Exploring the Design of Upper Limb Strength Training Through High-Intensity Interval Training Combined With Exergaming: Usability Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: High-intensity interval training (HIIT) has become a popular exercise strategy in modern society, with the Tabata training method being the most popular. In the past, these training methods were mostly done without equipment, but incorporating exergaming into the training may provide a new option for muscle training. objectives: The aim of this study was to explore the differences in upper limb muscle activation using an HIIT program combined with exergaming. Methods: A total of 15 healthy male participants were recruited for the study, and the differences in muscle activation were compared between push-ups and exergaming (Nintendo Switch Ring Fit Adventure with the Ring-Con accessory) during HIIT. Prior to the tests, participants underwent pretests, including maximal voluntary contractions of various muscle groups, maximal push-up tests, and maximal movement tests using the exergaming device. The push-up and exergaming tests were conducted on separate days to avoid interference, with a warm-up period of 5 minutes on a treadmill before testing. Muscle activation in the lateral and anterior portions of the deltoid muscle, the sternal and clavicular heads of the pectoralis major muscle, and the latissimus dorsi muscle were measured during the maximal voluntary contractions and single-round tests for each exercise mode. A repeated measures ANOVA was used to assess the variations in muscle activation observed across the 2 distinct modes of exercise, specifically push-ups and exergaming. Results: In exergaming, the number of repetitions for push-ups was significantly fewer than for single-site exercises across both exhaustive (mean 23.13, SD 6.36 vs mean 55.67, SD 17.83; P=.001; effect size [ES]: 2.43) and single-round (mean 21.93, SD 7.67 vs mean 92.40, SD 20.47; P=.001; ES: 4.56) training. Heart rate differences were not significant (all P>.05), yet exergaming led to better muscle activation in specific muscle groups, particularly the right anterior deltoid (mean 48.00%, SD 7.66% vs mean 32.84%, SD 10.27%; P=.001; ES: 1.67) and right pectoralis major (sternal head: mean 38.99%, SD 9.98% vs mean 26.90%, SD 12.97%; P=.001; ES: 1.04; clavicular head: mean 43.54%, SD 9.59% vs mean 30.09%, SD 11.59%; P=.002; ES: 1.26) during exhaustive training. In single-round training, similar patterns were observed with the anterior deltoid (mean 51.37%, SD 11.76% vs mean 35.47%, SD 12.72%; P=.002; ES: 1.30) and pectoralis major (sternal head: mean 53.27%, SD 10.79% vs mean 31.56%, SD 16.92%; P=.001; ES: 1.53; clavicular head: mean 53.75%, SD 13.01% vs mean 37.95%, SD 14.67%; P=.006; ES: 1.14). These results suggest that exergaming may be more effective for targeted muscle activation. Conclusions: In conclusion, HIIT can increase muscle activation in the upper extremities and can be incorporated into exergaming strategies to provide a fun and engaging way to exercise.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».