Thomas Nesser

The effects of prophylactic ankle braces on lower extremity functional performance in healthy participants have not been studied extensively. To determine if prophylactic ankle braces affected multidirectional reach distances during a test of dynamic balance. Crossover. Laboratory. Thirty-six healthy, physically active volunteers (18 men, 18 women; age = 23.6 +/- 2.7 years, height = 173.8 +/- 9.3 cm, mass = 74.4 +/- 12.7 kg, reach-leg length = 91.9 +/- 5.1 cm). Volunteers performed balance testing in 3 conditions: unbraced, while wearing a semirigid ankle brace, and while wearing a lace-up ankle brace. We used the Star Excursion Balance Test, calculating the mean of 3 attempts in 8 directions (anterior, anterior-medial, medial, posterior-medial, posterior, posterior-lateral, lateral, and anterior-lateral), normalized by the participant's reach-leg length. Data were collected after 6 practice attempts for each of the conditions according to a balanced Latin square. Bracing condition had no effect (P > .05) on any of the Star Excursion Balance Test directional measures. The largest mean difference due to bracing was 2.5% between the lace-up brace condition and the control in the posterior reach direction. This indicates that the actual reach differences due to bracing were less than 5.08 cm (2 inches) in length. Clinicians can be confident that the prophylactic use of ankle braces does not disrupt lower extremity dynamic balance during a reaching task in healthy participants.

With the advent of the ski-skating technique, upper body power has increasingly been shown to be a major factor in cross-country skiing success. The purpose of this study was to evaluate 4 commonly used training methods (weight, circuit, rollerboard, and ski-specific training) for the development of upper body power (UBP) in junior cross-country skiers. Fifty-eight adolescent cross-country skiers (Boys: n = 29, age = 16.0 +/- 1.2 y and Girls: n = 29, age = 15.5 +/- 1.5 y) were assigned to one of the UBP training methods for a 10-week training program. Fourteen cross-country runners served as controls (boys: n = 7, age = 15.8 +/- 1.7 y; girls: n = 7, age = 14.9 +/- 1.3 y). Skiers were evaluated pre- and post-training for upper body strength (UBS) using a 10 repetition maximum (RM) rollerboard test, for UBP using a double-poling ergometer and for upper body endurance (UBE) with a 3-km, arms-only, rollerski endurance time trial. Competitive race results were collected during the winters before and after training as were all training data. Only the rollerboard training group improved significantly greater than the control group (p < 0.05) in UBP and UBS. Improvements in UBP, UPS, and UBE were significantly related (r = 0.545, 0.303, and 0.407, respectively) to improvements in competitive performance. These data suggest that training using a rollerboard with 5-12RM and explosive speed is more effective in developing UBP than other common training methods for adolescent cross-country skiers. The practical importance of these data was verified by the significant relationships between improvements in UBP, UBS, and UBE related to improvements in competitive race performance.

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.

The effects of prophylactic ankle braces on lower extremity functional performance in healthy participants have not been studied extensively. To determine if prophylactic ankle braces affected multidirectional reach distances during a test of dynamic balance. Crossover. Laboratory. Thirty-six healthy, physically active volunteers (18 men, 18 women; age = 23.6 +/- 2.7 years, height = 173.8 +/- 9.3 cm, mass = 74.4 +/- 12.7 kg, reach-leg length = 91.9 +/- 5.1 cm). Volunteers performed balance testing in 3 conditions: unbraced, while wearing a semirigid ankle brace, and while wearing a lace-up ankle brace. We used the Star Excursion Balance Test, calculating the mean of 3 attempts in 8 directions (anterior, anterior-medial, medial, posterior-medial, posterior, posterior-lateral, lateral, and anterior-lateral), normalized by the participant's reach-leg length. Data were collected after 6 practice attempts for each of the conditions according to a balanced Latin square. Bracing condition had no effect (P > .05) on any of the Star Excursion Balance Test directional measures. The largest mean difference due to bracing was 2.5% between the lace-up brace condition and the control in the posterior reach direction. This indicates that the actual reach differences due to bracing were less than 5.08 cm (2 inches) in length. Clinicians can be confident that the prophylactic use of ankle braces does not disrupt lower extremity dynamic balance during a reaching task in healthy participants.