MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a pilot prospective, randomized trial of women aged ≥18 years with SUI symptoms who underwent PFMEs at University Malaya Medical Centre from October 2011 to October 2013. The patients were randomly divided into two groups: control (PFMEs alone) and VKD (PFMEs with VKD biofeedback). The patients underwent 16 weeks of pelvic floor training, during which they were assessed using Australian pelvic floor questionnaires and modified Oxford scales for pelvic floor muscle strength at week 0, 4, and 16.
RESULTS: Forty patients were recruited (control 19, VKD 21). Three patients in the control group dropped out during week 16 training, whereas the VKD group had no dropouts. The VKD group reported significantly earlier improvement in SUI scores, as assessed by the Australian pelvic floor questionnaires (P = .035) at week 4. However, there was no significant difference between the groups' SUI scores at week 16. Pelvic floor muscle strength was significantly better in the VKD group at week 4 (P = .025) and week 16 (P = 0.001). The subjective cure rate was similar in both groups at week 16 (62.5% for control and 61.9% for VKD) (P = 0.742).
CONCLUSION: Using the VKD resulted in significant early improvement in SUI scores, and pelvic muscle strength had improved significantly by the end of the study. The VKD proved useful as an adjunct for pelvic floor training.
METHODS: In experiment 1 (n = 10), we tested the direction of force exerted in an isometric aiming task before and after 40 repetitions of 2-s maximal-force ballistic contractions toward a single directional target. In experiment 2 (n = 12), each participant completed three training conditions in a counterbalanced crossover design. In two conditions, both the aiming task and the training were conducted in the same (neutral) forearm posture. In one of these conditions, the training involved weak forces to determine whether the level of neural drive during training influences the degree of bias. In the third condition, high-force training contractions were performed in a 90° pronated forearm posture, whereas the low-force aiming task was performed in a neutral forearm posture. This dissociated the extrinsic training direction from the pulling direction of the trained muscles during the aiming task.
RESULTS: In experiment 1, we found that aiming direction was biased toward the training direction across a large area of the work space (approximately ±135°; tested for 16 targets spaced 22.5° apart), whereas in experiment 2, we found systematic bias in aiming toward the training direction defined in extrinsic space, but only immediately after high-force contractions.
CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that bias effects of training involving strong neural drive generalize broadly to untrained movement directions and are expressed according to extrinsic rather than muscle-based coordinates.
METHODS: Thirty-two adults with recurrent, nonspecific LBP were randomized into two groups: Appendicular BFR exercise (BFR exercise) or control exercise (CON exercise). All participants trained (two times per week) for 10 wk, with a 12-wk follow-up. Participants performed three sets of leg extension (LE), plantar flexion (PF), and elbow flexion (EF) exercises followed by low-load TE exercise without BFR. Outcome measures included magnetic resonance imaging-derived muscle size (quadriceps and TE), strength (LE, PF, EF, and TE), and endurance (LE and TE).
RESULTS: There was no evidence for a cross-transfer of effect to the TE. There was also no statistically significant enhancement of limb skeletal muscle size or function of BFR relative to CON exercise at any time point; though, moderate effect sizes for BFR exercise were observed for enhanced muscle size and strength in the leg extensors.
CONCLUSIONS: Low-load BFR exercise of the appendicular muscles did not result in a cross-transfer of effect to the TE musculature. There was also no significant benefit of low-load BFR exercise on the appendicular muscle size and function, suggesting no benefit from low-load BFR exercise in adults with recurrent, nonspecific LBP.
METHOD: Eleven children participated in this study (7 males and 4 females, mean age 10 years 3 months, standard deviation (SD) 3y) with Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS) I-III. This study used a prospective multiple assessment baseline design to assess the effect of SHEP upon multiple outcomes obtained in three different phases. Exercise intensity was quantified by OMNI-RPE assessed by caregivers and children. Outcome assessments of walking speed, GMFM-66 and physiological cost index (PCI) were measured four times at pre-intervention (Phase 1) and at 3-weekly intervals over eight weeks during intervention (Phase 2). Follow-up assessments were performed at one month and three months after intervention (Phase 3). Statistical analyses were repeated measures ANOVA and Wilcoxon signed-rank test.
RESULTS: SHEP improved walking ability in children with CP, particularly for their walking speed (p= 0.01, Cohen's d= 1.9). The improvement of GMFM-66 scores during Phase 2 and Phase 3 had a large effect size, with Cohen's d of 1.039 and 1.054, respectively, compared with that during Phase 1 (p< 0.017). No significant change of PCI was observed (Cohen's d= 0.39).
CONCLUSION: SHEP can be a useful intervention tool, given as a written, structured, and practical exercise program undertaken at home to achieve short term goals for improving walking ability when added to standard care.
BACKGROUND: The back squat is an integral aspect of any resistance training program to improve athletic performance. It is also used for injury prevention of the lower limbs.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of back squat training at different intensities on strength and flexibility of the hamstring muscle group (HMG).
METHODS: Twenty-two male recreational bodybuilders with at least two years of experience in resistance training were recruited to participate in a nine-week training program. They were randomly assigned to a heavy back squat group (90-95% of one repetition maximum) or a moderate-intensity back squat group (60-65% of one repetition maximum).
RESULTS: The heavy back squat group resulted in a significantly (p < 0.001) increased in one repetition maximum strength but a significant (p < 0.001) reduction in HMG flexibility when compared to their counterparts. The results of the study indicate that while a heavy back squat training program is effective in improving strength, it has an adverse effect on the flexibility of the HMG.
CONCLUSION: The implication of this study is that there is a tradeoff between strength and flexibility and trainers should select the appropriate training protocols for their athletes to maximize athletic performance.