MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2979897658

EFFECTS OF A BAND LOOP ON LOWER EXTREMITY MUSCLE ACTIVITY AND KINEMATICS DURING THE BARBELL SQUAT.

2017· article· en· W2979897658 on OpenAlexaff
Ryan C. A. Foley, Brittany D. Bulbrook, Duane C. Button, Michael W.R. Holmes

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of NewfoundlandOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSquatKinematicsMedicineEccentricPhysical medicine and rehabilitationElectromyographyConcentricBiomechanicsPhysical therapyOrthodonticsAnatomyMathematicsPhysicsGeometry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Medial knee collapse can signal an underlying movement issue that, if uncorrected, can lead to a variety of knee injuries. Placing a band around the distal thigh may act as a proprioceptive aid to minimize medial collapse of the knee during squats; however, little is known about EMG and biomechanics in trained and untrained individuals during the squat with an elastic band added. HYPOTHESIS/PURPOSE: To investigate the effects of the TheraBand® Band Loop on kinematics and muscle activity of the lower extremity during a standard barbell back squat at different intensities in both trained and untrained individuals. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional, repeated measures. METHODS: Sixteen healthy, male, university aged-participants were split into two groups of eight, consisting of a trained and untrained group. Participants performed both a 3-repetition maximum (3-RM) and a bodyweight load squat for repetitions to failure. Lower extremity kinematics and surface electromyography of four muscles were measured bilaterally over two sessions, an unaided squat and a band session (band loop placed around distal thighs). Medial knee collapse, measured as a knee width index, and maximum muscle activity were calculated. RESULTS: During the 3-RM, squat weight was unaffected by band loop intervention (p = 0.486) and the trained group lifted more weight than the untrained group (p<0.007). The trained group had a greater squat depth for both squat conditions, regardless of the band (p = 0.0043). Knee width index was not affected by the band during the eccentric phase of bodyweight squats in the trained (band: 0.76 ± 0.08, no band: 0.73 ± 0.08) or untrained group (band: 0.77 ± 0.70, no band: 0.75 ± 0.13) (p = 0.670). During the concentric phase, knee width index was significantly lower for 3-RM squats, regardless of group. CONCLUSION: Despite minimal changes in kinematics for the untrained group, increased muscle activity with the band loop may suggest that a training aid may, over time, lead to an increase in barbell squat strength by increasing activation of agonist muscles more than traditional, un-banded squats. Greater maximal muscle activity in most muscles during band loop sessions may provide enhanced knee stability via increased activation of stabilizing muscles. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.226 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniquesFrench-language works237,207