(JPES), 16(4), Art 206, pp. 1298 1303, 2016
online ISSN: 2247 806X; p ISSN: 2247 – 8051; ISSN L = 2247 8051 © JPES
STAN ZENOVIA1, BA9TIUREA EUGEN2, MIHAILĂ ION3, CREłU MARIAN4
1,2
Department of Sports Games and Physical Education, Faculty of Physical Education and Sport, ”Dunarea de
Jos” University of Galati, ROMANIA
3,4
Faculty of Physical Education and Sports, University of Pitesti, ROMANIA
Published online: December 28, 2016
(Accepted for publication December 10, 2016)
!"#$
" % &" %
This study aimed to determine the relationships between muscle chains from the trunk and those of the upper
limbs during certain motive actions. We tested 44 female athletes who were 12 to 16 years old. Eighteen subjects
were 12 to 14 years old (right handers), 16 subjects were 15 to 16 years old (left handers) and 10 subjects were
12 to 16 years old (left handers). They were subjected to 13 tests that measure muscle strength at the trunk level,
2 tests that measure the isometric force of the upper limb (of the intra and extra rotators muscles with Dynatorq)
and 2 tests that measure the isometric force of the upper limbs (flexion and extension with Dynatorq). We
calculated 312 correlations between the measured values (in kgf) for the trunk and upper limbs. For the right
handers, the values for r were as follows: intra extra rotation for the 12 to 14 year olds (0.12% 0.85%), intra
extra rotation for the 15 to 16 year olds (0.20% 0.69%), flexion extension for the 12 to 14 year olds (0.20%
0.84%), and flexion extension for the 15 to 16 year olds (0.12% 0.70%). For subjects with a skilled left arm, we
obtained the following values for r: intra extra rotation for the 12 to 16 year olds (0.02% 0.77%) and flexion
extension for the 12 to 16 year olds (0.04% 0.89%). For the subjects from 12 to 14 years old, there were
significant correlations between the intra extra rotation and flexion extension of the arm, which shows that the
entire musculature of the trunk is involved. For the group of 15 to 16 year olds, we noticed a specialized right
arm movement with intra rotation only (specific for throwing the ball). For the extension flexion actions of the
right handers, there was a certain orientation of forces to the left side of the trunk (good values for the left arm
extension and weak values for the flexion of the right arm). This study could be a starting point for improving
specific technical training for handball players. These findings should be considered with care because they are
specific to this group of subjects.
' (
trunk muscle strength, upper limb muscular strength, muscular torso relationship with upper limb
The study of the relationships between body segments constitutes a permanent research topic for the
specialists in the field (McEvoy & Grimmer, 2005). Generally, all researchers highlight the importance of the
trunk to create a solid ground for the limb movement (Kane & Barden, 2012). The importance of the spine’s
stability and of the trunk’s functions in the static and the dynamic of the human body are explained by McGill,
Grenier, Kavcic, and Cholewicki (2003). The increase of trunk strength with age is highlighted by Manini,
Sagendorf, Mayer, and Ploutz Snyder (2005).
It is known the fact that the normal activity of a muscle is a combination of contraction and relaxation
(Bottas, Nicol, Komi, & Linnamo, 2009). In 2001, Parkin, Nowicky, Rutherford, and McGregor showed
asymmetry of muscle activity in the frontal plane of erector muscles. A study in 2011 (BaQtiurea, Stan, Mihăilă,
& CreŃu) outlines the mobility and muscle strength of the trunk in achieving the efficient technical elements of
handball. In 2008, Peper, de Boer, de Poel, and Beek demonstrates that from all of the physical attributes, muscle
strength has the most influence on the speed execution, strength and coordination abilities. The importance of
sensorial information in the adaptation of force is evidenced by Latash, Scholz and Schoner (2002).
Mobility of the upper limb is provided by the pectoral arch. This one, is not directly related to the spine
and together with scapula humeral joint it forms one of the most complex gears in the body. The summarizing of
the convergent activities will ensures the multiple variation of the upper limb movement. For this reason,
studying the separated biomechanics of each joint part is not correct. In this context it is interesting to study the
correlation between this specialized gear (pectoral arch shoulder arm fingers) and the trunk which ensures its
stability during movements.
One can observe how different muscle groups are involved depending on the arm activity. They can be
explained and corrected some correlations that unbalance the body during the motive activity. You can see
certain relationships between muscles, according to the "Brauss's scheme".
1298
Corresponding Author STAN ZENOVIA, E mail: zenoo_stan@yahoo.com
STAN ZENOVIA, BA9TIUREA EUGEN, MIHAILĂ ION, CREłU MARIAN
)
*
They were tested 44 female athletes aged 12 16 years as follows: 18 subjects 12 to 14 years (right
handers), 16 subjects 15 to 16 years (right handers) and 10 subjects 12 to 16 years (left handers).
They were applied 9 measuring tests for muscle strength of the trunk (Marcu, Stan, BaQtiurea, &
ChiculiŃă, 2008) and presented in Stan, BaQtiurea, and Rizescu (2016). Abbreviations of the used tests are in
Table 1. In addition they were aggregated values measured on flexion, extension and lateral tilt, from sitting and
standing, to better observe the relationship between muscle strength with the strength of the entire torso arm
during movements (table 1).
Table 1. Abbreviations used for testing of the muscle strength at the trunk level
SITTING
STANDING
FLEXION
LAT. LEFT
EXTENSION
LAT. RIGHT
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T1+T5
T2+T6
T3+T7
T4+T8
For measuring the upper limb muscle strength was used a Dynatork apparatus (therapeutic first class
medical device designed to be used for physical rehabilitation therapies based on elastic resistance). The tests
were carried out in orthostatic position. Muscle strength was measured on intra extra arm rotation and flexion
extension arm. Abbreviations of the tests are found in Table 2.
Table 2. Abbreviations used for testing the upper limb muscle strength
HORIZONTAL
VERTICAL
EXTRAROTATION
INTRAROTATION
EXTENSION
FELXION
!
"
!
#
$
#
The obtained data were processed using SPSS v. 20 program for Windows. It was calculated the
Pearson’s correlation coefficient [ є ( 1.1)] the results being distributed as follows: correlation values for age 12
to 14 years (intra extra rotation for right handers) in Table 3; correlation values for age 15 to 16 years (intra
extra rotation for right handers), in Table 4; correlation values for age 12 to16 years (intra extra rotation for left
handers) in Table 5; correlation values for age 12 to 14 years (extension flexion for right handers), in Table 6;
correlation values for age 15 to16 years (extension flexion for right handers) in Table 7; correlation values for
age 12 to16 years (extension flexion for left handers), in Table 8.
Table 3. Values correlations between torso and right upper limb (12 to 14 years)
ISOMETRIC / HORIZONTAL MOVEMENT
TTUNK
EXTRAROTATION/
INTRAROTATION/
MAX TORQUE
STAND UP
STAND UP
%
MAX TORQUE %
MAX TORQUE %
L
R
L
R
T1
+%
,
,
T2
0.5
,
&
%!
SITTING
T3
0.49
0.57
%%
T4
0.41
0.70
0.67
0.55
T5
0.12
0.51
0.37
0.33
T6
0.52
,
%%&
STANDING
T7
0.46
%%
+
T8
0.32
0.53
%
T9
0.34
0.55
%
%%
FLEX
T1+T5
0.42
%+
%
LAT. LEFT
T2+T6
0.57
,!
&
EXT.
T3+T7
0.49
,
%&
LAT. RIGHT
T4+T8
0.37
0.56
,"
%*.
."
.+
.&
.!
.%
.
.,
./012
1299
www.efsupit.ro
STAN ZENOVIA, BA9TIUREA EUGEN, MIHAILĂ ION, CREłU MARIAN
0 . 01/.
3 45.
12.
/012
!
$
6.3 3 . .
#
12.3 3 . .
!
12.
6 "
6
#
Table 4. Values correlations between torso and right upper limb (15 to 16 years)
TRUNK
MAX TORQUE
%
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T1+T5
T2+T6
T3+T7
T4+T8
SITTING
STANDING
FLEX
LAT. LEFT
EXT.
LAT. RIGHT
ISOMETRIC / HORIZONTAL MOVEMENT
EXTRAROTATION/
INTRAROTATION/
STANDING
STANDING
MAX TORQUE %
MAX TORQUE %
L
R
L
0.47
0.47
0.45
0.28
0.26
0.43
0.38
0.24
%
0.51
0.37
0.37
0.27
0.30
0.41
0.43
0.46
0.41
0.41
0.55
0.56
0.50
0.30
0.37
0.20
0.23
0.32
0.43
0.50
0.57
0.34
0.37
0.52
0.57
0.56
0.50
0.33
0.34
0.42
R
0.58
%%
0.57
%"
0.56
0.50
%%0.54
%!
%"
%
0.39
Table 5. Values correlations between torso and left upper limb (12 to 16 years)
TRUNK
MAX TORQUE
%
SITTING
STANDING
FLEX
LAT. ST.
EXT.
LAT. DR.
*.
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T1+T5
T2+T6
T3+T7
T4+T8
.&
LEFT UPPER LIMB
ISOMETRIC / HORIZONTAL MOVEMENT
EXTRAROTATION/
INTRAROTATION/
STANDING
STANDING
MAX TORQUE %
MAX TORQUE %
L
R
L
R
0.36
0.05
0.05
0.48
0.11
0.46
0.41
0.37
0.52
0.13
0.54
%0.40
0.48
%"
+
0.53
0.11
0.44
0.43
0.56
0.42
%%
%%
0.51
0.27
0.35
0.47
0.20
0.59
0.06
,
0.05
0.77
0.36
%!
0.55
0.28
0.34
0.51
0.45
0.47
%%
%!
0.59
0.02
0.55
"
0.08
0.18
0.58
."
.+
.!
.%
.
.,
.0 . 01/.
/012
3 45.
12.
6.3 3 . .
#
12.3 3 . .
6 "
!
6
!
12.
1300
www.efsupit.ro
#
/012
$
STAN ZENOVIA, BA9TIUREA EUGEN, MIHAILĂ ION, CREłU MARIAN
.
% 7
8 "
&(
9
ISOMETRIC / VERTICAL MOVEMENT
ADD/EXT
ADD/FLEX
MAX TORQUE %
MAX TORQUE %
L
R
L
,+
%
%
0.39
0.57
TRUNK
MAX TORQUE
%
T1
T2
*.
R
+
%,
."
.+
.!
.&
.%
.
.,
.-
/012
0 . 01/.
3 45.
!
12.
6.3 3 . .
/012 $
#
6
FLEX
LAT. LEFT
EXT.
LAT. RIGHT
*.
%
%
,+
,
,
."
0.50
0.48
0.20
0.39
%
0.33
0.57
0.49
0.42
0.59
0.45
%&
%
0.50
,&
"
,&
%"
%
,+
+
,&
.+
.!
.%
.
.0 . 01/.
12.
/012
12.
0.33
0.29
0.49
0.59
0.56
0.48
+
%"
0.57
0.46
0.45
%
%+
0.53
,&
,
.&
!
$
6
#
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T1+T5
T2+T6
T3+T7
T4+T8
STANDING
12.3 3 . .
!
"
6.3 3 . .
#
.
6 "
.,
/012
3 45.
12.3 3 . .
!
12.
6
#
7
8 !
%(
9
ISOMETRIC / VERTICAL MOVEMENT
TRUNK
ADD/EXT
ADD/FLEX
MAX TORQUE
MAX TORQUE %
MAX TORQUE %
%
L
R
L
R
T1
0.14
0.47
0.39
0.22
T2
0.27
0.54
0.43
0.27
SITTING
T3
0.00
0.32
0.30
T4
0.20
0.56
0.57
0.36
T5
0.12
0.54
0.38
0.25
T6
0.18
0.50
0.32
%&
STANDING
T7
0.21
0.37
0.53
0.42
T8
0.09
0.56
0.29
%
T9
0.25
0.47
0.48
0.19
FLEX
T1+T5
0.14
0.59
0.43
0.27
LAT. LEFT
T2+T6
0.24
0.53
0.34
%,
EXT.
T3+T7
0.15
0.41
0.43
%LAT. RIGHT
T4+T8
0.14
0.33
%&
%
*.
."
.+
.&
.!
.%
.
.,
./012
0 . 01/.
3 45.
12.
12.3 3 . . 6
!
6.3 3 . . 6 "
!
12.
#
/012 $
#
1301
www.efsupit.ro
STAN ZENOVIA, BA9TIUREA EUGEN, MIHAILĂ ION, CREłU MARIAN
.
, 7
TRUNK
MAX TORQUE
%
SITTING
STANDING
FLEX
LAT. LEFT
EXT.
LAT. RIGHT
*.
.%
12.
/012
!
$
8 "
%(
9
ISOMETRIC / VERTICAL MOVEMENT
ADD/EXT
ADD/FLEX
MAX TORQUE %
MAX TORQUE %
L
R
L
T1
0.29
0.58
: +
T2
0.01
0.46
%
T3
0.28
,"
,T4
0.26
0.55
"
T5
0.31
0.42
0.42
T6
0.02
!
T7
0.49
0.46
0.54
T8
0.55
0.33
0.10
T9
0.17
0.47
,
T1+T5
0.50
0.44
0.53
T2+T6
0.18
%
%!
T3+T7
0.38
,
,T4+T8
0.50
0.47
0.08
."
.&
.!
.
./012
0 . 01/.
3 45.
12.3 3 . . 6
6.3 3 . . 6 "
!
12.
#
R
0.13
0.04
0.36
0.46
0.16
0.46
0.18
0.11
0.03
0.17
0.17
0.22
0.05
.+
.,
#
3
They were calculated 312 correlations between the measured values (in kgf) at the trunk and upper limb
level. For right handers, the values of r were comprised as follows: intra extra rotation 12 to 14 years (0.12%
0.85%); intra extra rotation 15 to 16 years (0.20% 0.69%); flexion extension 12 to 14 years (0.20% 0.84%);
flexion extension 15 to 16 years (0.12% 0.70%). For subjects with skillful left arm were obtained the following
values of : intra extra rotation 12 to 16 years (0.02% 0.77%); flexion extension 12 to 16 years (0.04% 0.89%).
It can be observed that in case of the extra rotation for 12 to 14 years, they are very good correlation
between the right arm and torso on all tests (0.51% 0.85%) and a weak left arm significance (0.12% 0.57%)
At intra rotation, the correlations are significate for both arms. At the age of 15 to 16 years they are
very good correlations just for the right arm and only on intra rotation (0.39% 0.69%). At the test for the
extension of the arm, for age 12 to 14, good correlations are observed between both arms and torso on all tests
(53% 84%) and a very good meaning for right arm flexion (50% 84%). For the extension, for 15 to 16 years
they are good correlations between the left arm and torso (39% 68%) and a low significance for right arm
flexion 19% 43%.
For left handed, they are observed disparate correlation values on intra and extra rotation and significant
values on the right arm extension and flexion for the left arm.
It can be observed in the correlations above a specific activity, by age group, like co activation
"agonist antagonist" as highlights Cholewicki, Panjabi and Khachatryan (1997). It is known the evolution of the
adjustment capacity of the parameters of time, space and those of the force from 6 7 years to 10 12 years.
Teenage decrease these skills both in girls and boys, and by the end of puberty, this capacity increases again to
17 to 18 years, and further stabilizes. Relaxing capacity and the ability of voluntary muscle contraction are based
on neuromuscular control (Madeleine, Mathiassen & Arendt Nielsen, 2008). Subjects studied in this work are
aged 12 to 16 years, so they are during the growing capacity of coordination and muscle strength. Tests at the
arm level are based on visual feedback, voluntary control of muscles (pectoral arch trapezius) and fine
coordination of the hands (Jacob, Afshin, Klaus, & Pascal, 2011). They are highlighted relations between the
lumbar, pelvic and femoral fixation and the functioning of the upper limb.
For the age of 12 to14 years there are significant correlation in extra rotation and flexion extension of
the arm which shows participation of the whole musculature of the trunk at arm actions. For the age of 15 to 16
years, it can be observed a specialization of the right arm for intra rotation only (specific for the throwing of the
ball). For the extension flexion, in case of right handed subjects, there is observed is a certain orientation of
forces to the left side of the trunk (good values in left arm extension and weak for the flexion of the right arm).
Because no work is done in training with both arms for throwing at the gate, throws with his right arm only
1302
www.efsupit.ro
STAN ZENOVIA, BA9TIUREA EUGEN, MIHAILĂ ION, CREłU MARIAN
develop muscle strength on the left side of the trunk (diagonals helping to fix pectoral belt, shoulder and right
arm during the throw). Muscle imbalances are seen on the trunk and they automatically influences and is
influenced by the actions of the handy upper limb. This study could be a starting point for improving technical
training specific handball players. These findings should be accepted with care since they are just for this group
of subjects.
Special thanks to Mrs Nicoleta Ivan, professor, manager of SC NEW Multimedica SRL GalaŃi, for
providing the conditions needed for the Dynatork tests and to Mrs. Gabriela Artene, professor, president of
Sports Club "Handball Art" GalaŃi for providing the girls handball teams.
3
BaQtiurea, E., Stan, Z ; Mihăilă, I., & CreŃu, N. (2011). The influence of anthropometric parameters and of
muscle joint mobility on the speed of execution in the handball game.
11(1), 94 101.
Bottas, R., Nicol, C., Komi, P.V., & Linnamo, V. (2009). Adaptive changes in motor control of rhythmic
movement after maximal eccentric actions.
&
19 (2), 347
356.
doi:10.1016/j.jelekin.2007.09.001
Cholewicki, J., Panjabi, M.M., & Khachatryan, A. (1997). Stabilizing function of trunk flexor extensor muscles
around a neutral spine posture.
22(19), 2207 2212.
Jacob, H.S., Afshin, S., Klaus, M., & Pascal, M. (2011). Muscle coordination and force variability during static
and dynamic tracking tasks. '
( #
, 30, 1039 1051.
Kane, K., & Barden, J. (2012), Contributions of trunk muscles to anticipatory postural control in children with
and without developmental coordination disorder, '
( #
31, 707–720.
Latash, M.L., Scholz, J.P., & Schöner, G. (2002). Motor control strategies revealed in the structure of Motor
Variability,
) #
30(1), 26 31.
Madeleine, P., Mathiassen, S.E., & Arendt Nielsen, L. (2008). Changes in the degree of motor variability
associated with experimental and chronic neck shoulder pain during a standardised repetitive arm
movement.
*
)
185, 689 698. doi:10.1007/s00221 007 1199 2
Manini, T., Sagendorf, K., Mayer, J., & Ploutz Snyder, L. (2005). Trunk extensor muscle function in young and
old women: A pilot study.
* %
(
%
)
, 18(1 2), 5 13.
Marcu, V., Stan, Z., BaQtiurea, E., & ChiculiŃă, C. (2008). +
%
. Galati: Academic Publishing. 81 122.
McEvoy, M.P., & Grimmer, K. (2005). Reliability of upright posture measurements in primary school children.
*(, (
%
+
, 6:35. doi:10.1186/1471 2474 6 35
McGill, S., Grenier, S., Kavcic, N., & Cholewicki, J. (2003). Coordination of muscle activity to assure stability
of the lumbar spine.
&
, 13, 353 9.
Parkin, S., Nowicky, A.V., Rutherford, O.M., & McGregor, A.H. (2001). Do oarsmen have asymmetries in the
strength of their back and leg muscles?
, 19(7), 521 526.
doi:10.1080/026404101750238971
Peper, C.L.E., de Boer, B.J., de Poel, H.J., & Beek, P.J. (2008). Interlimb coupling strength scales with
movement
amplitude.
,
437(1),
10 14.
doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2008.03.066
Stan, Z., BaQtiurea, E., & Rizescu, C. (2016). Relationship between pressures exercised on the foot plant and the
distribution of the muscular forces at the trunk level. #
/ #
0
.
1
( #
'
, 16(1), 110 115.
1303
www.efsupit.ro