Purpose: The aim of this study was to map responses over 32 hours following high-load (HL) and moderate-load (ML) half-squat priming. Methods: Fifteen participants completed control, HL (87% 1RM), and ML (65% 1RM) activities in randomized, counterbalanced order. Countermovement jump (CMJ), squat jump (SJ), saliva testosterone, saliva cortisol, and perceptual measures were assessed before and 5 minutes, 8 hours, 24 hours, and 32 hours after each activity. Results are presented as percentage change from baseline and 95% confidence interval (CI). Cliff delta was used to determine threshold for group changes. Results: SJ height increased by 4.5% (CI = 2.2–6.8, Cliff delta = 0.20) 8 hours following HL. CMJ and SJ improved by 6.1% (CI = 2.1–7.8, Cliff delta = 0.27) and 6.5% (CI = 1.2–11.8, Cliff delta = 0.30), respectively, 32 hours after ML. No clear diurnal changes in CMJ or SJ occurred 8 hours following control; however, increases of 3.9% (CI = 2.9–9.2, Cliff delta = 0.26) and 4.5% (CI = 0.9–8.1, Cliff delta = 0.24), respectively, were observed after 32 hours. Although diurnal changes in saliva hormone concentration occurred (Cliff delta = 0.37–0.92), the influence of priming was unclear. Perceived “physical feeling” was greater 8 hours following HL (Cliff delta = 0.36) and 32 hours after ML and control (Cliff delta = 0.17–0.34). Conclusions: HL priming in the morning may result in small improvements in jump output and psychophysiological state in the afternoon. Similar improvements were observed in the afternoon the day after ML priming.

No abstract

No abstract

Modern human feet are considered unique among primates in their capacity to transmit propulsive forces and re-use elastic energy. Considered central to both these capabilities are their arched configuration and the plantar aponeurosis (PA). However, recent evidence has shown that their interactions are not as simple as proposed by the theoretical and mechanical models that established their significance. Using three-dimensional foot scans and statistical shape and deformation modelling, we show that the shape of the longitudinal and transverse arches varies widely among the healthy adult population, and that the former is subject to load-induced arch flattening, whereas the latter is not. However, longitudinal arch shape and flattening are only one of the various foot shape–deformation relationships. PA stiffness was also found to vary widely. Yet only a small amount of this variability (approx. 10–18%) was explained by variations in foot shape, deformation and their combination. These findings add to the mounting evidence showing that foot mechanics are complex and cannot be accurately represented by simple models. Especially the interactions between longitudinal arch and PA appear to be far less constrained than originally proposed, most likely due to the many degrees of freedom provided by the structural complexity of our feet.