Amaç: Geleneksel ve fonksiyonel egzersiz kayışı ile yapılan şınav uygulamalarında, dirseklerin ekstansiyon ve fleksiyon pozisyonunda el ve ayaklara yansıyan yük değişimlerinin ve algılanan zorluk derecesinin incelenmesidir. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Araştırmaya, spor bilimleri fakültesinde öğrenim gören toplam 25 (yaş: 22,84±2,7 yıl; boy 177,96±7,8 cm; vücut ağırlığı: 82,024±10,9 kg) erkek gönüllü öğrenci katılmıştır. Her iki şınav uygulaması üç farklı yükseklikte (0 cm, 30 cm, 60 cm) gerçekleştirilmiş, dirsekler ekstansiyon ve fleksiyon pozisyonunda 5 sn bekletilmiştir. Uygulama sonrasında modifiye edilmiş algılanan zorluk derecesi skalası kullanılarak değerlendirme yapılmıştır. Yüklerin tespitinde geleneksel şınav düzeneğine ve fonksiyonel egzersiz kayışlarına yerleştirilen yük ölçerler kullanılmıştır. İki farklı düzeneğin ve aynı düzenekteki fleksiyon-ekstansiyon verilerinin karşılaştırılmalarında eşleştirilmiş örneklem t-testi, 3 farklı yüksekliğin etkisinin tespitinde ise tek yönlü varyans analizi kullanılmıştır. Bulgular: Her iki şınav uygulamasında el ve ayaklardan yansıyan yüklerin yüzde (%) dağılımı karşılaştırıldığında, ellerin yerden 30 cm ve 60 cm olduğu yükseklikte, sol el dirsekler fleksiyon pozisyonundaki değerlerin istatistiki olarak anlamlı düzeyde farklı olduğu (p<0,05) tespit edilmiştir. Her iki şınav türü, algılanan zorluk derecesi açısından karşılaştırılmıştır. Fonksiyonel egzersiz kayışı ile şınav uygulamasındaki eller 0 cm'de dirsekler fleksiyon pozisyonunda en yüksek zorluk derecesi hissedilmiştir. Geleneksel şınav uygulamasında ise eller 60 cm yüksekte dirsekler fleksiyon pozisyonunda en düşük zorluk derecesi hissedilmiştir. Sonuç: Geleneksel ve fonksiyonel egzersiz kayışı kullanılarak yapılan şınavların farklı yüksekliklerdeki uygulamaları sırasında hem fleksiyon hem de ekstansiyon pozisyonunda el ve ayaklara yansıyan yükler benzer bulunmuştur. Ancak her iki şınav türü algılanan zorluk derecesi açısından değerlendirildiğinde, fonksiyonel egzersiz kayışı kullanılarak yapılan şınavın geleneksel şınava göre daha zorlayıcı bir şınav türü olduğu gözlemlenmiştir.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Şınav; geleneksel şınav; askıda şınav; algılanan zorluk derecesi
Objective: Comparison of the loads reflected on the hands and feet during the traditional push-up and suspension push-up exercises applied at different heights and to examine the perceived exertion push-up levels. Material and Methods: Twenty-five male faculty of sport sciences volunteer students (age: 22.84±2.7 years; height 177.96±7.8 cm; body weight: 82.024±10.9 kg) participated in this study. Volunteers were tested at three different heights (0 cm, 30 cm, 60 cm) of traditional push-up and suspension push-up, respectively. In both push-ups, the elbows were held in extension and flexion positions for 5 seconds. The data were recorded with a specially prepared traditional push-up mechanism and a load-cell system placed on suspension device's straps. 'Paired samples t-test' and 'Oneway ANOVA' test were used to evaluate the data. Results: The loads obtained from the hands and feet were found to be similar in the flexion-extension position of the elbows during the traditional push-ups and suspension pushups at different heights. When the percentage (%) distribution of the loads reflected on the handles and the floor is compared in both push-ups; it was determined that the values of the left hand elbows at 30 cm and 60 cm height in the flexion position were significantly different (p<0.05). When both push-up types are compared in terms of perceived exertion levels; while the participants felt the highest difficulty in the 0 cm flexion position in the suspension push-up, the lowest difficulty in the traditional push-up 60 cm flexion. Conclusion: During the traditional push-up and suspension push-up exercises at different heights, the loads reflected from the upper and lower extremities to the handle and the floor were found to be similar in both flexion and extension positions. However, when both pushups were evaluated in terms of perceived exertion (Modified Borg Scale), suspension pushup was found to be a more challenging push-up exercises than traditional push-up.
Keywords: Push-up; traditional push-up; suspension push-up; rate of perceived exertion
- Gouvali MK, Boudolos K. Dynamic and electromyographical analysis in variants of push-up exercise. J Strength Cond Res. 2005;19(1):146-51. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Youdas JW, Budach BD, Ellerbusch JV, Stucky CM, Wait KR, Hollman JH. Comparison of muscle-activation patterns during the conventional push-up and perfect? pushup? exercises. J Strength Cond Res. 2010;24(12):3352-62. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Beach TA, Howarth SJ, Callaghan JP. Muscular contribution to low-back loading and stiffness during standard and suspended push-ups. Hum Mov Sci. 2008;27(3):457-72. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Ebben WP, Wurm B, VanderZanden TL, Spadavecchia ML, Durocher JJ, Bickham CT, et al. Kinetic analysis of several variations of push-ups. J Strength Cond Res. 2011;25(10):2891-4. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Hinshaw TJ, Stephenson ML, Sha Z, Dai B. Effect of external loading on force and power production during plyometric push-ups. J Strength Cond Res. 2018;32(4):1099-108. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Cogley RM, Archambault TA, Fibeger JF, Koverman MM, Youdas JW, Hollman JH. Comparison of muscle activation using various hand positions during the push-up exercise. J Strength Cond Res. 2005;19(3):628-33. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Beim GM, Giraldo JL, Pincivero DM, Borror MJ, Fu FH. Abdominal strengthening exercises: a comparative study. J Sports Rehab. 1997;6(1):11-20. [Crossref]
- Lehman GJ, MacMillan B, MacIntyre I, Chivers M, Fluter M. Shoulder muscle EMG activity during push up variations on and off a Swiss ball. Dyn Med. 2006;5:7. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Bettendorf B. FEK Suspension Training Bodyweight Exercises: Scientific Foundations and Practical Applications. San Francisco, CA: Fitness Anywhere Inc; 2010. [Link]
- Byrne JM, Bishop NS, Caines AM, Crane KA, Feaver AM, Pearcey GE. Effect of using a suspension training system on muscle activation during the performance of a front plank exercise. J Strength Cond Res. 2014;28(11):3049-55. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Mok NW, Yeung EW, Cho JC, Hui SC, Liu KC, Pang CH. Core muscle activity during suspension exercises. J Sci Med Sport. 2015;18(2):189-94. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Donkers MJ, An KN, Chao EY, Morrey BF. Hand position affects elbow joint load during push-up exercise. J Biomech. 1993;26(6):625-32. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Calatayud J, Borreani S, Colado JC, Martín FF, Rogers ME, Behm DG, et al. Muscle Activation during push-ups with different suspension training systems. J Sports Sci Med. 2014;13(3):502-10. [PubMed] [PMC]
- Freeman S, Karpowicz A, Gray J, McGill S. Quantifying muscle patterns and spine load during various forms of the push-up. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2006;38(3):570-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Kraemer WJ, Ratamess NA. Fundamentals of resistance training: progression and exercise prescription. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2004;36(4):674-88. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Snarr RL, Esco MR. Electromyographic comparison of traditional and suspension push-ups. J Hum Kinet. 2013;39:75-83. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Tucker SW, Gilbert ML, Gribble PA, Campbell BM. Effects of hand placement on scapular muscle activation during the push-up plus exercise. Athl Train Sports Health Care. 2009;1:107-14. [Crossref]
- Gulmez I. Effects of angle variations in suspension push-up exercise. J Strength Cond Res. 2017;31(4):1017-23. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Mier C, Amasay T, Capehart S, Garner H. Differences between men and women in percentage of body weight supported during push-up exercise. Int J Exerc Sci. 2014;7(2):161-8. [Link]
- Suprak DN, Dawes J, Stephenson MD. The effect of position on the percentage of body mass supported during traditional and modified push-up variants. J Strength Cond Res. 2011;25(2):497-503. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Dhahbi W, Chaabene H, Chaouachi A, Padulo J, G Behm D, Cochrane J, et al. Kinetic analysis of push-up exercises: a systematic review with practical recommendations. Sports Biomech. 2022;21(1):1-40. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Giancotti GF, Fusco A, Varalda C, Capranica L, Cortis C. Biomechanical analysis of suspension training push-up. J Strength Cond Res. 2018;32(3):602-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- San Juan JG, Suprak DN, Roach SM, Lyda M. The effects of exercise type and elbow angle on vertical ground reaction force and muscle activity during a push-up plus exercise. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2015;16(1):23. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Borg G. Borg's Perceived Exertion and Pain Scales. 1st ed. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 1998.
- Melrose D, Dawes J. Resistance characteristics of the TRX? suspension training system at different angles and distances from the hanging point. J Athl Enhancement. 2015;4:1. [Crossref]
- Lee D, Lee Y, Cho HY, Lee KB, Hong S, Pyo S, et al. Investigation of trunk muscle activity for modified plank exercise: a preliminary study. Isokinetics and Exercise Science. 2017;25(3):209-13. [Crossref]
.: Process List