The effect of motor imagery and static stretching on anaerobic performance in trained cyclists.

Athletes perform many different protocols as part of their warm-up routine before competition. Stretching has been suggested to decrease force and power production, whereas motor imagery (MI), the visualization of simple or complex motor activities in the absence of physical movement, may increase force and power production in young healthy individuals. Few studies have investigated either of these in trained individuals. No studies have compared the effects of static stretching (SS) with MI on anaerobic performance in trained cyclists. The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of SS compared with MI and quiet rest (QR) on anaerobic performance in trained cyclists. Thirteen trained cyclists (9 men: 4 women; aged 21 ± 2 years) were assessed for height (1.76 ± 0.07 m), weight (73.4 ± 13 kg), % body fat (10.8 ± 6.2%), and maximal oxygen consumption (V[Combining Dot Above]O(2)max of 42.0 ± 5.6 ml·kg(-1)·min(-1)) on a cycle ergometer. The participants performed 3 randomized sessions consisting of cycling for 30 minutes at 65% of V[Combining Dot Above]O(2)max before undergoing 16 minutes of SS, MI, or QR followed by an anaerobic performance test. The SS consisted of 3 sets of 30-second stretches of the hamstrings, quadriceps, hip flexors, and piriformis. Imagery was based on the physical, environmental, task, learning, emotion, and perspective approach and was conducted by a trained technician. Both relative and absolute powers, and peak revolutions per minute, were quantified using the Wingate anaerobic threshold test. No significant interactions existed among SS, MI, and QR for relative peak power, absolute peak power, or peak RPM. In disagreement with current literature, this study suggests that neither SS nor a single session of MI immediately affect anaerobic performance in trained cyclists. If an event is <30 seconds, then SS or MI may not affect performance.

Effect of core strength on the measure of power in the extremities.

The purpose of this study was to (a) develop a functional field test to assess the role of the core musculature and its impact on sport performance in an athletic population and (b) develop a functional field test to determine how well the core can transfer forces from the lower to the upper extremities. Twenty-five DI collegiate football players performed medicine ball throws (forward, reverse, right, and left) in static and dynamic positions. The results of the medicine ball throws were compared with several athletic performance measurements: 1 repetition maximum (1RM) squat, squat kg/bw, 1RM bench press, bench kg/bw, countermovement vertical jump (CMJ), 40-yd dash (40 yd), and proagility (PrA). Push press power (PWR) was used to measure the transfer of forces through the body. Several correlations were found in both the static and dynamic medicine ball throws when compared with the performance measures. Static reverse correlated with CMJ (r = 0.44), 40 yd (r = 0.5), and PrA (r = 0.46). Static left correlated with bench kg/bw (0.42), CMJ (0.44), 40 yd (0.62), and PrA (0.59). Static right also correlated with bench kg/bw (0.41), 40 yd (0.44), and PrA (0.65). Dynamic forward (DyFw) correlated with the 1RM squat (r = 0.45) and 1RM bench (0.41). Dynamic left and Dynamic right correlated with CMJ, r = 0.48 and r = 0.40, respectively. Push press power correlated with bench kg/bw (0.50), CMJ (0.48), and PrA (0.48). A stepwise regression for PWR prediction identified 1RM squat as the best predictor. The results indicate that core strength does have a significant effect on an athlete's ability to create and transfer forces to the extremities. Currently, plank exercises are considered an adequate method of training the core for athletes to improve core strength and stability. This is a problem because it puts the athletes in a nonfunctional static position that is very rarely replicated in the demands of sport-related activities. The core is the center of most kinetic chains in the body and should be trained accordingly.

Biomechanical analysis of two standing sprint start techniques.

The purpose of this study was to examine any differences between the false step standing sprint start and a traditional forward step standing sprint start. Ten DI collegiate female soccer players performed 2 standing sprint starts (Forward step and False step). Each player was videotaped for the first 3 steps of each sprint start. Velocity, acceleration, and displacement were calculated at each of the 3 steps for both standing sprint start techniques. Velocity was significantly faster with the forward step for steps 1 and 2 but not with step 3. Displacement was significantly greater with the forward step for each of the 3 steps. Acceleration was greater with the false step for each step though differences were not significant. The results indicate the forward step outperforms the false step in both velocity and displacement. Even though the false step generates greater acceleration, the backward step drastically undercuts displacement nullifying acceleration. Controversy exists between these 2 standing sprint starts with proponents arguing for their favorite with no evidence to suggest one or the other. The results from this study suggest that the forward step is superior to the false step when the concern for an individual is to get from 1 point to the next as fast as possible.

Relationship between core stability, functional movement, and performance.

The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between core stability, functional movement, and performance. Twenty-eight healthy individuals (age = 24.4 ± 3.9 yr, height = 168.8 ± 12.5 cm, mass = 70.2 ± 14.9 kg) performed several tests in 3 categories: core stability (flexion [FLEX], extension [EXT], right and left lateral [LATr/LATl]), functional movement screen (FMS) (deep squat [DS], trunk-stability push-up [PU], right and left hurdle step [HSr/HSl], in-line lunge [ILLr/ILLl], shoulder mobility [SMr/SMl], active straight leg raise [ASLRr/ASLRl], and rotary stability [RSr/RSl]), and performance tests (backward medicine ball throw [BOMB], T-run [TR], and single leg squat [SLS]). Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. There were significant correlations between SLS and FLEX (r = 0.500), LATr (r = 0.495), and LATl (r = 0.498). The TR correlated significantly with both LATr (r = 0.383) and LATl (r = 0.448). Of the FMS, BOMB was significantly correlated with HSr (r = 0.415), SMr (r = 0.388), PU (r = 0.407), and RSr (r = 0.391). The TR was significantly related with HSr (r = 0.518), ILLl (r = 0.462) and SMr (r = 0.392). The SLS only correlated significantly with SMr (r = 0.446). There were no significant correlations between core stability and FMS. Moderate to weak correlations identified suggest core stability and FMS are not strong predictors of performance. In addition, existent assessments do not satisfactorily confirm the importance of core stability on functional movement. Despite the emphasis fitness professionals have placed on functional movement and core training for increased performance, our results suggest otherwise. Although training for core and functional movement are important to include in a fitness program, especially for injury prevention, they should not be the primary emphasis of any training program.

The relationship between core stability and performance in division I football players.

The purpose of this study was to identify relationships between core stability and various strength and power variables in strength and power athletes. National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I football players (height 184.0 +/- 7.1 cm, weight 100.5 +/- 22.4 kg) completed strength and performance testing before off-season conditioning. Subjects were tested on three strength variables (one-repetition maximum [1RM] bench press, 1RM squat, and 1RM power clean), four performance variables (countermovement vertical jump [CMJ], 20- and 40-yd sprints, and a 10-yd shuttle run), and core stability (back extension, trunk flexion, and left and right bridge). Significant correlations were identified between total core strength and 20-yd sprint (r = -0.594), 40-yd sprint (r = -0.604), shuttle run (r = -0.551), CMJ (r = 0.591), power clean/body weight (BW) (r = 0.622), 1RM squat (r = -0.470), bench press/BW (r = 0.369), and combined 1RM/BW (r = 0.447); trunk flexion and 20-yd sprint (r = -0.485), 40-yd sprint (r = -0.479), shuttle run (r = -0.443), CMJ (r = 0.436), power clean/BW (r = 0.396), and 1RM squat (r = -0.416); back extension and CMJ (r = 0.536), and power clean/BW (r = 0.449); right bridge and 20-yd sprint r = -0.410) and 40-yd sprint (r = -0.435), CMJ (r = 0.403), power clean/BW (r = 0.519) and bench press/BW (r = 0.372) and combined 1RM/BW (r = 0.406); and left bridge and 20-yd sprint (r = -0.376) and 40-yd sprint (r = -0.397), shuttle run (r = -0.374), and power clean/BW (r = 0.460). The results of this study suggest that core stability is moderately related to strength and performance. Thus, increases in core strength are not going to contribute significantly to strength and power and should not be the focus of strength and conditioning.