Sport Sciences for Health

, Volume 14, Issue 2, pp 393–397 | Cite as

Comparison of neuromuscular and proprioceptive variables between legs during lunge in fencers

  • Gabriela Vasconcelos
  • Anelize Cini
  • Felipe Minozzo
  • Rafael Grazioli
  • Cláudia Lima
Original Article



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.


Reaction 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.

Ethical approval

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.

Informed consent

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.


  1. 1.
    Sheppard JM, Young WB (2006) Agility literature review: classifications, training and testing. J Sports Sci 24:919–932CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stewart SL, Kopetka B (2005) The kinematic determinants of speed in the fencing lunge. J Sports Sci 23:105Google Scholar
  3. 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
  4. 4.
    Turner A, Miller S, Stewart P, Cree J, Ingram R, Dimitriou L, Moody J, Kilduff L (2013) Strength and conditioning for fencing. J Strength Cond Res 35:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barth B, Beck E (2007) The complete guide to fencing. Meyer and Meyer sport (UK) Ltd, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. 7.
    Poulis J, Chatzis S, Christopoulou K, Tsolakis C (2009) Isokinetic strength during knee flexion and extension in elite fencers. Percept Motor Skills 108:949–961CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cronin J, Mcnair PJ, Marshall RN (2003) Lunge performance and its determinants. J Sports Sci 21:49–57CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Geil MD (2002) The role of footwear on kinematics and plantar foot pressure in fencing. J Appl Biomech 18:155–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sinclair J, Bottoms L, Taylor K, Greenhalgh A (2010) Tibial shock measured during the fencing lunge: the influence of footwear. Sports Biomech 9(2):65–71CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gutiérrez-Dávila M, Rojas FJ, Caletti M, Antonio R, Navarro E (2013) Effect of target change during the simple attack in fencing. J Sports Sci 31:1100–1107CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gutiérrez-Dávila M, Zingsem C, Gutiérrez-Cruz C, Giles FJ, Rojas FJ (2014) Effect of uncertainty during the lunge in fencing. J Sports Sci Med 13:66–77PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. 14.
    Redondo JC, Alonso CJ, Sedano S, de Benito AM (2014) Effects of a 12-week strength training program on experimented fencers’ movement time. J Strength Cond Res 28(12):3375–3384CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tsolakis C, Vagenas G (2010) Anthropometric, physiological and performance characteristics of elite and sub-elite fencers. J Hum Kinet 23:89–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tsolakis C, Kostaki E, Vagenas G (2010) Anthropometric, flexibility, strength-power, and sport-specific Correlates in elite fencing. Perceptual Motor Skills 110:1015–1028CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tsolakis C, Bogdanis GC, Nikolaou A, Zacharogiannis E (2011) Influence of type of muscle contraction and gender on postactivation potentiation of upper and lower limb explosive performance in elite fencers. J Sports Sci Med 10:577–583PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 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. 19.
    Gholipour M, Tabrizi A, Farahmand F (2008) Kinematics analysis of lunge fencing using stereophotogrametry. World J Sport Sci 1(1):32–37Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Greenhalgh A, Bottoms L, Sinclair J (2012) Influence of surface on impact shock experienced during a fencing lunge. J Appl Biomech 29(4):463–467CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hermens HJ, Freriks B, Disselhorst-Klug C, Rau G (2000) Development of recommendations for SEMG sensors and sensor placement procedures. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 10:361–374CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 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. 23.
    Leis AA, Trapani VC (2000) Atlas of eletromiography. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gribble PA, Kelly SE, Refshauge KM, Hiller CE (2013) Interrater reliability of the star excursion balance test. J Athl Train 48:621–626CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lanning CL, Uhl TL, Ingram CL (2006) Baseline values of trunk endurance and hip strength in collegiate athletes. J Athl Train 41:427–434PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Asci A, Acikada C (2007) Power production among different sports with similar maximum strength. J Strength Cond Res 21:10–16PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hall EJ (2017) Guyton and Hall textbook of medical physiology, 13th edn. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pontaga I (2004) Ankle joint evertor–invertor muscle torque ratio decrease due to recurrent lateral ligament sprains. Clin Biomech 19:760–762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Baumhauer JF, Alosa DM, Renstrom AFH, Trevino S, Beynnon B (1995) Test-retest reliability of ankle injury risk factors. Am J Sports Med 23:571–574CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia S.r.l., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS)Porto AlegreBrazil

Personalised recommendations