PeerJ · 2025
Effects of unstable training on muscle activation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of electromyographic studies.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bao Zihan, Wang Shun, Li Ziyang
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To systematically evaluate the effects of unstable training (UT) on muscle activation and provide activation prescriptions for different muscle regions, offering more targeted guidance for different populations in muscle activation.
METHODS: Data extraction and meta-analysis were conducted using RevManager 5.3, Stata 16.0, and R software. Subgroup analyses were performed on five variables: exercise equipment, exercise intensity, exercise mode, exercise experience, and contraction mode. Heterogeneity and publication bias were also examined.
RESULTS: A total of 28 studies were included, involving 579 participants. Comparison of activation effects between unstable training and stable training: Significant increases in core muscle activation, including rectus abdominis (SMD = 0.32, 95% CI [0.18-0.46], P < 0.01), internal oblique (SMD = 0.38, 95% CI [0.20-0.56], P < 0.01), external oblique (SMD = 0.38, 95% CI [0.20-0.56], P < 0.01), and erector spinae (SMD = 0.60, 95% CI [0.17-1.02], P < 0.01); Significant increases in upper limb muscle activation, including biceps brachii (SMD = 0.52, 95% CI [0.23-0.80], P < 0.01), trapezius (SMD = 0.23, 95% CI [0.12-0.35], P < 0.01), serratus anterior (SMD = 0.33, 95% CI [0.07-0.59], P = 0.01), and triceps brachii (SMD = 0.24, 95% CI [0.04-0.45], P = 0.02); Significant increases in lower limb muscle activation, including soleus (SMD = 0.65, 95% CI [0.42-0.87], P < 0.01), gluteus medius (SMD = 0.28, 95% CI [0.05-0.52], P = 0.02). In subgroup analysis, the core muscles with the great effect were: rectus abdominis (Bosu ball, body weight, sit-ups), internal oblique (Swiss ball, relative load, bench press), external oblique (Swiss ball, body weight, sit-ups), erector spinae (TRX suspension, body weight, bridging); the upper limb muscles with the great effect were: biceps brachii (more than 1 year of training experience, TRX suspension, body weight, muscle-up), trapezius (less training experience, Bosu ball, body weight, push-ups), triceps brachii (body weight). The lower limb muscles with the great effect were: soleus (squats). Negative activation effects: erector spinae (Swiss ball, 60% 1RM load, and shoulder press), serratus anterior (Swiss ball), triceps brachii (more than 1 year of training experience), Swiss ball, >60% 1RM; rectus femoris (Bosu ball, squats).
CONCLUSION: Unstable training is an excellent choice for rehabilitation after sports injuries, pre-exercise activation, and enhancing specific sports abilities. It can significantly activate core, upper limb, and lower limb muscles. In the future, more rigorous research should be carried out, providing a larger sample size and more meticulous evaluation methods for further comparative analysis.
METHODS: Data extraction and meta-analysis were conducted using RevManager 5.3, Stata 16.0, and R software. Subgroup analyses were performed on five variables: exercise equipment, exercise intensity, exercise mode, exercise experience, and contraction mode. Heterogeneity and publication bias were also examined.
RESULTS: A total of 28 studies were included, involving 579 participants. Comparison of activation effects between unstable training and stable training: Significant increases in core muscle activation, including rectus abdominis (SMD = 0.32, 95% CI [0.18-0.46], P < 0.01), internal oblique (SMD = 0.38, 95% CI [0.20-0.56], P < 0.01), external oblique (SMD = 0.38, 95% CI [0.20-0.56], P < 0.01), and erector spinae (SMD = 0.60, 95% CI [0.17-1.02], P < 0.01); Significant increases in upper limb muscle activation, including biceps brachii (SMD = 0.52, 95% CI [0.23-0.80], P < 0.01), trapezius (SMD = 0.23, 95% CI [0.12-0.35], P < 0.01), serratus anterior (SMD = 0.33, 95% CI [0.07-0.59], P = 0.01), and triceps brachii (SMD = 0.24, 95% CI [0.04-0.45], P = 0.02); Significant increases in lower limb muscle activation, including soleus (SMD = 0.65, 95% CI [0.42-0.87], P < 0.01), gluteus medius (SMD = 0.28, 95% CI [0.05-0.52], P = 0.02). In subgroup analysis, the core muscles with the great effect were: rectus abdominis (Bosu ball, body weight, sit-ups), internal oblique (Swiss ball, relative load, bench press), external oblique (Swiss ball, body weight, sit-ups), erector spinae (TRX suspension, body weight, bridging); the upper limb muscles with the great effect were: biceps brachii (more than 1 year of training experience, TRX suspension, body weight, muscle-up), trapezius (less training experience, Bosu ball, body weight, push-ups), triceps brachii (body weight). The lower limb muscles with the great effect were: soleus (squats). Negative activation effects: erector spinae (Swiss ball, 60% 1RM load, and shoulder press), serratus anterior (Swiss ball), triceps brachii (more than 1 year of training experience), Swiss ball, >60% 1RM; rectus femoris (Bosu ball, squats).
CONCLUSION: Unstable training is an excellent choice for rehabilitation after sports injuries, pre-exercise activation, and enhancing specific sports abilities. It can significantly activate core, upper limb, and lower limb muscles. In the future, more rigorous research should be carried out, providing a larger sample size and more meticulous evaluation methods for further comparative analysis.