Additionally, dose-response relationships of BT in youth could only be quantified for certain training modalities (i.e., training period, training frequency). In other words, results from a study with a short intervention period were for instance compared to those from a study with a long one, but there was no comparison of the effects of different intervention periods within a single study. Yet, using this approach dose-response relationships are compared indirectly instead of directly. conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis analyzing the effects and dose-response relationships of BT on balance performance in youth. However, although these recommendations seem to be justified based on the available literature, empirical evidence is still lacking. For example, a reduction in the base of support / sensory input and the inclusion of unstable surfaces / cognitive and motor interference tasks have been proposed as being effective means to increase task difficulty and thus enhance balance performance in youth. Contrary, recommendations on how to design BT with respect to different load dimensions (e.g., training volume, training intensity) in order to be most effective in children and adolescents are rather unspecific and have only been derived from review articles. The effectiveness of balance training (BT) for improving different components of balance performance in children and adolescents has been shown by several original studies and these findings have been summarized in systematic reviews. Trial registrationĬurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN83638708 (Retrospectively registered 19th June, 2020). However, BT-high appears to be more effective for increasing measures of proactive balance, whereas BT-low seems to be more effective for improving proxies of static balance. Conclusionsįollowing 7 weeks of BT, enhancements in measures of static, dynamic, and proactive balance were observed in the BT-high and BT-low groups. Further, tendencies toward significant Test x Group interactions were found for the YBT anterior reach (in favor of BT-high: Δ + 9%, p < 0.001, d = 0.60) and for the OLS with eyes opened and on firm surface (in favor of BT-low: Δ + 31%, p = 0.003, d = 0.67). Additionally, a Test x Group interaction was detected for the FRT in favor of the BT-high group (Δ + 8%, p < 0.001, d = 0.35). Significant main effects of Test (i.e., pre- to post-test improvements) were observed for all but one balance measure (i.e., 10-m gait velocity). Pre- and post-training assessments included measures of static (one-legged stance time), dynamic (10-m gait velocity), and proactive (Y-Balance Test reach distance, Functional Reach Test Timed-Up-and-Go Test ) balance. Both groups trained for 7 weeks (2 sessions/week, 30–35 min each). Methodsįorty male adolescents were randomly assigned to a BT program using a low (BT-low: n = 20 age: 12.4 ± 2.0 yrs) or a high (BT-high: n = 20 age: 12.5 ± 2.5 yrs) level of balance task difficulty. Thus, we examined the effects of BT conducted under a high versus a low level of task difficulty on balance performance. However, it remains unclear whether the application of different levels of task difficulty during balance training (BT) leads to altered adaptations in balance performance. Cross-sectional studies have shown that balance performance can be challenged by the level of task difficulty (e.g., varying stance conditions, sensory manipulations).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |