The on:off ratio was as follows: 6-sec tetanic stimulation followed by a rest of 20 sec, during which the participants were stimulated at 3 Hz. Data are presented as mean values ± {Selleck Anti-infection Compound Library|Selleck Antiinfection Compound Library|Selleck Anti-infection Compound Library|Selleck Antiinfection Compound Library|Selleckchem Anti-infection Compound Library|Selleckchem Antiinfection Compound Library|Selleckchem Anti-infection Compound Library|Selleckchem Antiinfection Compound Library|Anti-infection Compound Library|Antiinfection Compound Library|Anti-infection Compound Library|Antiinfection Compound Library|Anti-infection Compound Library|Antiinfection Compound Library|Anti-infection Compound Library|Antiinfection Compound Library|Anti-infection Compound Library|Antiinfection Compound Library|Anti-infection Compound Library|Antiinfection Compound Library|Anti-infection Compound Library|Antiinfection Compound Library|Anti-infection Compound Library|Antiinfection Compound Library|Anti-infection Compound Library|Antiinfection Compound Library|buy Anti-infection Compound Library|Anti-infection Compound Library ic50|Anti-infection Compound Library price|Anti-infection Compound Library cost|Anti-infection Compound Library solubility dmso|Anti-infection Compound Library purchase|Anti-infection Compound Library manufacturer|Anti-infection Compound Library research buy|Anti-infection Compound Library order|Anti-infection Compound Library mouse|Anti-infection Compound Library chemical structure|Anti-infection Compound Library mw|Anti-infection Compound Library molecular weight|Anti-infection Compound Library datasheet|Anti-infection Compound Library supplier|Anti-infection Compound Library in vitro|Anti-infection Compound Library cell line|Anti-infection Compound Library concentration|Anti-infection Compound Library nmr|Anti-infection Compound Library in vivo|Anti-infection Compound Library clinical trial|Anti-infection Compound Library cell assay|Anti-infection Compound Library screening|Anti-infection Compound Library high throughput|buy Antiinfection Compound Library|Antiinfection Compound Library ic50|Antiinfection Compound Library price|Antiinfection Compound Library cost|Antiinfection Compound Library solubility dmso|Antiinfection Compound Library purchase|Antiinfection Compound Library manufacturer|Antiinfection Compound Library research buy|Antiinfection Compound Library order|Antiinfection Compound Library chemical structure|Antiinfection Compound Library datasheet|Antiinfection Compound Library supplier|Antiinfection Compound Library in vitro|Antiinfection Compound Library cell line|Antiinfection Compound Library concentration|Antiinfection Compound Library clinical trial|Antiinfection Compound Library cell assay|Antiinfection Compound Library screening|Antiinfection Compound Library high throughput|Anti-infection Compound high throughput screening| standard error (SE). The data (EMG of SOL, GM, and GL as well as force of MVC) of each test condition (pretest, posttest, recovery) were checked for normal distribution with Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical An analysis of variance (ANOVA) for repeated measures was used to compare dependent variables. The Bonferroni correction was used to analyze differences among pairs of means. To prove the effectiveness

of the treatment, the effect sizes (f) for ANOVA (for repeated measures) were determined as follows: σ represents the standard deviation in the Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical population and σμ is the standard deviation of the effect (Faul et al. 2007). Furthermore, to determine whether a statistically significant difference is a difference of practical concern, the limits of Cohen (1988) were used: f-values <0.2 indicate small, f-values <0.5 medium, and f-values <0.8 large effects (Cohen 1988). The significance level was set at P < 0.05. The Pearson coefficient of correlation

was used to examine the relationships between the muscle activities during pretest, posttest, and recovery, respectively. All analyses were performed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS, 19.0). Results The force and EMG activity of the muscles are presented Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical in Figure 2. The data in Figure 2 are shown as percentage alteration Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical normalized to the pretest values. EMG activity of the GL significantly decreased during NMES. In the posttest, EMG amplitude decreased from 0.501 ± 0.066 mV to 0.430 ± 0.066 mV (P < 0.01, f = 0.77, Fig. 2A). During

recovery, EMG activity increased to 0.498 ± 0.072 mV (Fig. 2A). Figure 2 Mean and standard error of the normalized electromyography (EMG) amplitudes of Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical the (A) m. gastrocnemius lateralis, (B) m. gastrocnemius medialis, (C) m. soleus, and (D) force in the pretest, posttest, and recovery phase. The data are normalized to the … Simultaneously, EMG activity of the SOL increased during NMES from 0.507 ± 0.074 mV to 0.561 ± 0.082 mV. Difference between pretest and posttest turned out to be significant (P < 0.01, f = 1.18) (Fig. below 2C). Furthermore, during recovery, the EMG amplitude still increased up to 0.577 ± 0.085 mV. EMG activity during this phase was significantly higher than during pretest (P < 0.01, f = 1.18). The results of the GM showed no significant changes between pretest and posttest (Fig. 2B). The EMG amplitude was 0.547 ± 0.076 mV and increased slightly to 0.559 ± 0.076 mV. The difference was not significant. During recovery, the EMG amplitude increased to 0.595 ± 0.084 mV. MVC did not change significantly in posttest as compared to pretest (1062.9 ± 72.4 N vs. 1097.3 ± 76.9 N, respectively). During recovery, force values increased to 1111.9 ± 66.0 N (Fig. 2D).