Acute exercise and motor memory consolidation: Does exercise type play a role?

A single bout of high-intensity exercise can augment off-line gains in skills acquired during motor practice. It is currently unknown if the type of physical exercise influences the effect on motor skill consolidation. This study investigated the effect of three types of high-intensity exercise following visuomotor skill acquisition on the retention of motor memory in 40 young (25.3 ±3.6 years), able-bodied male participants randomly assigned to one of four groups either performing strength training (STR), circuit training (CT), indoor hockey (HOC) or rest (CON). Retention tests of the motor skill were performed 1 (R1h) and 24 h (R1d) post acquisition. For all exercise groups, mean motor performance scores decreased at R1h compared to post acquisition (POST) level; STR (P = 0.018), CT (P = 0.02), HOC (P = 0.014) and performance scores decreased for CT compared to CON (P = 0.049). Mean performance scores increased from POST to R1d for all exercise groups; STR (P = 0.010), CT (P = 0.020), HOC (P = 0.007) while performance scores for CON decreased (P = 0.043). Changes in motor performance were thus greater for STR (P = 0.006), CT (P < 0.001) and HOC (P < 0.001) compared to CON from POST to R1d. The results demonstrate that high-intensity, acute exercise can lead to a decrease in motor performance assessed shortly after motor skill practice (R1h), but enhances offline effects promoting long-term retention (R1d). Given that different exercise modalities produced similar positive off-line effects on motor memory, we conclude that exercise-induced effects beneficial to consolidation appear to depend primarily on the physiological stimulus rather than type of exercise and movements employed.

Hormonal, immune, and oxidative stress responses to blood flow-restricted exercise.

INTRODUCTION: Heavy-load free-flow resistance exercise (HL-FFRE) is a widely used training modality. Recently, low-load blood-flow restricted resistance exercise (LL-BFRRE) has gained attention in both athletic and clinical settings as an alternative when conventional HL-FFRE is contraindicated or not tolerated. LL-BFRRE has been shown to result in physiological adaptations in muscle and connective tissue that are comparable to those induced by HL-FFRE. The underlying mechanisms remain unclear; however, evidence suggests that LL-BFRRE involves elevated metabolic stress compared to conventional free-flow resistance exercise (FFRE). AIM: The aim was to evaluate the initial (<10 min post-exercise), intermediate (10-20 min), and late (>30 min) hormonal, immune, and oxidative stress responses observed following acute sessions of LL-BFRRE compared to FFRE in healthy adults. METHODS: A systematic literature search of randomized and non-randomized studies was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central, CINAHL, and SPORTDiscus. The Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB2, ROBINS-1) and TESTEX were used to evaluate risk of bias and study quality. Data extractions were based on mean change within groups. RESULTS: A total of 12525 hits were identified, of which 29 articles were included. LL-BFRRE demonstrated greater acute increases in growth hormone responses when compared to overall FFRE at intermediate (SMD 2.04; 95% CI 0.87, 3.22) and late (SMD 2.64; 95% CI 1.13, 4.16) post-exercise phases. LL-BFRRE also demonstrated greater increase in testosterone responses compared to late LL-FFRE. CONCLUSION: These results indicate that LL-BFRRE can induce increased or similar hormone and immune responses compared to LL-FFRE and HL-FFRE along with attenuated oxidative stress responses compared to HL-FFRE.

Progressive practice promotes motor learning and repeated transient increases in corticospinal excitability across multiple days.

BACKGROUND: A session of motor skill learning is accompanied by transient increases in corticospinal excitability(CSE), which are thought to reflect acute changes in neuronal connectivity associated with improvements in sensorimotor performance. Factors influencing changes in excitability and motor skill with continued practice remain however to be elucidated. OBJECTIVE/HYPOTHESIS: Here we investigate the hypothesis that progressive motor practice during consecutive days can induce repeated transient increases in corticospinal excitability and promote motor skill learning. METHODS: Changes in motor performance and CSE were assessed during 4 consecutive days of skill learning and 8 days after the last practice session. CSE was assessed as area under recruitment curves(RC) using transcranial magnetic stimulation(TMS). Two groups of participants(n = 12) practiced a visuomotor tracking-task with task difficulty progressively increased with individual proficiency(PPG) or with the same task level throughout all 4 days(NPPG). RESULTS: Progressive practice resulted in superior motor learning compared to NPPG(p < 0.001). Whereas NPPG displayed increased CSE following only the first day of practice(p < 0.001), progressive motor practice was accompanied by increases in CSE on both the first and the final session of motor practice(p = 0.006). Eight days after ended practice, the groups showed similar CSE, but PPG maintained superior performance at a skilled task level and transfer task performance(p < 0.005,p = 0.029). CONCLUSION: The results demonstrate that progressive practice promotes both motor learning and repeated increases in CSE across multiple days. While changes in CSE did not relate to learning our results suggest that they signify successful training. Progressive practice is thus important for optimizing neurorehabilitation and motor practice protocols in general.