exercise_education_lab

If you are passionate about human movement, we want you on our team at our high-end facility in Sydney! 📍

We are looking for:

🏋️‍♂️ Personal Trainers
🧘‍♀️ Reformer Pilates Instructors
🩺 Accredited Exercise Physiologists

What’s in it for you?

🟢 ZERO RENT ever!
📅 Flexible scheduling to fit your lifestyle.
💰 Premium, industry-leading pay rates.
🧠 Unparalleled mentorship in advanced biomechanics and clinical reasoning

(Graduates & junior trainers welcome!)

https://open.substack.com/pub/shunpt/p/a-high-emg-doesnt-necessarily-mean?r=5vgpdm&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true

A high EMG doesn't necessarily mean it's a good exercise Clinical exercise selection protocols for gluteal muscle reconstruction and strengthening: Moving away from surface electromyography (EMG)

Characteristics of various power-enhancing training methods and season-specific recommendations Lower Body Power Enhancement Methods in Elite Team Sports: Evidence Based on a Systematic Review

Rethinking the complex mechanisms of chronic pain Integrative Clinical Framework: A Multidimensional Perspective on Chronic Pain Assessment

It is a bit difficult to understand but would help your coaching.

Follow-through movements are crucial for separating opposing motor memories. Participants who performed follow-through movements exhibited significantly better learning of opposing rotations compared to those who did not (Figure 1).

Explicit strategies play a dominant role in separating opposing motor memories. Participants who received delayed feedback (limiting implicit learning) showed rapid learning but no aftereffect, suggesting reliance on explicit strategies (Figure 2A-C).

Implicit processes contribute to learning when explicit strategies are limited. Participants who received error-clamped feedback (isolating implicit learning) showed gradual adaptation and a significant aftereffect, indicating the role of implicit processes (Figure 2D-F).

Reducing the spatial distance between follow-through targets does not significantly affect overall learning. Participants in both explicit and implicit conditions still exhibited significant learning, even with reduced distance between targets (Figure 3).

Reducing the spatial distance between targets affects the number of individuals who can successfully learn the task. More participants failed to learn in both explicit and implicit conditions when the distance between targets was reduced (Figure 3).

Both explicit and implicit learning generalize to untrained directions. Participants showed near-flat generalization patterns, indicating transfer of learning to novel movements (Figure 4).

Implicit learning also exhibits global generalization. This was unexpected and suggests that contextual follow-through cues influence the generalization pattern of implicit learning (Figure 4D-F).

Key Findings

Interleaved practice led to better long-term retention of learned sequences. Participants who practiced sequences in an interleaved order showed better retention of those sequences after a one-day delay compared to those who practiced in a blocked order.

Interleaved practice enhanced the transfer of learning to novel sequences. Participants who practiced interleaved sequences were better able to transfer their learning to new, unpracticed sequences compared to those who practiced blocked sequences.

Blocked practice resulted in less flexible learning. Participants who practiced blocked sequences showed poorer retention and transfer when tested with interleaved sequences, suggesting that blocked practice may lead to learning that is more specific to the practice conditions.

Explicit knowledge can interfere with learning. Participants who had explicit knowledge of the sequences showed more forgetting when they practiced blocked sequences, but not when they practiced interleaved sequences. This suggests that interleaved practice may protect against the negative effects of explicit knowledge on performance

Key Findings
No significant difference in most comparisons: The majority of the 39 implicit-explicit motor learning comparisons (27) did not show a significant difference between groups in dual-task performance measures.

Trend toward better performance with implicit learning: The remaining comparisons showed a tendency toward better dual-task performance with implicit motor learning compared to explicit motor learning.

Limited evidence for implicit learning superiority: Only 5 comparisons found significantly better absolute dual-task performance for the implicit group, and 7 comparisons found significantly lower dual-task costs for the implicit group.

Even less evidence for explicit learning superiority: Only 2 comparisons found significantly better absolute dual-task performance for the explicit group, and none found significantly lower dual-task costs for the explicit group.

Unclear risk of bias: All studies included in the review had an unclear risk of bias, primarily due to underreporting of methodological details.

Based on the findings of this systematic review, here is some advice for sports coaches:
Use both implicit and explicit approaches: Given that there is no strong evidence for the consistent superiority of either implicit or explicit motor learning interventions, consider incorporating both approaches into practice regimes.

Tailor approach to the situation:

Explicit learning may be more effective in situations where athletes need to learn new strategies or refine well-learned skills.

Implicit learning may be more effective in situations where athletes need to optimize the ex*****on of well-learned skills.

Consider analogy learning: Analogy learning appears to be one of the most promising implicit learning methods for practical application, as it was most consistently successful at inducing implicit motor learning.

Prioritize performance under pressure: If the goal is to enhance performance under pressure, implicit learning methods may be more beneficial, as they can lead to greater automaticity of movement.

Consider individual preferences: Take into account athletes' preferences and learning styles when selecting interventions.

Basically the human body needs a variety of stimuli.

We need both reps and load regardless of the goals and conditions.

Don't stick to one method.

Weight training is too dangerous for fragile people or people with osteoporosis??

It's actually the opposite 🎉🎉

Key Takeaway Based on the Data: The results clearly demonstrate that weight-bearing exercise leads to significantly greater improvements in bone mineral density compared to non-weight-bearing exercise in this population.

Why is this important?

* Combating Osteoporosis:
Osteoporosis is characterized by decreased bone mineral density and increased fracture risk. Exercise, particularly weight-bearing activities, provides a mechanical stimulus that encourages bone remodeling and strengthening.

* Specificity of Exercise:
This study highlights the principle of specificity in exercise. To improve bone density, especially in load-bearing areas like the spine and hips (femoral neck), exercises that directly load these structures are most effective.

* Practical Applications:
For our older adult clients and for our own long-term bone health, prioritizing activities like walking, dancing, resistance training with weights, and even stair climbing can have a profound positive impact on maintaining strong bones. While non-weight-bearing exercises have their own benefits (cardiovascular health, flexibility), they don't provide the same bone-strengthening stimulus.

This data reinforces the importance of incorporating weight-bearing activities into exercise programs, especially for individuals at risk of or living with osteoporosis.
It's a powerful reminder that the type of exercise we choose has specific and measurable effects on our physiology.


the opposite