Abstract: In this study, we investigated a new method of training for maximal strength and flexibility, which included exertion with superimposed vibration (vibratory stimulation, VS) on target muscles. Twenty-eight male athletes were divided into three groups, and trained three times a week for 3 weeks in one of the following conditions: (A) conventional exercises for strength of the arms and VS stretching exercises for the legs; (B) VS strength exercises for the arms and conventional stretching exercises for the legs; (C) irrelevant training (control group). The vibration was applied at 44 Hz while its amplitude was 3 mm. The effect of training was evaluated by means of isotonic maximal force, heel-to-heel length in the two-leg split across, and flex-and-reach test for body flexion. The VS strength training yielded an average increase in isotonic maximal strength of 49.8%, compared with an average gain of 16% with conventional training, while no gain was observed for the control group. The VS flexibility training resulted in an average gain in the legs split of 14.5 cm compared with 4.1 cm for the conventional training and 2 cm for the control groups, respectively. The ANOVA revealed significant pre-post training effects and an interaction between pre-post training and 'treatment' effects (P < 0.001) for the isotonic maximal force and both flexibility tests. It was concluded that superimposed vibrations applied for short periods allow for increased gains in maximal strength and flexibility.

Abstract: Motor learning is central to sports, medicine, and other health professions as it entails learning through practice. To achieve proficiency in a complex motor task, many hours of practice are required. Therefore, finding ways to speed up the learning process is important. This study examines the impact of different training approaches on learning three-ball cascade juggling. Participants were assigned to one of two groups: practicing by gradually increasing difficulty and elements of the juggling movement (“learning in parts”) or training on the complete skill from the start (“all-at-once”). Results revealed that although the all-at-once group in the early stages of learning showed greater improvement in performance, the “learning in parts” group managed to catch up, even over a relatively short period of time. The lack of difference in performance between the groups at the end of the training session suggests that the choice of training regime (between all-at-once and learning in parts), at least in the short term, can be selected based on other factors such as the learner's preference, practical considerations, and cognitive style.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: An anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture may result in poor sensorimotor knee control and, consequentially, adapted movement strategies to help maintain knee stability. Whether patients display atypical lower limb mechanics during weight acceptance of stair descent at different time frames after ACL reconstruction (ACLR) is unknown. PURPOSE: To compare the presence of atypical lower limb mechanics during the weight acceptance phase of stair descent among athletes at early, middle, and late time frames after unilateral ACLR. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. METHODS: A total of 49 athletes with ACLR were classified into 3 groups according to time after ACLR-early (<6 months; n = 17), middle (6-18 months; n = 16), and late (>18 months; n = 16)-and compared with asymptomatic athletes (control; n = 18). Sagittal plane hip, knee, and ankle angles; angular velocities; moments; and powers were compared between the ACLR groups' injured and noninjured legs and the control group as well as between legs within groups using functional data analysis methods. RESULTS: All 3 ACLR groups showed greater knee flexion angles and moments than the control group for injured and noninjured legs. For the other outcomes, the early group had, compared with the control group, less hip power absorption, more knee power absorption, lower ankle plantarflexion angle, lower ankle dorsiflexion moment, and less ankle power absorption for the injured leg and more knee power absorption and higher vertical ground reaction force for the noninjured leg. In addition, the late group showed differences from the control group for the injured leg revealing more knee power absorption and lower ankle plantarflexion angle. Only the early group took a longer time than the control group to complete weight acceptance and demonstrated asymmetry for multiple outcomes. CONCLUSION: Athletes with different time frames after ACLR revealed atypically large knee angles and moments during weight acceptance of stair descent for both the injured and the noninjured legs. These findings may express a chronically adapted strategy to increase knee control. In contrast, atypical hip and ankle mechanics seem restricted to an early time frame after ACLR. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Rehabilitation after ACLR should include early training in controlling weight acceptance. Including a control group is essential when evaluating movement patterns after ACLR because both legs may be affected.