Comparison of neuromuscular and proprioceptive variables between legs during lunge in fencers
The fencer performs the lunge, an attack characterized by a forward push.
The objective of the study was to compare the neuromuscular and proprioceptive variables between the front and back legs during the lunge.
It was a cross-sectional study of 19 fencers. Measurement of the concentric muscle torque peak of the ankle muscles, as well as muscle balance, through the conventional ratio and functional ratio, was performed through the isokinetic dynamometer. The reaction time (RT) of the peroneus longus (PL), anterior tibial (AT) and lateral gastrocnemius (LG) of both legs was collected from an electromyography during Lunge execution. Dynamic neuromuscular control of the ankles was evaluated by the Star Excursion Balance Test (SEBT) in eight different directions.
It was possible to identify a significant difference in the muscular torque of these muscle groups (p ≤ 0.05), as well as in the Conventional Ratio (p = 0.002) and Functional Ratio (p = 0.003) of dorsiflexors/plantiflexors of the back leg in relation to the front, that is, a decrease in the force of back leg. There was also no difference in the RT of the PL and AT (p ≥ 0.05), but have difference in RT of LG during the Lunge (p ≤ 0.05). Furthermore, there is difference in the eight directions of the SEBT (p ≤ 0.05) comparing the back with the front leg.
The training performed by fencing athletes is not able to produce similar stimuli for both legs with regard to dynamic neuromuscular control, reaction time and concentric torque of the ankle musculature.
KeywordsReaction time Muscle strength Postural balance Athletic injuries
Compliance with ethical standards
No funding was received.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors. And, this study was evaluated and approved by the University’s Ethics and Research Committee under number 1.455.237.
The participants and/or their caregivers were informed about the research procedures and invited to read and sign the Informed Consent Form if they agreed. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 2.Stewart SL, Kopetka B (2005) The kinematic determinants of speed in the fencing lunge. J Sports Sci 23:105Google Scholar
- 3.Yiou E, Do M (2000) In fencing, does intensive practice equally improve the speed performance of the touche when it is performed alone and in combination with the lunge? Int J Sports Med 21(122):126Google Scholar
- 5.Barth B, Beck E (2007) The complete guide to fencing. Meyer and Meyer sport (UK) Ltd, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- 6.Tsolakis C, Tsiganos G (2008) The influence of training on neuromuscular factors in elite and nonelite fencers. Servian J Sports Sci 2:59–65Google Scholar
- 13.Redondo JC, Alonso CJ, Sedano S, De Benito AM (2013) Validación de un Protocolo para la Medición del Tiempo de Reacción y Tiempo de Movimiento en Esgrima. Eur J Hum Mov 30:13–22Google Scholar
- 18.Bottoms L, Greenhalgh A, Sinclair J (2013) Kinematic determinants of weapon velocity during the fencing lunge in experienced épée fencers. Acta Bioeng Biomech 15:4Google Scholar
- 19.Gholipour M, Tabrizi A, Farahmand F (2008) Kinematics analysis of lunge fencing using stereophotogrametry. World J Sport Sci 1(1):32–37Google Scholar
- 22.Hermens HJ, Freriks B, Merletti R, Stegeman D, Blok J, Rau G, Disselhorst-Klug C, Hagg G (1999) SENIAM 8: European recommendations for surface electromyography: results of the SENIAM project. Roessingh Research and Development, EnschedeGoogle Scholar
- 23.Leis AA, Trapani VC (2000) Atlas of eletromiography. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- 27.Hall EJ (2017) Guyton and Hall textbook of medical physiology, 13th edn. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar