@article{LesinskiPrieskeBeurskensetal.2017, author = {Lesinski, Melanie and Prieske, Olaf and Beurskens, Rainer and Behm, David George and Granacher, Urs}, title = {Effects of drop height and surface instability on neuromuscular activation during drop jumps}, series = {Scandinavian journal of medicine \& science in sports}, volume = {27}, journal = {Scandinavian journal of medicine \& science in sports}, publisher = {Wiley}, address = {Hoboken}, issn = {0905-7188}, doi = {10.1111/sms.12732}, pages = {1090 -- 1098}, year = {2017}, abstract = {The purpose of this study was to examine whether drop height-induced changes in leg muscle activity during drop jumps (DJ) are additionally modulated by surface condition. Twenty-four healthy participants (23.7 +/- 1.8years) performed DJs on a force plate on stable, unstable, and highly unstable surfaces using different drop heights (i.e., 20cm, 40cm, 60cm). Electromyographic (EMG) activity of soleus (SOL), gastrocnemius (GM), tibialis anterior (TA) muscles and coactivation of TA/SOL and TA/GM were analyzed for time intervals 100ms prior to ground contact (preactivation) and 30-60ms after ground contact [short latency response (SLR)]. Increasing drop heights resulted in progressively increased SOL and GM activity during preactivation and SLR (P<0.01; 1.01 d 5.34) while TA/SOL coactivation decreased (P<0.05; 0.51 d 3.01). Increasing surface instability produced decreased activities during preactivation (GM) and SLR (GM, SOL) (P<0.05; 1.36 d 4.30). Coactivation increased during SLR (P<0.05; 1.50 d 2.58). A significant drop heightxsurface interaction was observed for SOL during SLR. Lower SOL activity was found on unstable compared to stable surfaces for drop heights 40cm (P<0.05; 1.25 d 2.12). Findings revealed that instability-related changes in activity of selected leg muscles are minimally affected by drop height.}, language = {en} } @article{LesinskiPrieskeBeurskensetal.2017, author = {Lesinski, Melanie and Prieske, Olaf and Beurskens, Rainer and Behm, David George and Granacher, Urs}, title = {Effects of Drop-height and Surface Instability on Jump Performance and Knee Kinematics}, series = {International journal of sports medicine}, volume = {39}, journal = {International journal of sports medicine}, number = {1}, publisher = {Thieme}, address = {Stuttgart}, issn = {0172-4622}, doi = {10.1055/s-0043-117610}, pages = {50 -- 57}, year = {2017}, abstract = {The purpose of this study was to examine the combined effects of drop-height and surface condition on drop jump (DJ) performance and knee joint kinematics. DJ performance, sagittal and frontal plane knee joint kinematics were measured in jump experienced young male and female adults during DJs on stable, unstable and highly unstable surfaces using different drop-heights (20, 40, 60 cm). Findings revealed impaired DJ performance (Δ5-16\%; p<0.05; 1.43≤d≤2.82), reduced knee valgus motion (Δ33-52\%; p<0.001; 2.70≤d≤3.59), and larger maximum knee flexion angles (Δ13-19\%; p<0.01; 1.74≤d≤1.75) when using higher (60 cm) compared to lower drop-heights (≤40 cm). Further, lower knee flexion angles and velocity were found (Δ8-16\%; p<0.01; 1.49≤d≤2.38) with increasing surface instability. When performing DJs from high (60 cm) compared to moderate drop-heights (40 cm) on highly unstable surfaces, higher knee flexion velocity and maximum knee valgus angles were found (Δ15-19\%; p<0.01; 1.50≤d≤1.53). No significant main and/or interaction effects were observed for the factor sex. In conclusion, knee motion strategies were modified by the factors 'drop-height' and/or 'surface instability'. The combination of high drop-heights (>40 cm) together with highly unstable surfaces should be used cautiously during plyometrics because this may increase the risk of injury due to higher knee valgus stress.}, language = {en} } @misc{LacroixHortobagyiBeurskensetal.2017, author = {Lacroix, Andre and Hortobagyi, Tibor and Beurskens, Rainer and Granacher, Urs}, title = {Effects of Supervised vs. Unsupervised Training Programs on Balance and Muscle Strength in Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis}, series = {Sports medicine}, volume = {47}, journal = {Sports medicine}, publisher = {Springer}, address = {Northcote}, issn = {0112-1642}, doi = {10.1007/s40279-017-0747-6}, pages = {2341 -- 2361}, year = {2017}, abstract = {Objectives The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to quantify the effectiveness of supervised vs. unsupervised balance and/or resistance training programs on measures of balance and muscle strength/ power in healthy older adults. In addition, the impact of supervision on training-induced adaptive processes was evaluated in the form of dose-response relationships by analyzing randomized controlled trials that compared supervised with unsupervised trials. Data Sources A computerized systematic literature search was performed in the electronic databases PubMed, Web of Science, and SportDiscus to detect articles examining the role of supervision in balance and/or resistance training in older adults. Study Eligibility Criteria The initially identified 6041 articles were systematically screened. Studies were included if they examined balance and/or resistance training in adults aged >= 65 years with no relevant diseases and registered at least one behavioral balance (e.g., time during single leg stance) and/or muscle strength/ power outcome (e.g., time for 5-Times-Chair-Rise-Test). Finally, 11 studies were eligible for inclusion in this meta-analysis. Study Appraisal Weighted mean standardized mean differences between subjects (SMDbs) of supervised vs. unsupervised balance/resistance training studies were calculated. The included studies were coded for the following variables: number of participants, sex, age, number and type of interventions, type of balance/strength tests, and change (\%) from pre- to post-intervention values. Additionally, we coded training according to the following modalities: period, frequency, volume, modalities of supervision (i.e., number of supervised/unsupervised sessions within the supervised or unsupervised training groups, respectively). Heterogeneity was computed using I 2 and chi(2) statistics. The methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale. Results Our analyses revealed that in older adults, supervised balance/resistance training was superior compared with unsupervised balance/resistance training in improving measures of static steady-state balance (mean SMDbs = 0.28, p = 0.39), dynamic steady-state balance (mean SMDbs = 0.35, p = 0.02), proactive balance (mean SMDbs = 0.24, p = 0.05), balance test batteries (mean SMDbs = 0.53, p = 0.02), and measures of muscle strength/power (mean SMDbs = 0.51, p = 0.04). Regarding the examined dose-response relationships, our analyses showed that a number of 10-29 additional supervised sessions in the supervised training groups compared with the unsupervised training groups resulted in the largest effects for static steady-state balance (mean SMDbs = 0.35), dynamic steady-state balance (mean SMDbs = 0.37), and muscle strength/power (mean SMDbs = 1.12). Further, >= 30 additional supervised sessions in the supervised training groups were needed to produce the largest effects on proactive balance (mean SMDbs = 0.30) and balance test batteries (mean SMDbs = 0.77). Effects in favor of supervised programs were larger for studies that did not include any supervised sessions in their unsupervised programs (mean SMDbs: 0.28-1.24) compared with studies that implemented a few supervised sessions in their unsupervised programs (e.g., three supervised sessions throughout the entire intervention program; SMDbs: -0.06 to 0.41). Limitations The present findings have to be interpreted with caution because of the low number of eligible studies and the moderate methodological quality of the included studies, which is indicated by a median Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale score of 5. Furthermore, we indirectly compared dose-response relationships across studies and not from single controlled studies. Conclusions Our analyses suggest that supervised balance and/or resistance training improved measures of balance and muscle strength/power to a greater extent than unsupervised programs in older adults. Owing to the small number of available studies, we were unable to establish a clear dose-response relationship with regard to the impact of supervision. However, the positive effects of supervised training are particularly prominent when compared with completely unsupervised training programs. It is therefore recommended to include supervised sessions (i.e., two out of three sessions/week) in balance/resistance training programs to effectively improve balance and muscle strength/power in older adults.}, language = {en} }