Effects of balance training on balance performance in youth: role of training difficulty

Abstract

Background Cross-sectional studies have shown that balance performance can be challenged by the level of task difficulty (e.g., varying stance conditions, sensory manipulations). However, it remains unclear whether the application of different levels of task difficulty during balance training (BT) leads to altered adaptations in balance performance. Thus, we examined the effects of BT conducted under a high versus a low level of task difficulty on balance performance. Methods Forty male adolescents were randomly assigned to a BT program using a low (BT-low: n = 20; age: 12.4 ± 2.0 yrs) or a high (BT-high: n = 20; age: 12.5 ± 2.5 yrs) level of balance task difficulty. Both groups trained for 7 weeks (2 sessions/week, 30–35 min each). Pre- and post-training assessments included measures of static (one-legged stance [OLS] time), dynamic (10-m gait velocity), and proactive (Y-Balance Test [YBT] reach distance, Functional Reach Test [FRT]; Timed-Up-and-Go Test [TUG]) balance. Results Significant main effects of Test (i.e., pre- to post-test improvements) were observed for all but one balance measure (i.e., 10-m gait velocity). Additionally, a Test x Group interaction was detected for the FRT in favor of the BT-high group (Δ + 8%, p < 0.001, d = 0.35). Further, tendencies toward significant Test x Group interactions were found for the YBT anterior reach (in favor of BT-high: Δ + 9%, p < 0.001, d = 0.60) and for the OLS with eyes opened and on firm surface (in favor of BT-low: Δ + 31%, p = 0.003, d = 0.67). Conclusions Following 7 weeks of BT, enhancements in measures of static, dynamic, and proactive balance were observed in the BT-high and BT-low groups. However, BT-high appears to be more effective for increasing measures of proactive balance, whereas BT-low seems to be more effective for improving proxies of static balance. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN83638708 (Retrospectively registered 19th June, 2020).

The Motor Impact of the Static Balance in the Up Plank Position on Three Different Balls in Physical Activities of Physical Education Students

“…The technical and compositional characteristics of these materials used can have major influences on physical capacity, perception of effort, body posture and vestibular and neuromotor rehabilitation. Consistent with the results of our study, previous studies have highlighted the influence of exercises performed on different fitness materials in order to improve static and dynamic balance [ 5 , 53 , 54 , 55 ]. The results of our study complete the research on the study of the up plank position, which were numerous and especially highlighted the anatomical, biomechanical and physical benefits of different categories of subjects actively involved in physical and sports activities [ 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 ], in the practice of fitness [ 55 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 ] and in prophylaxis [ 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 ].…”

“…An important component of physical fitness is balance, which manifests in two forms: statically and dynamically [4,5]. Static balance is an important component and determinant of the body balance and implicit physical fitness.…”

Effects of task difficulty during practice on learning a dynamic balance task in healthy young adults: An intervention study

“…This indicates that practicing under the easy compared to the difficult task condition did not result in group-specific learning improvements. Our finding is in line with the results of Blasco et al [ 5 ] but in contrast to the work of Schedler et al [ 6 ]. More specifically, Blasco and colleagues [ 5 ] examined the effects of different stability conditions on balance performance in young adults.…”

“…After three weeks of training, they observed improvements in several measures of balance performance (i.e., Emery test, Functional Reach test, Y Balance test) that were irrespective of group allocation. On the other hand, Schedler et al [ 6 ] investigated the effects of balance training conducted under a low level (corresponds to our “Easy task group”) vs. a high level (corresponds to our “Difficult task group”) of task difficulty on balance performance. Besides others, they detected partially larger improvements in several balance outcomes (i.e., Functional Reach test, Y Balance test) in favor of the group that used a high level of balance task difficulty during training.…”

“…However, so far only a few studies [ 5 , 6 ] have addressed this issue by repetitively and consecutively using different levels of task difficulty throughout interventions aiming to improve balance performance. Yet, they reported varying results as Blasco et al [ 5 ] did not find significant differences following balance training with an easy compared to a difficult task level, whereas Schedler et al [ 6 ] in parts (i.e., measures of proactive balance) reported larger improvements in the group training with a difficult task level during exercises, indicating the use of a larger adaptive range.…”