Analysis of Bodybuilder's Skeletal Muscle Characteristics Using Tensiomyography

Jung Hoon Chai; Bo Kyeong Kim; Chan Kim; Chul Hyun Kim; Sang Won Bae

doi:10.5763/kjsm.2016.34.2.146

Journal List > Korean J Sports Med > v.34(2) > 1054564

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Chai, Kim, Kim, Kim, and Bae: Analysis of Bodybuilder's Skeletal Muscle Characteristics Using Tensiomyography

Clinical Article

Korean J Sports Med 2016;34(2):146-152.

Published online: 20 January 2016

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5763/kjsm.2016.34.2.146

Analysis of Bodybuilder's Skeletal Muscle Characteristics Using Tensiomyography

Jung Hoon Chai^1,^∗, Bo Kyeong Kim^2,^∗, Chan Kim¹, Chul Hyun Kim³, Sang Won Bae⁴

¹Department of Physiology and Biophysics, Eulji University School of Medicine, Daejeon, Korea

²Department of Sport and Leisure Studies, Korea University, Sejong, Korea

³Department of Sports Medicine, Soonchunhyang University, Asan, Korea

⁴Global Teun Teun Hospital, Daejeon, Korea

Correspondence: Sang Won Bae Global Teun Teun Hospital, 9 Mokjung-ro, Jung-gu, Daejeon 34815, Korea Tel: +82-42-220-2300, Fax: +82-42-226-0128 E-mail: yodeo@hanmail.net

^∗These authors contribute equally to this study.

Received 20 June 2016 Revised 7 October 2016 Accepted 28 October 2016

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

The aim of this study is to evaluate the contractile properties of thigh muscles in bodybuilders through tensiomyography (TMG). Our hypothesis is that maximal displacement (Dm) in bodybuilders would be lower than in controls because Dm is increased when the muscle is stiffed or hypertrophied. Nine bodybuilder athletes and 15 university students were assessed by TMG. The biceps femoris (BF), semitendinosus (ST), vastus lateralis, vastus medialis (VM), and rectus femoris (RF) were evaluated. The TMG parameters obtained for each muscle were Dm, contraction time (Tc). And we calculated contraction velocity (Vc) as the rate of the radial displacement occurring during the time period of Tc with respect to Tc. Dm values of all muscles in bodybuilders were significantly higher compared to the control group. There were no significant differences in Tc values of most muscles except right BF and ST muscles. Vc values of VM, RF, and ST muscles were lower in bodybuilders than in the control group. This is the first report about TMG assessment of muscle hypertrophy. We found that Dm was most effective in detecting muscle hypertrophy and muscle stiffness secondary to muscle hypertrophy could induce decrease in Dm and Vc.

Keywords: Tensiomyography, Bodybuilder, Maximal displacement, Contraction velocity

References

1. McCall GE, Byrnes WC, Dickinson A, Pattany PM, Fleck SJ. Muscle fiber hypertrophy, hyperplasia, and capillary density in college men after resistance training. J Appl Physiol (1985). 1996; 81:2004–12.

2. MacDougall JD, Ward GR, Sale DG, Sutton JR. Biochemical adaptation of human skeletal muscle to heavy resistance training and immobilization. J Appl Physiol Respir Environ Exerc Physiol. 1977; 43:700–3.

3. Gonyea W, Ericson GC, Bonde-Petersen F. Skeletal muscle fiber splitting induced by weight-lifting exercise in cats. Acta Physiol Scand. 1977; 99:105–9.

4. MacDougall JD, Sale DG, Elder GC, Sutton JR. Muscle ultrastructural characteristics of elite powerlifters and bodybuilders. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1982; 48:117–26.

5. Kim C, Chai JH, Kim BK, Kim CH, Bae SW. A novel method for the assessment of muscle injuries. Korean J Sports Med. 2015; 33:59–66.

6. Ekstrand J, Healy JC, Walden M, Lee JC, English B, Hagglund M. Hamstring muscle injuries in professional football: the correlation of MRI findings with return to play. Br J Sports Med. 2012; 46:112–7.

7. Ma MY. MMG sensor for muscle activity detection: low cost design, implementation and experimentation [dissertation]. Auckland: Massey University;2009.

8. Garcia-Manso JM, Rodriguez-Ruiz D, Rodriguez-Matoso D, de Saa Y, Sarmiento S, Quiroga M. Assessment of muscle fatigue after an ultra-endurance triathlon using tensiomyography (TMG). J Sports Sci. 2011; 29:619–25.

9. Rey E, Lago-Penas C, Lago-Ballesteros J, Casais L. The effect of recovery strategies on contractile properties using tensiomyography and perceived muscle soreness in professional soccer players. J Strength Cond Res. 2012; 26:3081–8.

10. Garcia-Garcia O. Preseason neuromuscular profile of knee extensor and flexor muscles in elite amateur road cyclist's assessment through tensiomyography. Ann Sports Med Res. 2015; 2:1024.

11. Gil S, Loturco I, Tricoli V, et al. Tensiomyography parameters and jumping and sprinting performance in Brazilian elite soccer players. Sports Biomech. 2015; 14:340–50.

12. Dahmane R, Valen i V, Knez N, Er en I. Evaluation of the ability to make non-invasive estimation of muscle contractile properties on the basis of the muscle belly response. Med Biol Eng Comput. 2001; 39:51–5.

13. Pisot R, Narici MV, Simunic B, et al. Whole muscle contractile parameters and thickness loss during 35-day bed rest. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2008; 104:409–14.

14. Garcia-Manso JM, Rodriguez-Matoso D, Sarmiento S, et al. Effect of high-load and high-volume resistance exercise on the tensiomyographic twitch response of biceps brachii. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2012; 22:612–9.

15. Rodriguez-Ruiz D, Garcia-Manso JM, Rodriguez-Matoso D, Sarmiento S, Da Silva-Grigoletto M, Pisot R. Effects of age and physical activity on response speed in knee flexor and extensor muscles. Eur Rev Aging Phys Act. 2013; 10:127–32.

16. Evetovich TK, Housh TJ, Stout JR, Johnson GO, Smith DB, Ebersole KT. Mechanomyographic responses to concentric isokinetic muscle contractions. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1997; 75:166–9.

17. Valencic V, Knez N, Simunic B. Tenziomiography: detection of skeletal muscle response by means of radial muscle belly displacement. Biomed Eng. 2001; 1:1–10.

18. Dahmane R, Djordjevic S, Simunic B, Valencic V. Spatial fiber type distribution in normal human muscle Histochemical and tensiomyographical evaluation. J Biomech. 2005; 38:2451–9.

19. Tesch PA, Larsson L. Muscle hypertrophy in bodybuilders. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1982; 49:301–6.

20. Jurimae J, Abernethy PJ, Quigley BM, Blake K, McEniery MT. Differences in muscle contractile characteristics among bodybuilders, endurance trainers and control subjects. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1997; 75:357–62.

21. Kesidis N, Metaxas TI, Vrabas IS, et al. Myosin heavy chain isoform distribution in single fibres of bodybuilders. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2008; 103:579–83.

22. Shoepe TC, Stelzer JE, Garner DP, Widrick JJ. Functional adaptability of muscle fibers to longterm resistance exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003; 35:944–51.

23. Widrick JJ, Stelzer JE, Shoepe TC, Garner DP. Functional properties of human muscle fibers after short-term resistance exercise training. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2002; 283:R408–16.

24. D'Antona G, Lanfranconi F, Pellegrino MA, et al. Skeletal muscle hypertrophy and structure and function of skeletal muscle fibres in male body builders. J Physiol. 2006; 570:611–27.

25. Wickiewicz TL, Roy RR, Powell PL, Perrine JJ, Edgerton VR. Muscle architecture and force-velocity relationships in humans. J Appl Physiol Respir Environ Exerc Physiol. 1984; 57:435–43.

26. Gray V, Rice CL, Garland SJ. Factors that influence muscle weakness following stroke and their clinical implications: a critical review. Physiother Can. 2012; 64:415–26.

Fig. 1.

System components of tensiomyography (TMG) include electrical stimulator, electrodes, TMG sensor, and user interface.

Fig. 2.

Tensiomyography record with parameters' definitions. (A) Basic principle of tensiomyography. Arrow: direction of muscle contraction. (B) Basic result of tensiomyograph. Tc: contraction time, Tr: relaxation time, Ts: sustain time, Dm: maximal displacement, Td: delay time.

Fig. 3.

Representative tensiomyography records of bodybuilder and control groups. (A, B) Biceps femoris. (C, D) Rectus femoris.

Table 1.

Dm values for the analyzed muscles in each group

Variable	BB (n=9)	Con (n=15)	p-value
Sum
BF	9.47±3.44^∗∗	15.14±4.93	0.006
ST	9.51±3.17^∗∗	18.71±5.10	0.001
VL	9.73±3.12^∗	13.42±3.89	0.025
VM	11.91±2.51^∗∗	16.18±3.00	0.002
RF	9.72±2.35^∗∗	16.08±4.81	0.001
Right leg
BF	4.86±2.17^∗	7.45±3.06	0.037
ST	3.95±1.70^∗∗	8.63±2.59	0.001
VL	4.52±1.69^∗	6.41±2.12	0.033
VM	5.35±2.04^∗∗	8.40±1.68	0.001
RF	4.79±1.28^∗∗	7.21±1.85	0.002
Left leg
BF	4.61±1.56^∗∗	7.69±2.85	0.007
ST	5.56±2.20^∗∗	10.08±3.21	0.001
VL	5.21±1.64^∗	7.00±2.07	0.038
VM	6.56±1.05	7.78±1.72	0.068
RF	4.93±1.94^∗∗	8.87±3.32	0.001

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation. Dm: maximal displacement, BB: body builder, Con: control, Sum: summation of right and left, BF: biceps femoris, ST: semitendinosus, VL: vastus lateralis, VM: vastus medialis, RF: rectus femoris.

^∗ p<0.05

^∗∗ p<0.01.

Table 2.

Tc values for the analyzed muscles in each group

Variable	BB (n=9)	Con (n=15)	p-value
Sum
BF	57.27±25.68^∗∗	97.77±26.90	0.001
ST	55.70±23.66^∗∗	80.91±16.06	0.005
VL	50.06±7.36	51.16±5.07	0.666
VM	49.79±6.02^∗	45.20±3.17	0.022
RF	57.66±8.56	57.28±4.49	0.886
Right leg
BF	25.86±11.58^∗∗	52.79±18.75	0.001
ST	22.49±11.45^∗∗	39.80±8.83	0.005
VL	26.14±6.68	25.45±4.52	0.766
VM	25.32±2.66^∗	22.92±1.75	0.014
RF	30.29±9.16	29.93±3.35	0.91
Left leg
BF	31.42±14.75	44.98±16.05	0.051
ST	33.22±15.43	41.11±9.85	0.194
VL	23.92±4.15	25.71±2.83	0.221
VM	24.48±3.65	22.28±1.80	0.06
RF	27.37±5.20	27.35±3.58	0.992

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation. Tc: contraction time, BB: body builder, Con: control, Sum: summation of right and left, BF: biceps femoris, ST: semitendinosus, VL: vastus lateralis, VM: vastus medialis, RF: rectus femoris.

^∗ p<0.05

^∗∗ p<0.01.

Table 3.

Vc values (mm/sec) for the analyzed muscles in each group

Variable	e BB (n=9)	Con (n=15)	p-value
Sum
BF	137.88±33.30	130.26±47.36	0.677
ST	143.64±32.73^∗	186.62±41.84	0.015
VL	161.32±70.44	212.29±63.97	0.082
VM	191.25±37.25^∗∗	287.66±56.79	0.001
RF	137.29±39.47^∗∗	225.55±65.17	0.001
Right leg
BF	153.46±49.96	123.11±56.99	0.2
ST	145.12±45.13	176.00±41.25	0.1
VL	148.88±80.36	205.86±70.10	0.081
VM	165.92±61.83^∗∗	295.71±68.11	0.001
RF	133.18±50.49^∗∗	195.94±53.18	0.009
Left leg
BF	126.46±34.51	150.44±67.49	0.263
ST	141.35±28.09^∗∗	98.07±50.19	0.005
VL	180.30±70.58	220.42±67.17	0.178
VM	218.71±45.26^∗	279.93±61.13	0.03
RF	146.38±53.80^∗∗	260.34±91.63	0.001

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation. Vc: contraction velocity, BB: body builder, Con: control, Sum: summation of right and left, BF: biceps femoris, ST: semitendinosus, VL: vastus lateralis, VM: vastus medialis, RF: rectus femoris.

^∗ p<0.05

^∗∗ p<0.01.

TOOLS

Similar articles