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.
METHODS: Participants (N=142) in this randomized controlled trial were office workers aged 20-50 years old with neck, shoulders, and lower back pain. They were randomly assigned to either the ergonomic modification group, the exercise group, the combined exercise and ergonomic modification group, or the control group (no-treatment). The exercise training group performed a series of stretching exercises, while the ergonomic group received some modification in the working place. Outcome measures were assessed by the Cornell Musculoskeletal Disorders Questionnaire at baseline, after 2, 4, and 6 months of intervention.
RESULTS: There was significant differences in pain scores for neck (MD -10.55; 95%CI -14.36 to -6.74), right shoulder (MD -12.17; 95%CI -16.87 to -7.47), left shoulder (MD -11.1; 95%CI -15.1 to -7.09) and lower back (MD -7.8; 95%CI -11.08 to -4.53) between the exercise and control groups. Also, significant differences were seen in pain scores for neck (MD -9.99; 95%CI -13.63 to -6.36), right shoulder (MD -11.12; 95%CI -15.59 to -6.65), left shoulder (MD -10.67; 95%CI -14.49 to -6.85) and lower back (MD -6.87; 95%CI -10 to -3.74) between the combined exercise and ergonomic modification and control groups. The significant improvement from month 4 to 6, was only seen in exercise group (p<0.05).
CONCLUSION: To have a long term effective on MSDs, physical therapists and occupational therapists should use stretching exercises in their treatment programs rather than solely rely on ergonomic modification.
CLINICAL TRIAL ID: NCT02874950 - https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02874950.
OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study was to examine the validity and reliability of the Borg CR-10 scale to monitor the perceived exertion of office exercise training.
METHODS: The study involved 105 staff members employed in a government office with an age range from 25 to 50 years. The Borg CR-10 scale was self-administered two times, with an interval of two weeks in order to evaluate the accuracy of the original findings with a retest. Face validity and content validity were also examined.
RESULTS: Reliability was found to be high for the Borg CR-10 scale (0.898). Additionally a high correlation between the Borg CR-10 scale and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) was identified (rs = 0.754, P
METHODS: Thirty patients with relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS), age: 29.5 (SD = 5.6) years and 30 healthy gender-, age-, and education-matched control group participants, age: 28.8 (SD = 6.0) years, were recruited for this study. The participants in the healthy group were then randomly assigned into an EI (n = 15) group and a no-EI (n = 15) group. Similarly, the participants in the control group were then randomly assigned into EI (n = 15) and no-EI (n = 15) groups. The participants performed a serial reaction time (SRT) task and reaction times. A retention test was performed after 48 hours.
RESULTS: All participants reduced their reaction times across acquisition (MS group: 46.4 (SD = 3.3) minutes, P < 0.001, and healthy group: 39.4 (SD = 3.3) minutes, P < 0.001). The findings for the within-participants effect of repeated measures of time were significant (F(5.06, 283.7) = 71.33. P < 0.001). These results indicate that the interaction between group and time was significant (F(5.06, 283.7) = 6.44. P < 0.001), which indicated that the reaction time in both groups was significantly changed between the MS and healthy groups across times (B1 to B10). The main effect of the group (MS and healthy) (F(1, 56) = 22.78. P < 0.001) and also the main effect of no-EI vs EI (F(1, 56) = 4.71. P < 0.001) were significant.
CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that that RRMS patients are capable of learning new skills, but the provision of EI prior to physical practice is deleterious to implicit learning. It is sufficient to educate MS patients on the aim and general content of the training and only to provide feedback at the end of the rehabilitative session.