to identify the angle of peak moment.

Not exact matches

A market's «momentum peak» is measured by various tools that capture the angle and persistence of a rally.

Using a scanning tunneling microscope, scientists observed nanoscale peaks and dips on a sheet of copper, with angles of a few degrees, researchers report in the July 28 Science.

The simplest kind of electromagnetic beam has a plane wavefront, which means that the peaks or troughs of the beam can be connected by an imaginary plane at right angles to the beam's direction of travel.

The range of motion will be smaller because of the angle, but the standing wrist curl does have the advantage of providing a stronger stress on the forearm muscles when they reach their peak contraction.

The dumbbell power snatch differs from the barbell power snatch insofar as there is substantial asymmetry between sides, both in respect of peak force and joint angle movements.

Similarly, Zink et al. (2001) found no effect on peak hip angle of using a weightlifting belt.

Comparing the effects of squats with different stance widths, Escamilla et al. (2001a) did not report actual peak ankle plantar flexion angles, but they did report more heavily - angled shanks in narrow stance squats compared to wide stance squats.

Exploring the effects of supportive gear, Zink et al. (2001) found no effect on peak trunk angle of using a weightlifting belt.

Exploring the effects of supportive gear, Zink et al. (2001) found no effect on peak knee angle of using a weightlifting belt.

The effects of load and cues to prevent forward knee movement over the toes on peak hip angle are unclear.

Exploring the effects of training variables, Kellis et al. (2005) found that joint angles differed between relative loads but did not identify how the individual hip, knee and ankle joints differed; however, List et al. (2013) found that increasing load caused peak ankle angle to become more acute, from no load to 25 % of bodyweight, to 50 % of bodyweight.

Comparing the effects of squats with different stance widths, Escamilla et al. (2001a) compared narrow, medium and wide stance back squats and found that peak knee angles did not differ between variations.

The effect of cues to prevent knee movement over the toes on peak hip angle is unclear but cues to look downwards rather than upwards lead to more acute hip angles, while increasing fatigue leads to less acute peak hip angles.

Miletello et al. (2009) analysed the peak knee angles between lifters of different experience levels and found that novice lifters achieved the most acute peak knee angles, followed by college - level lifters, and finally high - school lifters.

Peak knee flexion angles are less acute when using cues to prevent forward knee movement over the toes or as a result of fatigue.

Exploring the effects of supportive gear, Zink et al. (2001) found no effect on peak ankle angle of using a weightlifting belt.

Exploring the effects of training variables, Kellis et al. (2005) found that joint angles differed between relative loads but did not identify how the individual hip, knee and ankle joints differed; however, McKean et al. (2010) reported that peak hip angle was more acute with load compared to no load, while both List et al. (2013) and Gomes et al. (2015) reported that peak hip angle became less acute with heavier relative loads.

Sinclair et al. (2014) compared the use of weightlifting shoes, minimalist footwear, running shoes, and no footwear (barefoot) and found that running shoes displayed greater peak knee flexion angles than no footwear but there were no other differences between conditions.

Swinton et al. (2012) found that the peak hip angle was less acute in the traditional squat than in the powerlifting squat variation but there was no difference between either of these variations and the box squat.

Orloff et al. (1997) assessed the effect of load on peak trunk angle and found that there was no effect with increasing load.

Comparing the effects of squats with different stance widths, Escamilla et al. (2001a) compared narrow, medium and wide stance back squats and found that peak trunk angles did not differ between variations.

Exploring the effects of supportive gear, Gomes et al. (2015) noted that knee wraps had no effect on peak hip angles.

McLaughlin et al. (1978) similarly noted that peak knee extensor moments were smaller in individuals who displayed greater trunk lean and more acute hip angles, which is associated with this type of exercise cue.

Exploring the effects of cues, Hirata and Duarte (2007), Lorenzetti et al. (2010) and List et al. (2013) all found that peak ankle angles were less acute when lifters were visibly cued to prevent the knee from moving forward over the toes, compared to when they were allowed to lift normally.

It is suggested that this works due to the ability of the exercise to increase the peak eccentric force of the hamstrings at shallower angles of knee flexion (the knee is more extended) vs. a leg curl which puts a premium on concentric force when the knee is in full flexion.

For example, Peak knee joint angles become more flexed when going faster (Vanrenterghem et al. 2012; Spiteri et al. 2013), probably because the lower position allows athletes to display a more horizontal direction of braking and propulsive forces.

Similarly, training using a partial range of motion (which is similar to using isometrics at short muscle lengths) increases strength around the joint angle corresponding to the peak contraction.

Athletes tend to display a large peak trunk angle during COD maneuvers, with values of around 56 degrees being reported (Sasaki et al. 2011).

Shoulder angle alters where exercises maximise muscle activity, so using a variety of exercise with different points of peak contraction, such as standing curls and seated incline curls, may maximize biceps hypertrophy.

There was no difference between conditions in respect of peak EMG activity, although the angle at which peak EMG was observed was greater in the elastic band condition than in the machine condition (70.8 vs. 51.7 degrees).

Three stretches of 30 seconds each were performed for both hip extensor and flexor muscles, leading to a reduction in peak anterior pelvic tilt angle when walking.

Cristopoliski et al. (2008) assessed the acute effects of stretching on peak anterior pelvic tilt angle when walking.

Strength gains after partial range of motion training tend to be greatest around the joint angle at the point of peak contraction (Graves et al. 1989; 1992; Barak et al. 2004; McMahon et al. 2014), which in the squat corresponds to the longest muscle length of the prime movers (Rhea et al. 2016).