More research stuff

Post by **One-Fall** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 6:12 am

Not sure if any one cares, but with all the talk about research and literature, I thought I would bring up my master's project. We stuck some needles in 3 muscles of the forearm that all share a common attachment site to see which muscles elicited the most electrical activity while in a simulated climbing position.

We had a low subject number, but our preliminary findings showed that self-identified endurance oriented climbers had a more equal burden share of the musculature of the forearm, while self-identified power climbers relied heavily on one specific muscle within the forearm.

Post by **the lurkist** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 11:16 am

Post by **gbarnett** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 4:17 pm

Interesting. Now how do I make my forearms hold on forever?

Post by **michaelzr2** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 4:24 pm

Just don't let go.

Post by **ynot** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 3:10 am

A low subject number? wonder why?

Post by **dipsi** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 3:35 am

ynot wrote:

A low subject number? wonder why?

Uh......

One-Fall wrote:

We stuck some needles

Post by **OB Juan** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 11:27 am

One fall, Interesting data, it would be helpful if you defined the endurance climber and the power climber in terms of your study. I think it would also be interesting to note the nature and quantity of injuries from each category.

Further, based on your findings you may have a great opportunity to discuss plyometrics and why the endurance climber had sufficiently more balanced musculature.

Your's is a very interesting post for sure.

Post by **marathonmedic** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 11:55 pm

Makes sense. The endurance climbers spread the focus throughout a greater number of fibers so it will decrease the amount of time each fiber fires while increasing the time each has to rest.

Defense time:

Which muscles did you use? Seems three muscles with a common attachment would all have different force vectors therefore the recruitment could be vastly different between climbers unless you could unify the direction of net force.

Did the two groups generate the same amount of force per contraction?

Post by **rjackson** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 12:51 pm

Heard a portion of a project on NPR a couple of days ago about acupuncture. The research project basically used traditional acupuncture points with one group and random points with another (the group that got the random points believed they were getting traditional accupuncture though). The findings showed no diffrence in the two as long as the subject believed they were getting something that would make them feel better.

Could the different muscle groups be reacting to the climber's belief that they are categorized as endurance or power? Was the classification made pre- or post- stimulation? Just curious...

Post by **One-Fall** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 8:54 pm

marathonmedic wrote:Makes sense. th endurance climbers spread th focus throughout a greater number of fibers so it will decrease th amount of time each fiber fires while increasing th time each has tu rest.

Defense time:

Which muscles did you uez? Seems three muscles with a common attachment would all have different force vectors therefore th recruitment cuud be vastly different between climbers unless you cuud unify th direction of net force.

Did th two groups generate th same amount of force per contraction?

I'll see if my partner will allow me to post the paper on here. Until then, we looked at the muscle activity using indwelling electrodes in flexor digitorum superficialis, pronator teres, and flexor carpi radialis. All insert into the common flexor tendon of the fore-arm. Its a few studies away, but we are trying to find a link between climbers who get medial epicondylitis and what type of climber they are (power vs. endurance).