Ain't Just Imagination! Effects of Motor Imagery Training on Strength and Power Performance of Athletes during Detraining.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to investigate the effects of motor imagery (MI) training on strength and power performances of professional athletes during a period of detraining caused by the COVID-19 outbreak. METHODS: Thirty male professional basketball players (age, 26.1 ± 6.2 yr) were randomly assigned to three counterbalanced groups: two MI training groups, who completed imagery training by mentally rehearsing upper and lower limb resistance training exercises loaded with either 85% of one repetition maximum (85%1RM) or optimum power loads (OPL), or a control group. For six consecutive weeks, although all groups completed two weekly sessions of high-intensity running, only the MI groups performed three additional MI sessions a week. Maximal strength and power output were measured through 1RM and OPL assessments in the back squat and bench press exercises with a linear positioning transducer. Vertical jump and throwing capabilities were assessed with the countermovement jump and the seated medicine ball throw tests, respectively. Kinesthetic and visual imagery questionnaires, and chronometry and rating of perceived effort scores were collected to evaluate MI vividness, MI ability, and perceived effort. RESULTS: Physical performances improved significantly following both MI protocols (range, ~2% to ~9%), but were reduced in the control group, compared with preintervention (P ≤ 0.016). Moreover, interactions (time-protocol) were identified between the two MI groups (P ≤ 0.001). Whereas the 85%1RM led to greater effects on maximal strength measures than the OPL, the latter induced superior responses on measures of lower limb power. These findings were mirrored by corresponding cognitive and psychophysiological responses. CONCLUSIONS: During periods of forced detraining, MI practice seems to be a viable tool to maintain and increase physical performance capacity among professional athletes.

Lower extremity joint loading during Bounce rope skip in comparison to run and walk.

BACKGROUND: Bounce rope-skip holds immense scope as an aerobic exercise in space and time constrained urban setting with additional constraints placed by pandemic situations such as Covid 19, wherein adherence to commonly performed weight-bearing, aerobic activities like walking and running is a challenge. Limited knowledge informing biomechanical demands and misconceptions about knee joint loading, confines safe application of bounce rope-skip in health promotion. Thus, present study aimed to explore kinematics and lower-extremity joint loading during rope-skipping compared to walking and running. METHODS: Following ethical approval, 3D motion analysis of bounce rope-skip, walk and run was captured from 22 healthy female participants aged 18-25yr using 12-camera Vicon system and 2AMTI force plates. Three trials for bounce rope-skip were recorded with five skip-jumps on force-plates at a cadence of 105 skips/min. Mid-skip, mid-gait and mid-run data were averaged to compute kinetic and kinematic variables for hip, knee and ankle during loading/initial contact, take-off/push-off and flight/mid-swing phases of rope-skip, walk and run. RESULT: Average time of one rope-skip cycle was 1.2sec; mean foot contact time was 0.55sec and flight time was 0.65sec. In one bounce rope-skip cycle, hip motion ranged between 13.4o-35.3oflexion; knee between 13.6 o-67.9° flexion and ankle between 34.5odorsiflexion to-13.40plantarflexion. Vertical ground reaction force (vGRF) during rope-skip (landing-phase) was lower compared to run; however, it was higher than walk (p < 0.001). In coronal plane, peak hip and knee adductor moment during rope-skip were lower compared to run and higher than walk (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Bounce rope-skip generated low lower extremity joint loading compared to run; supporting its prescription as a hip and knee joint-protective aerobic weight-bearing exercise for health promotion in young adults.