Refine
Has Fulltext
- no (2)
Document Type
- Article (2) (remove)
Language
- English (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (2) (remove)
Keywords
- balance (2) (remove)
Institute
- Strukturbereich Kognitionswissenschaften (2) (remove)
Physical fatigue (PF) negatively affects postural control, resulting in impaired balance performance in young and older adults. Similar effects on postural control can be observed for mental fatigue (MF) mainly in older adults. Controversial results exist for young adults. There is a void in the literature on the effects of fatigue on balance and cortical activity. Therefore, this study aimed to examine the acute effects of PF and MF on postural sway and cortical activity. Fifteen healthy young adults aged 28 ± 3 years participated in this study. MF and PF protocols comprising of an all-out repeated sit-to-stand task and a computer-based attention network test, respectively, were applied in random order. Pre and post fatigue, cortical activity and postural sway (i.e., center of pressure displacements [CoPd], velocity [CoPv], and CoP variability [CV CoPd, CV CoPv]) were tested during a challenging bipedal balance board task. Absolute spectral power was calculated for theta (4–7.5 Hz), alpha-2 (10.5–12.5 Hz), beta-1 (13–18 Hz), and beta-2 (18.5–25 Hz) in frontal, central, and parietal regions of interest (ROI) and baseline-normalized. Inference statistics revealed a significant time-by-fatigue interaction for CoPd (p = 0.009, d = 0.39, Δ 9.2%) and CoPv (p = 0.009, d = 0.36, Δ 9.2%), and a significant main effect of time for CoP variability (CV CoPd: p = 0.001, d = 0.84; CV CoPv: p = 0.05, d = 0.62). Post hoc analyses showed a significant increase in CoPd (p = 0.002, d = 1.03) and CoPv (p = 0.003, d = 1.03) following PF but not MF. For cortical activity, a significant time-by-fatigue interaction was found for relative alpha-2 power in parietal (p < 0.001, d = 0.06) areas. Post hoc tests indicated larger alpha-2 power increases after PF (p < 0.001, d = 1.69, Δ 3.9%) compared to MF (p = 0.001, d = 1.03, Δ 2.5%). In addition, changes in parietal alpha-2 power and measures of postural sway did not correlate significantly, irrespective of the applied fatigue protocol. No significant changes were found for the other frequency bands, irrespective of the fatigue protocol and ROI under investigation. Thus, the applied PF protocol resulted in increased postural sway (CoPd and CoPv) and CoP variability accompanied by enhanced alpha-2 power in the parietal ROI while MF led to increased CoP variability and alpha-2 power in our sample of young adults. Potential underlying cortical mechanisms responsible for the greater increase in parietal alpha-2 power after PF were discussed but could not be clearly identified as cause. Therefore, further future research is needed to decipher alternative interpretations.
Power training programs have proved to be effective in improving components of physical fitness such as speed. According to the concept of training specificity, it was postulated that exercises must attempt to closely mimic the demands of the respective activity. When transferring this idea to speed development, the purpose of the present study was to examine the effects of resisted sprint (RST) vs. traditional power training (TPT) on physical fitness in healthy young adults. Thirty-five healthy, physically active adults were randomly assigned to a RST (n = 10, 23 ± 3 years), a TPT (n = 9, 23 ± 3 years), or a passive control group (n = 16, 23 ± 2 years). RST and TPT exercised for 6 weeks with three training sessions/week each lasting 45–60 min. RST comprised frontal and lateral sprint exercises using an expander system with increasing levels of resistance that was attached to a treadmill (h/p/cosmos). TPT included ballistic strength training at 40% of the one-repetition-maximum for the lower limbs (e.g., leg press, knee extensions). Before and after training, sprint (20-m sprint), change-of-direction speed (T-agility test), jump (drop, countermovement jump), and balance performances (Y balance test) were assessed. ANCOVA statistics revealed large main effects of group for 20-m sprint velocity and ground contact time (0.81 ≤ d ≤ 1.00). Post-hoc tests showed higher sprint velocity following RST and TPT (0.69 ≤ d ≤ 0.82) when compared to the control group, but no difference between RST and TPT. Pre-to-post changes amounted to 4.5% for RST [90%CI: (−1.1%;10.1%), d = 1.23] and 2.6% for TPT [90%CI: (0.4%;4.8%), d = 1.59]. Additionally, ground contact times during sprinting were shorter following RST and TPT (0.68 ≤ d ≤ 1.09) compared to the control group, but no difference between RST and TPT. Pre-to-post changes amounted to −6.3% for RST [90%CI: (−11.4%;−1.1%), d = 1.45) and −2.7% for TPT [90%CI: (−4.2%;−1.2%), d = 2.36]. Finally, effects for change-of-direction speed, jump, and balance performance varied from small-to-large. The present findings indicate that 6 weeks of RST and TPT produced similar effects on 20-m sprint performance compared with a passive control in healthy and physically active, young adults. However, no training-related effects were found for change-of-direction speed, jump and balance performance. We conclude that both training regimes can be applied for speed development.