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.
METHODS: A total of 51 subjects qualified to take part in this quasi-experimental study. They were assigned to either the resistance exercise group (n = 26) or control group (n = 25). The mean age of the 45 participants who completed the program was 70.7 (SD = 6.6). The exercise group met twice per week and performing one to three sets of 8 to 10 repetitions for each of nine lower-limb elastic resistance exercises. All exercises were conducted at low to moderate intensities in sitting or standing positions. The subjects were tested at baseline and 6 and 12 weeks into the program.
RESULTS: The results showed statistically significant improvements in lower-limb muscle strength as measured by five times sit-to-stand test (%Δ = 22.6) and dynamic balance quantified by the timed up-and-go test (%Δ = 18.7), four-square step test (%Δ = 14.67), and step test for the right (%Δ = 18.36) and left (%Δ = 18.80) legs. No significant changes were observed in static balance as measured using the tandem stand test (%Δ = 3.25), and one-leg stand test with eyes opened (%Δ = 9.58) and eyes closed (%Δ = -0.61) after completion of the program.
CONCLUSION: The findings support the feasibility and efficacy of a simple and inexpensive resistance training program to improve lower-limb muscle strength and dynamic balance among the institutionalized older adults.
DESIGN: A meta-analysis was conducted to determine the potential impact of blood flow restriction on patients with knee injuries. PubMed, EBSCO, and Web of Science databases were searched for eligible studies from January 2000 until January 2020. The mean differences of the data were analyzed using Revman 5.3 software with a 95% confidence interval.
RESULTS: Nine studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. These studies involved 179 patients who received L-BFR, 96 patients who underwent high-load resistance training, and another 94 patients who underwent low-load resistance training. The analysis of pooled data showed that patients in both the L-BFR (standardized mean difference, 0.83 [0.53, 1.14], P < 0.01) and high-load resistance training (standardized mean difference, -0.09 [-0.43, 0.24], P = 0.58) groups experienced an increase in muscle strength after the training. In addition, pain score was significantly reduced in the L-BFR group compared with the other two groups (standardized mean difference, -0.61 [-1.19, -0.03], P = 0.04).
CONCLUSIONS: Muscle strength increased after L-BFR and high-load resistance training compared with low-load resistance training. Furthermore, pain score was significantly reduced after L-BFR. Hence, L-BFR is a potential intervention to be applied in rehabilitation of knee injuries.
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.