Effects of Aerobic and Anaerobic Fatigue Exercises on Postural Control and Recovery Time in Female Soccer Players

Abstract

Sixteen female soccer players (age = 20.19 ± 1.52 years; body mass = 56.52 ± 4.95 kg; body height = 164.81 ± 4.21 cm) with no history of lower extremity injury participated in the study. The Biodex SD Balance system was used to determine the non-dominant single-leg stability. In anaerobic exercise, each subject performed four maximal cycling efforts against a resistance equivalent to 0.075 kg/body mass for 30 s with three-minute rest intervals. In aerobic exercise, subjects performed the Bruce protocol on a motorized treadmill. After each exercise, subjects subsequently performed a single-leg stability test and then repeated the same test for four times with five-minute passive rest periods. In accordance with the results, it was found that the impairment observed right after the aerobic loading was higher (p < 0.001) compared to the anaerobic one. However, the time-related deterioration in both aerobic and anaerobic loadings was similar. The B-pre value was lower than Bpost and B5 (p < 0.01) and B10 (p < 0.05) in both conditions. Subjects could reach the initial balance level at B15 after aerobic and anaerobic loadings. The lactate level did not reach resting value even after 20 min of both fatigue protocols. Although the fatigue after aerobic and aerobic exercise negatively affects a single-leg dynamic balance level, single leg balance ability returns to the baseline status after 10 min of passive recovery duration.

The Effect of Fatigue on Single-Leg Postural Sway and Its Transient Characteristics in Healthy Young Adults

“…Indeed, postural sway assessed through CoP movements is highly variable, and coefficient of variation >10% is often observed ( Hébert-Losier and Murray, 2020 ). We used one repetition in our protocol because the fatigue could subside quickly after the completion of the fatiguing protocol ( Aboodarda et al, 2019 ; Güler et al, 2020 ). Nevertheless, more repetitions should be used prior to the fatiguing protocol to increase the rigor of the results.…”

“…On the other hand, an increase in single-leg postural sway was produced by a zig-zag task in male and female athletes from field-based team sports (Lacey and Donne, 2019). Interestingly, aerobic fatigue had a more pronounced effect on single-leg postural sway than anaerobic fatigue in a study conducted on female soccer players (Güler et al, 2020). Recently, Bedo et al (2020) used a complex fatiguing protocol, consisting of multiple tasks, such as jumping, sidestep cutting, sprinting, and landing.…”

The Influence of Physical Load on Dynamic Postural Control—A Systematic Replication Study

“…Moreover, the recovery time may additionally depend on the tasks used to assess dynamic postural control and the loading protocol. Wright et al [ 20 ] and Güler et al [ 21 ] found lower recovery times of dynamic postural control measured with the Biodex Balance System after running and cycling. These different results might also be described with the different types of tasks used, challenging different types of dynamic postural control (reactive or anticipatory).…”

“…These studies were all using the Star Excursion Balance Test (SEBT) or the Y-Balance Test (YBT) to assess dynamic balance. Additionally, Wright et al [ 20 ] and Güler, Aras, Akça, Bianco, Lavanco, Paoli, and Şahin [ 21 ] found a negative effect of running and cycling on dynamic postural control measured with a Biodex Balance System. This load-induced decrease in dynamic postural control is supposed to be due to a loss of sensorimotor control and neuromuscular impairments [ 4 , 5 , 22 , 23 ] resulting from changes of the afferent information, altered proprioception, and changes of joint awareness and stability [ 18 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 ].…”

“…So far, only a few studies regarded the recovery time of dynamic postural control after physical load. In the study of Johnston et al [ 3 ], dynamic postural control almost recovered in about 20 min post-load, whereas Wright et al [ 20 ] display recovery times of only 9–12 min, and Güler et al [ 21 ] found recovery times of about 10 min. These differences might be also caused by different tasks and protocols that were used [ 3 ], and to obtain more information on this further studies are needed.…”