Correlation between the Muscle Strengths of the Trunk and Upper Limbs

(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