Engineering topics

Bentley, Jason R.

Publications and source records attributed to Bentley, Jason R..

7 records

NASA NTRS2009

Using Maximal Isometric Force to Determine the Optimal Load for Measuring Dynamic Muscle Power

Maximal power output occurs when subjects perform ballistic exercises using loads of ~30-50% of one-repetition maximum (1-RM). However, performing 1-RM testing prior to power measurement requires considerable time, especially when testing involves multiple exercises. Maximal isometric force (MIF), which requires substantially less time to measure than 1-RM, might be an acceptable alternative for determining the optimal load for power testing. PURPOSE: To determine the optimal load based on MIF for maximizing dynamic power output during leg press and bench press exercises. METHODS: Twenty healthy volunteers (12 men and 8 women; mean +/- SD age: 31+/-6 y; body mass: 72 +/- 15 kg) performed isometric leg press and bench press movements, during which MIF was measured using force plates. Subsequently, subjects performed ballistic leg press and bench press exercises using loads corresponding to 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, and 60% of MIF presented in randomized order. Maximal instantaneous power was calculated during the ballistic exercise tests using force plates and position transducers. Repeated-measures ANOVA and Fisher LSD post hoc tests were used to determine the load(s) that elicited maximal power output. RESULTS: For the leg press power test, six subjects were unable to be tested at 20% and 30% MIF because these loads were less than the lightest possible load (i.e., the weight of the unloaded leg press sled assembly [31.4 kg]). For the bench press power test, five subjects were unable to be tested at 20% MIF because these loads were less than the weight of the unloaded aluminum bar (i.e., 11.4 kg). Therefore, these loads were excluded from analysis. A trend (p = 0.07) for a main effect of load existed for the leg press exercise, indicating that the 40% MIF load tended to elicit greater power output than the 60% MIF load (effect size = 0.38). A significant (p . 0.05) main effect of load existed for the bench press exercise; post hoc analysis indicated that the effect of load on power output was: 30% > 40% > 50% = 60%. CONCLUSION: Loads of 40% and 30% of MIF elicit maximal power output during dynamic leg presses and bench presses, respectively. These findings are similar to those obtained when loading is based on 1-RM.

Spiering, Barry A.↗

NASA NTRS2008

Effects of Different Lifting Cadences on Ground Reaction Forces during the Squat Exercise

The purpose of this investigation was to determine the effect of different cadences on the ground reaction force (GRF(sub R)) during the squat exercise. It is known that squats performed with greater acceleration will produce greater inertial forces; however, it is not well understood how different squat cadences affect GRF(sub R). It was hypothesized that faster squat cadences will result in greater peak GRF(sub R). METHODS: Six male subjects (30.8+/-4.4 y, 179.5+/-8.9 cm, 88.8+/-13.3 kg) with previous squat experience performed three sets of three squats using three different cadences (FC = 1 sec descent/1 sec ascent; MC = 3 sec descent/1 sec ascent; SC = 4 sec descent/2 sec ascent) with barbell mass equal to body mass. Ground reaction force was used to calculate inertial force trajectories of the body plus barbell (FI(sub system)). Forces were normalized to body mass. RESULTS: Peak GRF(sub R) and peak FI(sub system) were significantly higher in FC squats compared to MC (p=0.0002) and SC (p=0.0002). Range of GRF(sub R) and FI(sub system) were also significantly higher in FC compared to MC (p<0.05), and MC were significantly higher than SC (p<0.05). DISCUSSION: Faster squat cadences result in significantly greater peak GRF(sub R) due to the inertia of the system. GRF(sub R) was more dependent upon decent cadence than on ascent cadence. PRACTICAL APPLICATION: This study demonstrates that faster squat cadences produce greater ground reaction forces. Therefore, the use of faster squat cadences might enhance strength and power adaptations to long-term resistance exercise training. Key Words: velocity, weight training, resistive exercise

Bentley, Jason R.↗

NASA NTRS2008

Gravitational Effects upon Locomotion Posture

Researchers use actual microgravity (AM) during parabolic flight and simulated microgravity (SM) obtained with horizontal suspension analogs to better understand the effect of gravity upon gait. In both environments, the gravitational force is replaced by an external load (EL) that returns the subject to the treadmill. However, when compared to normal gravity (N), researchers consistently find reduced ground reaction forces (GRF) and subtle kinematic differences (Schaffner et al., 2005). On the International Space Station, the EL is applied by elastic bungees attached to a waist and shoulder harness. While bungees can provide EL approaching body weight (BW), their force-length characteristics coupled with vertical oscillations of the body during gait result in a variable load. However, during locomotion in N, the EL is consistently equal to 100% body weight. Comparisons between AM and N have shown that during running, GRF are decreased in AM (Schaffner et al, 2005). Kinematic evaluations in the past have focussed on joint range of motion rather than joint posture at specific instances of the gait cycle. The reduced GRF in microgravity may be a result of differing hip, knee, and ankle positions during contact. The purpose of this investigation was to compare joint angles of the lower extremities during walking and running in AM, SM, and N. We hypothesized that in AM and SM, joints would be more flexed at heel strike (HS), mid-stance (MS) and toe-off (TO) than in N.

DeWitt, John K.↗

NASA NTRS2007

Comparison of the US and Russian Cycle Ergometers

The purpose of this study was to compare the U.S. and Russian cycle ergometers focusing on the mechanical differences of the devices and the physiological differences observed while using the devices. Methods: First, the mechanical loads provided by the U.S. Cycle Ergometer with Vibration Isolation System (CEVIS) and the Russian Veloergometer were measured using a calibration dynamometer. Results were compared and conversion equations were modeled to determine the actual load provided by each device. Second, ten male subjects (32.9 +/- 6.5 yrs, 180.6 +/- 4.4 cm; 81.9 +/- 6.9 kg) experienced with both cycling and exercise testing completed a standardized submaximal exercise test protocol on CEVIS and Veloergometer. The exercise protocol involved 8 sub-maximal workloads each lasting 3 minutes for a total of 24 minutes per session, or until the end of the stage when the subject reached 85% of peak oxygen consumption or age-predicted maximum heart rate (220 - age). The workload started at 50 Watts (W), increased to 100 W, and then increased 25 W every 3 minutes until reaching a peak workload of 250 W. Physiological variables were then compared at each workload by repeated measures ANOVA or paired t-tests (p<0.05). Results: While both CEVIS and Veloergometer produced significantly lower workloads than the displayed workload, CEVIS produced even lower loads than Veloergometer (p<0.05) at each indicated workload. Despite this fact, the only physiological variables that showed a significant difference between the ergometers were VE (125 - 250W), VO2 (175 and 250 W), and VCO2 (175 W). All other physiological data were not statistically different between CEVIS and Veloergometer. Conclusion: Although workloads were different between ergometers, relatively few physiological differences were observed. Therefore, CEVIS workloads of 87.5 - 262.5 W can be rounded to the nearest 25 W increment and performed on the Veloergometer.

Norcross, Jason↗

NASA NTRS2006

Exercise apparatus

An apparatus and method for exercising whereby the user is supported by various mechanisms in such as way that the user's shoulder area is free to translate and rotate; the user's pelvic area is free to translate and rotate; or in any combination.

Schaffner, Grant↗

NASA NTRS2006

Kinematic Differences Between Motorized and Nonmotorized Treadmill Locomotion

There are few scientific publications comparing human locomotion between motorized and nonmotorized treadmills. Lakomy (1987) and Gamble et al (1988) reported that forward lean is greater on a nonmotorized treadmill to aid in the generation of horizontal force necessary for belt propulsion, but there are no data concerning lower limb kinematics. During long-term spaceflight, astronauts use locomotive exercise to mitigate the physiological effects caused by long-term exposure to microgravity. A critical decision for mission planners concerns the requirements for a treadmill to be used during potential trips to the Moon and Mars. Treadmill operation in an un-powered configuration could reduce mission resource demands, but also may impact the efficacy of treadmill exercise countermeasures. To ascertain the most appropriate type of treadmill to be used, it is important to understand biomechanical differences between motorized (M) and nonmotorized (NM) locomotion. The purpose of this evaluation was to test for differences in lower limb kinematics that occur during M and NM treadmill locomotion at two speeds. It was hypothesized that hip and knee joint angle trajectories would differ between the conditions.

DeWitt, John K.↗

NASA NTRS2004

Ground Reaction Force and Mechanical Differences Between the Interim Resistive Exercise Device (iRED) and Smith Machine While Performing a Squat

Musculoskeletal unloading in microgravity has been shown to induce losses in bone mineral density, muscle cross-sectional area, and muscle strength. Currently, an Interim Resistive Exercise Device (iRED) is being flown on board the ISS to help counteract these losses. Free weight training has shown successful positive musculoskeletal adaptations. In biomechanical research, ground reaction forces (GRF) trajectories are used to define differences between exercise devices. The purpose of this evaluation is to quantify the differences in GRF between the iRED and free weight exercise performed on a Smith machine during a squat. Due to the differences in resistance properties, inertial loading and load application to the body between the two devices, we hypothesize that subjects using iRED will produce GRF that are significantly different from the Smith machine. There will be differences in bar/harness range of motion and the time when peak GRF occurred in the ROMbar. Three male subjects performed three sets of ten squats on the iRED and on the Smith Machine on two separate days at a 2-second cadence. Statistically significant differences were found between the two devices in all measured GRF variables. Average Fz and Fx during the Smith machine squat were significantly higher than iRED. Average Fy (16.82 plus or minus.23; p less than .043) was significantly lower during the Smith machine squat. The mean descent/ascent ratio of the magnitude of the resultant force vector of all three axes for the Smith machine and iRED was 0.95 and 0.72, respectively. Also, the point at which maximum Fz occurred in the range of motion (Dzpeak) was at different locations with the two devices.

Amonette, William E.↗