Effects of Different Balance Training Volumes on Children's Dynamic Balance

Abstract

Concerning balance training, the most effective design of several load dimensions (e. g., training frequency, volume) is unclear. Thus, we determined the effects of different balance training volumes on dynamic balance in healthy children. Three groups of 20 children (age: 11.0±0.7 years; 47% females) were randomly assigned to a balance training group using a low or a high training volume or an active control group that performed regular physical education lessons. All groups trained for 8 weeks (2 sessions/week), whereby balance training volume amounted to 4 min/session and 18–24 min/session for the low- and high-volume group, respectively. Pre- and post-training, balance performance was assessed using the Lower Quarter Y-Balance Test and the Timed-Up-and-Go Test. Fifty-five children completed the study and significant Test x Group interactions were detected for both outcome measures in favor of the two balance training groups. Additionally, improvements in the high-volume group were significantly larger for some measures (Y-balance test anterior reach distance: p<.001, d=.94; Timed-Up-and-Go time: p=.003, d=.81) compared to the low-volume group. The results indicate that balance training is effective to improve balance performance in healthy children and it seems that a 36–48 min/week compared to an 8 min/week training volume provides additional effects.

Time-course of balance training-related changes on static and dynamic balance performance in healthy children

“…In agreement with the first part of our hypothesis, we detected significant improvements in static (increased stance time in the OLS test) and dynamic (increased number of steps in the 3-m Beam Walking Backward test) balance for the INT-group compared to the CON-group. These findings are consistent with those from previous studies [ 1 , 2 ] that investigated the effect of BT in healthy children and indicate that BT is an effective training regimen to enhance static and dynamic balance in this age group.…”

“…There is evidence from original studies [ 1 , 2 ] and a systematic review with meta-analysis [ 3 ] that balance training (BT) is effective to improve static and dynamic balance in healthy children. For instance, Walchli et al [ 1 ] detected significantly decreased postural sway during the One-Legged Stance (OLS) test on a spinning top after five weeks of BT (2 times/week) in children aged 6–7 years and 11–12 years.…”

“…For instance, Walchli et al [ 1 ] detected significantly decreased postural sway during the One-Legged Stance (OLS) test on a spinning top after five weeks of BT (2 times/week) in children aged 6–7 years and 11–12 years. Moreover, Schedler et al [ 2 ] reported significantly increased reach distances for the Y Balance Test-Lower Quarter in 10–11 year-old children following eight weeks of BT (2 times/week). However, these studies used a pre-post-design separated by several weeks and do therefore not provide any insights into the time-course of balance training-related changes in youth.…”

No sex-specific effects of balance training on dynamic balance performance in healthy children

“…The detected improvements in dynamic balance performance following BT are in accordance with previous studies on dynamic balance performance in children aged around 11 years ( 13 – 15 ). For example, Walchli et al ( 14 ) investigated the effects of 5 weeks of child-oriented BT on unperturbed dynamic balance performance.…”

“…More precisely, after the intervention period postural sway during two-legged stance following unanticipated as well as anticipated perturbations on a free-swinging platform was significantly reduced in the BT-group compared to the CON-group. Lastly, Schedler et al ( 15 ) compared the effects of different BT volumes on dynamic balance performance in 10–11 year-old children. Following 8 weeks of training using either a low (i.e., 4 min/session) or a high (i.e., 18–24 min/session) volume, both groups exhibited significantly increased YBT-LQ scores, whereas there were no improvements in an active control group (i.e., received regular P.E.…”