Refine
Document Type
- Article (3)
Language
- English (3)
Has Fulltext
- yes (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (3)
Keywords
- Tensiomyography (3) (remove)
Institute
Highlights
• Investigation of how the peripheral muscle system responds to imagination in interaction with proprioceptive information.
• Motor imagery altered time to contraction but not velocity and maximal displacement of the muscle belly.
• Findings indicate that MI might impact on the initiation of contraction.
Abstract
Many studies have investigated the activation of cortical areas and corticospinal excitability during motor imagery (MI) in relation to motor execution. Similar activation of cortical areas during imagined and executed bodily movements and increased corticospinal excitability while imagining movements has been demonstrated. Despite these similarities on the central nervous system level, there is no overt movement during MI. This suggests that centrally generated signals must be inhibited at some level. Second, even in the absence of movement, some studies find behavioral effects of MI interventions. Most of the studies have investigated the role of MI on the cortical or spinal level, but less is known about the peripheral level, such as the muscle system. Testing muscular excitability during MI will give further hints whether and how low-threshold motor commands during MI reach the muscular system. Furthermore, the extent of the shown effects during imagery depends considerably on type of imagery, available proprioceptive information, and imagery ability. Therefore, this study investigates muscular excitability of the biceps brachii muscle manipulating imagery mode (MI vs. visual imagery) and proprioceptive information (with or without muscle effort). 40 participants were included in the analysis. The mechanical response of the muscle after a single electrical stimulus was assessed via tensiomyography. The corresponding variables maximal displacement, delay time, and contraction velocity were used to calculate 2 × 2 ANOVAs with repeated measurements. The absence of interaction effects shows that possible imagery effects on the muscle system are not increased by effort. MI altered time to contraction with lower delay time compared to control condition. Velocity and maximal displacement of the muscle belly during contraction did not differ between imagery conditions. This indicates that MI might impact on the initiation of muscle contraction but does not change the contraction itself. Thus, neuronal factors are moving further into focus in the context of MI research.
Background: It is often advised to ensure a high-protein intake during energy-restricted diets. However, it is unclear whether a high-protein intake is able to maintain muscle mass and contractility in the absence of resistance training.
Materials and Methods: After 1 week of body mass maintenance (45 kcal/kg), 28 male college students not performing resistance training were randomized to either the energy-restricted (ER, 30 kcal/kg, n = 14) or the eucaloric control group (CG, 45 kcal/kg, n = 14) for 6 weeks. Both groups had their protein intake matched at 2.8 g/kg fat-free-mass and continued their habitual training throughout the study. Body composition was assessed weekly using multifrequency bioelectrical impedance analysis. Contractile properties of the m. rectus femoris were examined with Tensiomyography and MyotonPRO at weeks 1, 3, and 5 along with sleep (PSQI) and mood (POMS).
Results: The ER group revealed greater reductions in body mass (Δ −3.22 kg vs. Δ 1.90 kg, p < 0.001, partial η2 = 0.360), lean body mass (Δ −1.49 kg vs. Δ 0.68 kg, p < 0.001, partial η2 = 0.152), body cell mass (Δ −0.85 kg vs. Δ 0.59 kg, p < 0.001, partial η2 = 0.181), intracellular water (Δ −0.58 l vs. Δ 0.55 l, p < 0.001, partial η2 = 0.445) and body fat percentage (Δ −1.74% vs. Δ 1.22%, p < 0.001, partial η2 = 433) compared to the CG. Contractile properties, sleep onset, sleep duration as well as depression, fatigue and hostility did not change (p > 0.05). The PSQI score (Δ −1.43 vs. Δ −0.64, p = 0.006, partial η2 = 0.176) and vigor (Δ −2.79 vs. Δ −4.71, p = 0.040, partial η2 = 0.116) decreased significantly in the ER group and the CG, respectively.
Discussion: The present data show that a high-protein intake alone was not able to prevent lean mass loss associated with a 6-week moderate energy restriction in college students. Notably, it is unknown whether protein intake at 2.8 g/kg fat-free-mass prevented larger decreases in lean body mass. Muscle contractility was not negatively altered by this form of energy restriction. Sleep quality improved in both groups. Whether these advantages are due to the high-protein intake cannot be clarified and warrants further study. Although vigor was negatively affected in both groups, other mood parameters did not change.
Korrektur zu: Roth C, Rettenmaier L and Behringer M (2021) High-Protein Energy-Restriction: Effects on Body Composition, Contractile Properties, Mood, and Sleep in Active Young College Students. Front. Sports Act. Living 3:683327. https://doi.org/10.3389/fspor.2021.683327