Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38841629›Full record

ArticleJournal of sports science & medicine2024

Neuromechanical Differences between Pronated and Supinated Forearm Positions during Upper-Body Wingate Tests.

Shahab Alizadeh, Philip F Edwards, Evan J Lockyer, Michael W R Holmes, Kevin E Power, David G Behm, Duane C Button

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of sports science & medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Shahab AlizadehSchool of Human Kinetics and Recreation, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada.
Philip F EdwardsSchool of Human Kinetics and Recreation, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada.
Evan J LockyerSchool of Human Kinetics and Recreation, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada.
Michael W R HolmesDepartment of Kinesiology, Brock University, St. Catharines, ON, Canada.
Kevin E PowerSchool of Human Kinetics and Recreation, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada.
David G BehmSchool of Human Kinetics and Recreation, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada.
Duane C ButtonSchool of Human Kinetics and Recreation, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Arm-cycling is a versatile exercise modality with applications in both athletic enhancement and rehabilitation, yet the influence of forearm orientation remains understudied. Thus, this study aimed to investigate the impact of forearm position on upper-body arm-cycling Wingate tests. Fourteen adult males (27.3 ± 5.8 years) underwent bilateral assessments of handgrip strength in standing and seated positions, followed by pronated and supinated forward arm-cycling Wingate tests. Electromyography (EMG) was recorded from five upper-extremity muscles, including anterior deltoid, triceps brachii lateral head, biceps brachii, latissimus dorsi, and brachioradialis. Simultaneously, bilateral normal and propulsion forces were measured at the pedal-crank interface. Rate of perceived exertion (RPE), power output, and fatigue index were recorded post-test. The results showed that a pronated forearm position provided significantly (p < 0.05) higher normal and propulsion forces and triceps brachii muscle activation patterns during arm-cycling. No significant difference in RPE was observed between forearm positions (p = 0.17). A positive correlation was found between seated handgrip strength and peak power output during the Wingate test while pronated (dominant: p = 0.01, r = 0.55; non-dominant: p = 0.03, r = 0.49) and supinated (dominant: p = 0.03, r = 0.51; don-dominant: p = 0.04, r = 0.47). Fatigue changed the force and EMG profile during the Wingate test. In conclusion, this study enhances our understanding of forearm position's impact on upper-body Wingate tests. These findings have implications for optimizing training and performance strategies in individuals using arm-cycling for athletic enhancement and rehabilitation.

Indexed as

ElectromyographyExercise TestForearmHand StrengthMuscle, SkeletalPronationAdultArmBiomechanical PhenomenaHumansMaleMuscle FatiguePhysical ExertionSupinationUpper ExtremityYoung Adultarm-cyclingbiomechanicselectromyographyFatigueforce

Identifiers

PMID38841629
PMCPMC11149067

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.