Refine
Document Type
- Article (16)
- Contribution to a Periodical (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (17)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (17)
Keywords
- Legs (3)
- Tensiomyography (3)
- BFR training (2)
- Running (2)
- Strength training (2)
- adaptations to microgravity (2)
- exercise countermeasure (2)
- fat-free-mass (2)
- human space flight (2)
- muscle quality (2)
Institute
- Sportwissenschaften (8)
- Psychologie und Sportwissenschaften (6)
- Medizin (2)
- Präsidium (1)
Objectives: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) and lumbar disc herniation (LDH) are often accompanied by frequently occurring leg cramps severely affecting patients’ life and sleep quality. Recent evidence suggests that neuromuscular electric stimulation (NMES) of cramp-prone muscles may prevent cramps in lumbar disorders.
Materials and Methods: Thirty-two men and women (63 ± 9 years) with LSS and/or LDH suffering from cramps were randomly allocated to four different groups. Unilateral stimulation of the gastrocnemius was applied twice a week over four weeks (3 × 6 × 5 sec stimulation trains at 30 Hz above the individual cramp threshold frequency [CTF]). Three groups received either 85%, 55%, or 25% of their maximum tolerated stimulation intensity, whereas one group only received pseudo-stimulation.
Results: The number of reported leg cramps decreased in the 25% (25 ± 14 to 7 ± 4; p = 0.002), 55% (24 ± 10 to 10 ± 11; p = 0.014) and 85%NMES (23 ± 17 to 1 ± 1; p < 0.001) group, whereas it remained unchanged after pseudo-stimulation (20 ± 32 to 19 ± 33; p > 0.999). In the 25% and 85%NMES group, this improvement was accompanied by an increased CTF (p < 0.001).
Conclusion: Regularly applied NMES of the calf muscles reduces leg cramps in patients with LSS/LDH even at low stimulation intensity.
Introduction: To date, several meta-analyses clearly demonstrated that resistance and plyometric training are effective to improve physical fitness in children and adolescents. However, a methodological limitation of meta-analyses is that they synthesize results from different studies and hence ignore important differences across studies (i.e., mixing apples and oranges). Therefore, we aimed at examining comparative intervention studies that assessed the effects of age, sex, maturation, and resistance or plyometric training descriptors (e.g., training intensity, volume etc.) on measures of physical fitness while holding other variables constant.
Methods: To identify relevant studies, we systematically searched multiple electronic databases (e.g., PubMed) from inception to March 2018. We included resistance and plyometric training studies in healthy young athletes and non-athletes aged 6 to 18 years that investigated the effects of moderator variables (e.g., age, maturity, sex, etc.) on components of physical fitness (i.e., muscle strength and power).
Results: Our systematic literature search revealed a total of 75 eligible resistance and plyometric training studies, including 5,138 participants. Mean duration of resistance and plyometric training programs amounted to 8.9 ± 3.6 weeks and 7.1±1.4 weeks, respectively. Our findings showed that maturation affects plyometric and resistance training outcomes differently, with the former eliciting greater adaptations pre-peak height velocity (PHV) and the latter around- and post-PHV. Sex has no major impact on resistance training related outcomes (e.g., maximal strength, 10 repetition maximum). In terms of plyometric training, around-PHV boys appear to respond with larger performance improvements (e.g., jump height, jump distance) compared with girls. Different types of resistance training (e.g., body weight, free weights) are effective in improving measures of muscle strength (e.g., maximum voluntary contraction) in untrained children and adolescents. Effects of plyometric training in untrained youth primarily follow the principle of training specificity. Despite the fact that only 6 out of 75 comparative studies investigated resistance or plyometric training in trained individuals, positive effects were reported in all 6 studies (e.g., maximum strength and vertical jump height, respectively).
Conclusions: The present review article identified research gaps (e.g., training descriptors, modern alternative training modalities) that should be addressed in future comparative studies.
There are errors in the Funding section. The correct funding information is as follows: This study is part of the research project "Resistance Training in Youth Athletes" that was funded by the German Federal Institute of Sport Science (ZMVI1-08190114-18). In addition, we acknowledge the support of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) and Open Access Publishing Fund of University of Potsdam, Germany. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
The purpose of this study was to investigate whether a six-week, twice weekly resistance training (4 sets at 30% 1-RM until failure) with practical blood flow restriction (BFR) using 7cm wide cuffs with a twist lock placed below the patella is superior to training without BFR (NoBFR) concerning muscle mass and strength gains in calf muscles.
A two-group (BFR n = 12, mean age 27.33 (7.0) years, training experience 7.3 (7.0) years; NoBFR n = 9, mean age 28.9 (7.4) years, training experience 7.1 (6.6) years) randomized matched pair design based on initial 1-RM was used to assess the effects on structural and functional adaptations in healthy males (Perometer calf volume [CV], gastrocnemius muscle thickness using ultrasound [MT], 7-maximal hopping test for leg stiffness [LS], 1-RM smith machine calf raise [1-RM], and visual analogue scale as a measure of pain intensity [VAS]).
The mean number of repetitions completed per training session across the intervention period was higher in the NoBFR group compared to the BFR group (70 (16) vs. 52 (9), p = 0.002). VAS measured during the first session increased similarly in both groups from first to fourth set (p<0.001). No group effects or time×group interactions were found for CV, MT, LS, and 1-RM. However, there were significant time effects for MT (BFR +0.07 cm; NoBFR +0.04; p = 0.008), and 1-RM (BFR +40 kg; NoBFR +34 kg; p<0.001).
LS and CV remained unchanged through training. VAS in both groups were similar, and BFR and NoBFR were equally effective for increasing 1-RM and MT in trained males. However, BFR was more time efficient, due to lesser repetition per training session.
Application of blood flow restriction to optimize exercise countermeasures for human space flight
(2019)
In recent years there has been a strong increase in publications on blood flow restriction (BFR) training. In particular, the fact that this type of training requires only low resistance to induce muscle strength and mass gains, makes BFR training interesting for athletes and scientists alike. For the same reason this type of training is particularly interesting for astronauts working out in space. Lower resistance during training would have the advantage of reducing the risk of strain-induced injuries. Furthermore, strength training with lower resistances would have implications for the equipment required for training under microgravity conditions, as significantly lower resistances have to be provided by the training machines. Even though we are only about to understand the effects of blood flow restriction on exercise types other than low-intensity strength training, the available data indicate that BFR of leg muscles is also able to improve the training effects of walking or running at slow speeds. The underlying mechanisms of BFR-induced functional and structural adaptations are still unclear. An essential aspect seems to be the premature fatigue of Type-I muscle fibers, which requires premature recruitment of Type-II muscle fibers to maintain a given force output. Other theories assume that cell swelling, anabolic hormones, myokines and reactive oxygen species are involved in the mediation of BFR training-related effects. This review article is intended to summarize the main advantages and disadvantages, but also the potential risks of such training for astronauts.
Strenuous and unaccustomed exercise frequently lead to what has been coined “delayed onset muscle soreness” (DOMS). As implied by this term, it has been proposed that the associated pain and stiffness stem from micro-lesions, inflammation, or metabolite accumulation within the skeletal muscle. However, recent research points towards a strong involvement of the connective tissue. First, according to anatomical studies, the deep fascia displays an intimate structural relationship with the underlying skeletal muscle and may therefore be damaged during excessive loading. Second, histological and experimental studies suggest a rich supply of algogenic nociceptors whose stimulation evokes stronger pain responses than muscle irritation. Taken together, the findings support the hypothesis that DOMS originates in the muscle-associated connective tissue rather than in the muscle itself. Sports and fitness professionals designing exercise programs should hence consider fascia-oriented methods and techniques (e.g., foam rolling, collagen supplementation) when aiming to treat or prevent DOMS.
Background: It is often advised to ensure a high-protein intake during energy-restricted diets. However, it is unclear whether a high-protein intake is able to maintain muscle mass and contractility in the absence of resistance training.
Materials and Methods: After 1 week of body mass maintenance (45 kcal/kg), 28 male college students not performing resistance training were randomized to either the energy-restricted (ER, 30 kcal/kg, n = 14) or the eucaloric control group (CG, 45 kcal/kg, n = 14) for 6 weeks. Both groups had their protein intake matched at 2.8 g/kg fat-free-mass and continued their habitual training throughout the study. Body composition was assessed weekly using multifrequency bioelectrical impedance analysis. Contractile properties of the m. rectus femoris were examined with Tensiomyography and MyotonPRO at weeks 1, 3, and 5 along with sleep (PSQI) and mood (POMS).
Results: The ER group revealed greater reductions in body mass (Δ −3.22 kg vs. Δ 1.90 kg, p < 0.001, partial η2 = 0.360), lean body mass (Δ −1.49 kg vs. Δ 0.68 kg, p < 0.001, partial η2 = 0.152), body cell mass (Δ −0.85 kg vs. Δ 0.59 kg, p < 0.001, partial η2 = 0.181), intracellular water (Δ −0.58 l vs. Δ 0.55 l, p < 0.001, partial η2 = 0.445) and body fat percentage (Δ −1.74% vs. Δ 1.22%, p < 0.001, partial η2 = 433) compared to the CG. Contractile properties, sleep onset, sleep duration as well as depression, fatigue and hostility did not change (p > 0.05). The PSQI score (Δ −1.43 vs. Δ −0.64, p = 0.006, partial η2 = 0.176) and vigor (Δ −2.79 vs. Δ −4.71, p = 0.040, partial η2 = 0.116) decreased significantly in the ER group and the CG, respectively.
Discussion: The present data show that a high-protein intake alone was not able to prevent lean mass loss associated with a 6-week moderate energy restriction in college students. Notably, it is unknown whether protein intake at 2.8 g/kg fat-free-mass prevented larger decreases in lean body mass. Muscle contractility was not negatively altered by this form of energy restriction. Sleep quality improved in both groups. Whether these advantages are due to the high-protein intake cannot be clarified and warrants further study. Although vigor was negatively affected in both groups, other mood parameters did not change.
Introduction: The purpose of this study was to clarify whether blood-flow restriction during resting intervals [resting blood-flow restriction (rBFR)] is comparable to a continuous BFR (cBFR) training regarding its effects on maximum strength, hypertrophy, fatigue resistance, and perceived discomfort.
Materials and Methods: Nineteen recreationally trained participants performed four sets (30-15-15-15 repetitions) with 20% 1RM on a 45° leg press twice a week for 6 weeks (cBFR, n = 10; rBFR, n = 9). Maximum strength, fatigue resistance, muscle thickness, and girth were assessed at three timepoints (pre, mid, and post). Subjective pain and perceived exertion were determined immediately after training at two timepoints (mid and post).
Results: Maximum strength (p < 0.001), fatigue resistance (p < 0.001), muscle thickness (p < 0.001), and girth (p = 0.008) increased in both groups over time with no differences between groups (p > 0.05). During the intervention, the rBFR group exposed significantly lower perceived pain and exertion values compared to cBFR (p < 0.05).
Discussion: Resting blood-flow restriction training led to similar gains in strength, fatigue resistance, and muscle hypertrophy as cBFR training while provoking less discomfort and perceived exertion in participants. In summary, rBFR training could provide a meaningful alternative to cBFR as this study showed similar functional and structural changes as well as less discomfort.
Korrektur zu: Roth C, Rettenmaier L and Behringer M (2021) High-Protein Energy-Restriction: Effects on Body Composition, Contractile Properties, Mood, and Sleep in Active Young College Students. Front. Sports Act. Living 3:683327. https://doi.org/10.3389/fspor.2021.683327