Effects Of Load Volume And Superset Training On The Degree Of Lower Extremity Muscle Activation In Fitness Enthusiasts

Objective: To collect the electromyographic characteristics of different loads and different supersets with the help of Noraxon surface electromyography tester,and to compare the activation level of lower limb muscles in different supersets at different loads(Agonist-antagonist paired set;APS)and Agonist-antagonist(AA).-The comparison of the activation degree of lower limb muscles in different superset training at different loads is beneficial to broaden the breadth and depth of superset training research and provide practical guidance for fitness enthusiasts with different training needs to choose the appropriate training method,so as to provide new theoretical reference and practical guidance experience for the public fitness field.This will provide a new theoretical reference and practical guidance experience for the public fitness field.Methods:Using the literature method,expert interview method,experimental method and mathematical statistics method,28 male fitness hobby students with certain training foundation were selected as the experimental subjects,and the Noraxon 3.14 wireless surface EMG acquisition and analysis system was used to collect EMG data for two load amounts(35% 1RM;65% 1RM)and two supergroup training methods(APS with 1 deep squat(APS with 1 deep squat followed by 1 hard pull for one set and 3 sets of repetitions without intervals;AA with 3 deep squats followed by 3 hard pulls).The raw EMG data were processed using NORAXON.MR3.14 software.A two-factor repeated measures ANOVA was used to test whether there were differences in the stimulation of the lower limb muscles between the two combinations of training.Results:(1)The effect of supergroup training on the integral EMG of 8 muscles of the lower extremity was significantly different(P<0.05);the effect on the root mean square amplitude of rectus femoris,lateral femoris,medial femoris,biceps femoris,and semitendinosus was significantly different(P<0.05),and the effect on the root mean square amplitude of gluteus maximus,medial gastrocnemius and lateral gastrocnemius was not significant.The effects of load on the integral EMG and root mean square amplitude of the eight lower extremity muscles were highly significant(P<0.01).The magnitude of integral EMG and root mean square amplitude during supergroup training was ranked as APS-65%1RM>AA-65%1RM>APS-35%1RM>AA-35%1RM.(2)At APS-35%1RM,the muscle contribution magnitude ranking was medial femoral muscle > lateral femoral muscle > rectus femoris > semitendinosus > biceps femoris > gluteus maximus > medial gastrocnemius > lateral gastrocnemius;at APS-65%1RM,the muscle contribution magnitude ranking was lateral femoral muscle >medial femoral muscle > rectus femoris > semitendinosus > biceps femoris > gluteus maximus > medial gastrocnemius > lateral gastrocnemius;AA-35% 1RM,the muscle contribution size ranking was medial femoral muscle > lateral femoral muscle >rectus femoris > semitendinosus > biceps femoris > gluteus maximus > lateral gastrocnemius > medial gastrocnemius;AA-65% 1RM,the muscle contribution size ranking was medial femoral muscle > lateral femoral muscle > rectus femoris >semitendinosus > gluteus maximus > biceps femoris > medial gastrocnemius > lateral gastrocnemius.(3)The effect of super group on knee co-activation index showed no significant difference and the effect of load on knee co-activation index showed a significant difference(P<0.05).The super group training knee co-activation index was ranked from largest to smallest as APS-35%1RM>AA-35%1RM>APS-65%1RM>AA-65%1RM.(4)The effect of supergroup training on heart rate showed no significant difference and the effect of load on heart rate showed a highly significant difference(p<0.01).Subjects’ heart rate was ranked from largest to smallest as APS-65%1RM>AA-65%1RM>APS-35%1RM>AA-35%1RM.The effect of supergroup training on subjective physical sensation was significantly different(P<0.05)and the effect of load on subjective physical sensation was very significantly different(P<0.01).-65%1RM>APS-65%1RM>AA-35%1RM>APS-35%1RM.Conclusion:(1)Under the same load,the activation of the eight muscles of the lower extremity was better with active-antagonist muscle pairing training than with activeantagonist muscle training.The activation of the biceps femoris and semitendinosus muscles was greater with active-antagonist muscle pairing training,which was conducive to the development of hamstring muscle strength;the activation of the rectus femoris,lateral femoris,and medial femoris muscles was greater with activeantagonist muscle training,which was conducive to the development of quadriceps muscle muscular strength.Both training methods have a low degree of stimulation of the medial gastrocnemius and lateral gastrocnemius,which is not conducive to the development of calf muscles.(2)Active muscle-antagonist muscle pairing training has a greater degree of activation for the hamstrings,which is conducive to strengthening the stability of the knee joint and preventing knee injury.For the same duration,active muscle-antagonist pairing training has higher heart rate but less subjective fatigue.(3)In terms of different load amounts,high load training had better activation of lower limb muscles than low load training;low load training had stronger knee stability than high load training.