| pubmed-article:21306916 | rdf:type | pubmed:Citation | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:21306916 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0015259 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:21306916 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0220931 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:21306916 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0459800 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:21306916 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C1707455 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:21306916 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0439858 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:21306916 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0522510 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:21306916 | pubmed:issue | 4 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:21306916 | pubmed:dateCreated | 2011-6-21 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:21306916 | pubmed:abstractText | The aim of this study was to investigate surface electromyographic activity (sEMG) and rate of perceived exertion (RPE) during semi-squat exercise on vibration platform compared with semi-squat exercise performed on a Smith machine. Twenty-three recreationally active students (15 males and 8 females) were exposed to six different loads in one of both exercise modes: vibration or Smith machine. The subject performed a squat in six experimental conditions; the load differed per experimental condition. For each subject the exercise mode (n=2) and the different loads per mode (n=6) were assigned in a random order to check the influence of vibration magnitude (acceleration: ms(-2)) as well as weight (kg) on sEMG and RPE. Two-way ANOVA for RPE, lumbar and lower-body sEMG revealed a significant weight main effect (P<0.01) and a significant acceleration main effect (P<0.01). The results from this study demonstrate that the training stimulus resulting from an isometric semi-squat exercise on a vibration platform (acceleration: from 12 to 89 ms(-2)) is similar to the training stimulus of an isometric semi-squat exercise on Smith machine (weight: from 20 to 70 kg) according to lower-body sEMG and RPE. However, the impact of semi-squat on vibration platform exercise for lumbar muscle is relatively small compared with semi-squat on Smith machine. | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:21306916 | pubmed:language | eng | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:21306916 | pubmed:journal | http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:21306916 | pubmed:citationSubset | IM | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:21306916 | pubmed:status | MEDLINE | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:21306916 | pubmed:month | Aug | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:21306916 | pubmed:issn | 1873-5711 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:21306916 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:DelecluseChri... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:21306916 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:GaratacheaNur... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:21306916 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:MarínPedro... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:21306916 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:Santin-Medeir... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:21306916 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:Santos-Lozano... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:21306916 | pubmed:copyrightInfo | Crown Copyright © 2011. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:21306916 | pubmed:issnType | Electronic | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:21306916 | pubmed:volume | 21 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:21306916 | pubmed:owner | NLM | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:21306916 | pubmed:authorsComplete | Y | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:21306916 | pubmed:pagination | 616-21 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:21306916 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:21306916... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:21306916 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:21306916... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:21306916 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:21306916... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:21306916 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:21306916... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:21306916 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:21306916... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:21306916 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:21306916... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:21306916 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:21306916... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:21306916 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:21306916... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:21306916 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:21306916... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:21306916 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:21306916... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:21306916 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:21306916... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:21306916 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:21306916... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:21306916 | pubmed:year | 2011 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:21306916 | pubmed:articleTitle | A comparison of training intensity between whole-body vibration and conventional squat exercise. | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:21306916 | pubmed:affiliation | Laboratory of Physiology, European University Miguel de Cervantes, Valladolid, Spain. pjmarin@uemc.es | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:21306916 | pubmed:publicationType | Journal Article | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:21306916 | pubmed:publicationType | Comparative Study | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:21306916 | pubmed:publicationType | Randomized Controlled Trial | lld:pubmed |
