Full-Body Harness versus Waist Belt: An Examination of Force Production and Pain during an Isoinertial Device Maximal Voluntary Isometric Contraction

TL;DR

This study compared force production and pain during isometric contractions using a full-body harness or waist belt on an isoinertial device.

Contribution

The study provides new insights into the reliability and agreement of isoinertial device measurements compared to traditional methods.

Findings

FBH and WB IMVIC showed good to excellent reliability and strong associations with TMVIC.

Agreement between FBH and TMVIC was poor despite strong reliability.

FBH produced significantly higher maximum isometric force than WB.

Abstract

Background/Objectives: This study examined the differences in participant force production and pain between a squat maximal voluntary isometric contraction (IMVIC) performed with either a waist belt (WB) or full-body harness (FBH) on the Desmotec D.EVO isoinertial device (D.EVO). Agreement between FBH IMVIC and a traditional force plate squat MVIC (TMVIC) was also assessed. Methods: Twenty adults completed FBH, WB, and TMVIC assessments on two separate occasions. Two-way treatment x time ANOVAs were conducted to compare force outputs and pain between treatments (FBH vs. WB) across time. Test-retest reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients. Associations between outcomes were determined using Pearson’s r. Standard error of estimate, constant error, total error, and Bland-Altman plots were used to assess agreement between IMVIC and TMVIC. Results: FBH and WB IMVIC exhibited good to excellent reliability (ICC2,1 = 0.889–0.994) and strong associations (r = 0.813 and 0.821, respectively) when compared to TMVIC. However, agreement between FBH and TMVIC was poor. No significant interaction or main effects were observed for pain. FBH maximum isometric force (MIF) was significantly higher than WB MIF. WB IMVIC was the only significant predictor of TMVIC (R2 = 0.674). Conclusions: Our findings indicate that the D.EVO should not be utilized as a replacement for a traditional MVIC setup.

Figures