Warm-up Optimizes Postural Control but Requires Some Minutes of Recovery.

Paillard, T, Kadri, MA, Nouar, MB, and Noé, F. Warm-up optimizes postural control but requires some minutes of recovery. J Strength Cond Res 32(10): 2725-2729, 2018-The aim was to compare monopedal postural control between the dominant leg (D-Leg) and the nondominant leg (ND-Leg) in pre- and post-warm-up conditions. Thirty healthy male sports science students were evaluated before and after a warm-up exercise (12 minutes of pedaling with an incremental effort on a cycle ergometer with a controlled workload). Monopodal postural control was assessed for the D- and ND-Legs before and immediately, 2, 5, 10, and 15 minutes after the warm-up exercise, using a force platform and calculating the displacement velocity of the center of foot pressure on the mediolateral (COPML velocity) and anteroposterior (COPAP velocity) axes. No significant difference was observed between the D-Leg and ND-Leg for both COPML and COPAP velocity in all the periods. In comparison with pre-warm-up, COPML decreased after 15-minute and 10-minute recovery periods for the D-Leg and the ND-Leg, respectively (p < 0.05), whereas COPAP decreased after 10-minute and 15-minute recovery periods (p < 0.001; p < 0.01, respectively) for the D-Leg, and after a 10-minute recovery period for the ND-Leg (p < 0.001). The warm-up optimized monopedal postural control but did not make it possible to distinguish a difference between the D-Leg and the ND-Leg. Some minutes of recovery are required between the end of the whole-body warm-up exercise and the beginning of the postural test to optimize postural control. The optimal duration of recovery turns out to be about 10-15 minutes.

Effects of training programs based on ipsilateral voluntary and stimulated contractions on muscle strength and monopedal postural control of the contralateral limb.

PURPOSE: To compare the effects of unilateral strength training by stimulated and voluntary contractions on muscle strength and monopedal postural control of the contralateral limb. METHODS: 36 non-active healthy male subjects were recruited and split randomly into three groups. Two groups of 12 subjects took part in a strength-training program (3 sessions a week over 8 weeks) comprising 43 contractions of the quadriceps femoris of the ipsilateral limb (at 20% of the MVC). One group carried out voluntary contractions exclusively (VOL group), while the other group benefited exclusively from electro-induced contractions (NMES group). The other 12 subjects formed the control (CON) group. Assessments of MVC and monopedal postural control in static and dynamic postural tasks were performed with the ipsilateral (ISPI) and contralateral (CONTRA) limbs before (PRE) and after (POST) completion of the training program. RESULTS: After the training program, the MVC of the IPSI and CONTRA limbs increased similarly for both experimental groups (VOL and NMES). There were no significant improvements of monopedal postural control for the IPSI or CONTRA limbs in either the VOL or NMES experimental group. No change was observed for the CON group over the protocol period. CONCLUSION: The purposed training program with NMES vs VOL contractions induced strength gains but did not permit any improvement of contralateral monopedal postural control in healthy young subjects. This has potential for therapeutic application and allows clinicians to focus their training programs on dynamic and poly-articular exercises to improve the postural control in young subjects.