| 摘要: | 本研究旨在比較靜態休息、震動按摩槍刺激及震動滾筒刺激三種不同處理方式對於肌肉疲勞恢復後肌力表現及本體感覺之影響。方法：招募 14 位有運動習慣的一般健康大學生為研究對象，以重覆測量法進行本實驗。首先請受試者坐於等速測力儀上，先進行目標角度 45 度本體感覺測試及角速度 60 度/秒向心收縮，接著反覆最大自主離心股四頭肌伸展運動，直到力量表現下降50% 後停止，肌肉疲勞後再立即進行本體感覺及力量表現檢測，之後，隨機給予三種不同恢復方式，經十分鐘休息後，再次進行本體感覺及力量檢測為恢復後表現，為避免學習效應，每次試驗需間隔一周的休息。以重複量數變異數分析 ( repeated measures ANOVA ) 對三種不同恢復方式在疲勞前測與後測表現，進行考驗，當達顯著水準時，再以 Bonferroni 法進行事後分析比較，所有統計顯著水準訂為α=.05; 利用恢復後數值減掉疲勞前數值除以疲勞前數值，得知恢復進步率。再利用成t檢定分析股四頭肌肌力及膝關節本體感覺在恢復進步率是否達顯著。結果：在力量表現方面震動按摩槍組及震動滾筒組恢復成效皆達顯著差異；震動按摩槍組最大力量及平均力量 ( 173.2 ± 12.2 N-M；151.3 ± 12.4 N-M )，恢復進步率分別約9.1 % 及14.1 % ；震動滾筒組 ( 172.2 ± 12.3 N-M；150 ± 10.7 N-M )，恢復進步率分別約4.6 % 及7.1%，兩者在恢復進步率沒有達顯著差異。在本體感覺方面震動按摩槍組及震動滾筒組恢復成效皆達顯著差異；震動滾筒組 ( 2.6 ± 0.3 度 )，恢復進步率約40.7 %，顯著高於震動按摩槍組本體感覺 ( 3.8 ± 0.3 度 )，恢復進步率約22.8 %，兩者在恢復進步率沒有達顯著差異。結論：使用震動按摩槍及震動滾筒對於最大力量及平均力量皆達有效恢復，以恢復百分比數值來看震動按摩槍恢復效果較佳；震動按摩槍及震動滾筒針對本體感覺皆達有效恢復，以恢復百分比數值來看震動滾筒恢復效果較佳。
Objective: To compare the effects of static rest, vibration massage gun stimulation and vibration drum stimulation on muscle strength performance and proprioception after muscle fatigue recovery. Methods: Fourteen healthy college students with exercise habit were recruited to conduct this experiment by repeated measurement. First please sit on isokinetic dynamometer, participants to the target Angle is 45 degrees of proprioception test and angular velocity 60 degrees/s centripetal contraction, then the largest independent repeatedly stretching the quadriceps muscle and centrifugal fell by 50% after the stop until the power performance, muscle fatigue after proprioception and power performance test, immediately after, Three different recovery methods were randomly given. After a 10-minute rest, proprioception and strength testing were performed again for the performance after recovery. In order to avoid learning effect, a rest interval of one week was required for each test. Repeated measures ANOVA was used to test the pretest and posttest performance of three different recovery methods in fatigue. When significant levels were reached, Bonferroni method was used for post-test comparison. All statistical significance levels were set as α=.05. The recovery progress rate was obtained by subtracting the value before fatigue by the value before fatigue. Then t test was used to analyze whether the recovery rate of quadriceps muscle strength and knee joint proprioception was significant. Results: There was significant difference in strength performance between the vibration massage gun group and the vibration drum group. The maximum strength and average strength of vibration massage gun group ( 173.2 ± 12.2 n-m; 151.3 ± 12.4 n-m ), the recovery rate was 9.1% and 14.1 %, respectively. Vibrating drum group ( 172.2 ± 12.3n-m; 150 ± 10.7 n-m ), the recovery rate was about 4.6% and 7.1% respectively, there was no significant difference between them. In terms of proprioception, there was a significant difference between the vibration massage gun group and the vibration drum group. The improvement rate of the vibration drum group ( 2.6 ± 0.3 degree) was about 40.7%, which was significantly higher than that of the vibration massage gun group ( 3.8 ± 0.3 degree ), and the recovery improvement rate was about 22.8%. There was no significant difference in the recovery improvement rate between the two groups. Conclusion: The use of vibration massage gun and vibration roller can effectively restore the maximum force and average force, and the recovery effect of vibration massage gun is better in terms of recovery percentage value. Vibration massage gun and vibration drum can effectively recover the sense of body, and the vibration drum has better recovery effect in terms of recovery percentage value. |
