Content uploaded by Antonio Martínez-Amat
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Antonio Martínez-Amat on Sep 10, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
Available via license: CC BY-NC-ND 3.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Short-term Eects of a Proprioceptive Training
Session with Unstable Platforms on the Monopodal
Stabilometry of Athletes
Natalia RomeRo-FRaNco1)*, aNtoNio maRtíNez-amat1), Fidel Hita-coNtR eRas1),
emilio J maRtíN ez-lópez2)
1) Department of Health Sciences, University of Jaén: E-23071 Jaén, Spain
2) Department of Didactics of Musical, Plastic and Corporal, University of Jaén, Spain
Abstract. [Pur pose] To analyze the short-term effects of a proprioceptive session on the monopodal stabilometry
of athletes. [Subjects] Thirty-seven athletes were divided into a control group (n=17) and an experimental group
(n=20). [Methods] Both groups performed a conventional warm-up, after which a 25-minute proprioceptive session
on ustable platforms was carried out only by the experimental group. Before the training session, all athletes carried
out a single-leg stabilometry test which was repeated just after training, 30 minutes, 1 hour, 6 hours and 24 hours
later. [Results] A nalysis of covariance (α=0.05) revealed that the experimental group had lower values than the
control group in length and velocity of center of pressure (CoP) of left-monopodal stance and in velocity of CoP of
right-monopodal stance in post-training measurements. Also, the experimental group had values closer to zero for
the CoP position in the mediolateral and anteroposterior directions of left-monopodal stance (Xmeanl and Ymeanl)
and the anteroposterior direction in on right-monopodal stance (Ymeanr) in post-training measurements. Within-
group analysis of Xmeanl and Ymeanl, length and velocity of CoP in right-monopodal stance showed continuous
uctuations of values between sequential measurements in the control group. [Conclusion] Proprioceptive training
on unstable platfoms after a warm-up stabilizes the position of CoP in the anteroposterior and mediolateral direc-
tions and decreases CoP movements in short-term monopodal stability of athletes.
Key words: Proprioception, Athletes, Stabilometry
(This article was submitted Jun. 27, 2013, and was accepted Aug. 4, 2013)
INTRODUCTION
Monopodal postural stance and proprioception are very
important parameters in the functionality of the lower limbs
of athletes1). In sports, fatigue and stress along with injuries,
contribute to the deterioration of the proprioceptive sense.
All these aspects put athletes at risk of possible relapses
or new injuries2–4). Training on unstable platforms has be-
come a common tool in several sports to reduce injury risks
of athletes, and to help them improve their proprioceptive
sense5).
Proprioceptive training on unstable platforms has been
shown to result in large and medium-to-long term improve-
ment when practiced for several consecutive weeks. Its ben-
ets appear mainly in stabilometric parameters6–9). Several
authors have stated that an improvement in postural stabil-
ity provides athletes with a much more stable basic stance,
from which they can perform movements in a stronger and
more precise fashion10). Romero-Franco et al. showed there
were signicant improvements in postural stability as well
as in the control of the center of gravity after a six-week
proprioceptive training program9). Similarly, Stanton et
al. and Mattacola and Lloyd observed an improvement in
static balance and dynamic balance variables, respectively,
after proprioceptive training6, 7). Others surveys have tested
the monopodal stability of athletes due to the fact that it is
a more specic analysis, and therefore more tting to the
needs of their particular sport of choice. The research car-
ried out by Paterno et al. is a good example of this. They
observed that a six-week proprioceptive training program
improved not only general monopodal postural stance but
also the values of center of pressure position in the antero-
posterior direction, which reduced the number of ACL (an-
terior cruciate ligament) injuries in the long term1).
Until now, proprioceptive training studies have mainly
dealt with medium- and long-term effects, while short-term
effects have received little attention. Some authors have an-
alyzed muscle activation using EMG under conditions of in-
stability, and have reported sizeable immediate increases in
muscle activities11–14). It is believed that this increase aims
to stabilize and maintain the gravity center, thus avoiding
a potential fall4, 15). However, a consequence of this muscle
activity increase compensating for the instability condition,
is that athletes experience a great diminution of force out-
put.
J. Phys. Ther. Sci.
26: 45–51, 2014
*Corresponding author. Natalia Romero-Franco (e-mail:
narf52@gmail.com)
©2014 The Society of Physical Therapy Science
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Cre-
ative Commons Attribution Non-Com mercial No Derivatives (by-nc-
nd) License <ht tp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd /3.0/>.
J. Phys. Ther. Sci. Vol. 26, No. 1, 201446
In spite of evidence about the improvement provided by
proprioceptive training, studies to date have not investigat-
ed on the short-term stabilometric effects that come from
proprioceptive training. The study of Romero-Franco et
al. is the only study, to our knowledge, that has analyzed
the short-term stabilometric effects of training on unstable
platforms. In that study, measurements were taken inme-
diately after proprioceptive training, and the results which
showed worse bipodal postural stability of the athletes. This
decrease may have been a consequence of fatigue, accord-
ing to the authors16).
With so little scientic evidence it is difcult to know the
immediate results of proprioceptive training. This would
be of great importance for determining when, during the
training process, such exercises should take place. The pur-
pose of this study was to analyze the short-term effects of
a proprioceptive training session on an unstable platform
on the monopodal stabilometry of athletes. Based on pre-
vious reports of a great increase in muscle activity with
a consequent loss of force under unstable conditions, and
immediate adverse effects on bipodal stability, of proprio-
ceptive training, we authors hypothesized that propriocep-
tive training would negatively affect athletes’ monopodal
stabilometry.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS
A 24-hour quasi-experimental study was carried out in
March 2012 with 6 repeated measurements of the monopo-
dal stance:
Pre (pre-training), Post0Min (right after training), Post-
30Min (30 minutes after training), Post1H (1 hour after train-
ing), Post6H (6 hours after training) y Post24H (24 hours after
training).
Subjects
We selected thirty-seven athletes who volunteered for
this experiment (Table 1) and randomly divided them into
two groups: the Control Group (CG) comprised 17 athletes
who carried out a 25-minute conventional warm up, and the
Experimental Group (EG), comprised 20 athletes who car-
ried out the same warm up and then performed a 25-minute
proprioceptive training session on unstable platforms (Fig
1). We excluded subjects who usually performed proprio-
ceptive exercises, in addition to those who were injured at
the time of the study. Before the start, we briefed all the ath-
letes about the test and about the nature of proprioceptive
training. In addition, we obtained written informed consent
from each subject or their legal guardians in the case of un-
derage athletes, according to the standards of the Declara-
tion of Helsinki17). The ethical committee of the University
Tab le 1. Sociodemographic and anthropometric characteristics
All n=37 Control n =17 Experi-
mental n=20
Age (y) 21.2 ±4.6 21.1 ±4.9 21.3 ±4.5
Height (cm) 173.9 ±6.9 172 .4 ±6.9 175 .1 ±6.9
Weight (kg) 63.7 ±11.7 61.3 ±12.9 65.7 ±10. 5
BMI (kg/m2)20.9 ±2 .7 20.5 ±2.8 21. 4 ±2.7
Gender Woma n 12 32.40% 741.20 % 525.0 0%
Man 25 67. 60% 10 58.80% 15 75.00%
Student Ye s 25 67. 6 0% 14 82.40% 11 55.00 %
No 12 32.40% 317.60% 945.00%
Quantitative var iables are shown as mean and SD. Categorical variables are shown as
frequencies and percentages. BMI, Body Mass Index.
Fig. 1. Proprioceptive training session which the exper imental
group carried out (Designed and conducted by authors).
47
of Jaén approved the study.
Methods
We used Five BOSU® Balance Trainers, ve Swiss balls
and ve 3 kg medicine balls for the proprioceptive train-
ing session. We determined the cor rect diameter of the
Swiss ball by measuring the height of each athlete: when
athletes were sitting on the ball, their knees and hips had to
be exed at 90°18). A FreeMed© BASE model baropodomet-
ric platform was used for the stabilometric measurements
(Rome, Italy). The platform’s surface is 555 × 420 mm,
with an active surface of 400 × 400 mm and 8 mm thick-
ness, (Sensormédica® Sevilla, Spain). The reliability of this
baropodometric platform has been shown in previous stud-
ies16). Calculations of center-of-pressure (CoP) movements
were performed with the FreeStep© Standard 3.0 (Italy)
software. We collected baseline features of the athletes
with a 100 g–300 kg precision digital weight scale (Tefal)
and a t201-t4 Asimed adult height scale to obtain weight and
height respectively (Table 1).
To carry out the monopodal stabilometric measurement,
we asked the athletes to stand for fteen seconds on each
lower limb, starting with the left one, in the middle of the
platform. The athletes stood without shoes with both arms
at the sides of the body and the non-support leg in 90° of
knee exion. Also, we asked athletes not to engage in any
physical activity for the duration of the study.
The stabilometry test measured the following parameters
of both the left- and right-leg stances: the center of pressure
(CoP) position in the mediolateral (Xmean) and anteropos-
terior directions (Ymean), in addition to the length (Length)
and the area (Area) covered by the CoP and the velocity
(Velocity) of CoP movement. These variables are sufxed
with “l” or “r” to indicate whether they belong to the left or
right leg, respectively.
First, all athletes completed the pre-training stabilometry
test. After those measurements, a 25-minute conventional
warm-up was carried out by all athletes. The warm-up con-
sisted of 10 minutes of slow running, 5 minutes of dynamic
stretching and 10 minutes of specic running exercises. Af-
ter the warm-up, the experimental group also performed the
25-minute proprioceptive training session (Fig. 1).
The 25-minute proprioceptive training session consisted
of 6 Swiss ball and BOSU exercises and the correct per-
formance of the exercises was carefully supervised by a
tness specialist and a sports physiotherapist, who worked
with groups of 10 to 12 athletes. The effects of this type of
training are based on disturbances caused under unstable
conditions, which force the center of pressure out of the
support base. To avoid a potential fall, stabilizing muscu-
lature is activated to make postural adjustments and main-
tain the center of pressure within the support base19). These
postural adjustments and neural adaptations are the main
responsible of benets of proprioceptive training appearing
in stabilometric parameters6–9).
Just after the warm-up, in the case of the control group,
and immediately after the proprioceptive session in the case
of the experimental group, the Post0Min measurements were
taken. Post 30Min measurements were taken 30 minutes later
and Post1H measurements were taken one hour after the
proprioceptive session. Post6H was measured after 6 hours,
and Post24H, at 24 hours after the proprioceptive training
session.
Descriptive statistics include averages and standard de-
viations for the continuous variables, and the frequencies
and percentages of the categorical variables (Table 1). The
Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to test the normal dis-
tribution of quantitative variables. Regarding the demo-
graphic and morphological variables, Student’s t test was
used for independent samples in the case of the continuous
variables and the c2 test for the categorical variables. The
general linear repeated measures model was employed for
all variables, with time and intervention group as within-
and between-subjects variables, respectively (repeated
measures ANOVA). A covariance analysis was performed
on variables showing differences from baseline, with the
initial measurement as covariate (ANCOVA). The level of
statistical signicance used was p <0.05. Data analysis was
performed by means of the SPSS statistical data analysis
package for Windows (v.19; Chicago).
RESU LT S
Table 1 shows socio-demographic and morphological
variables related to the sample as well as the differences be-
tween the experimental and control groups. No signicant
difference was noted (p>0.05).
The mean CoP position in the mediolateral (Xmeanl and
Xmeanr) and the anteroposterior (Ymeanl and Ymeanr)
directions of both monopodal supports are shown in Table
2. Xmeanl showed a statistically signicant group*time in-
teraction (p=0.002). Within-group analysis showed that the
control group experienced a signicant decrease at Post30Mi n
from 0.66±2.69 at baseline to −1.81±3.28 mm (p=0.024),
another signicant decrease at Post1H from 1.81±3.28 to
−8.66±13.28 mm (p=0.042), an increase at Post6H from
−8.66±13.28 to 1.68±2.93 mm (p=0.008) and a decrease at
Post24H from 1.68±2.93 to −1.27±3.47 mm (p=0.013). Mean-
while, the experimental group showed similar values for all
measurements with no signicant differences (p>0.05).
Also, between-group analysis showed signicant differ-
ences at Post1H, when the control group had values further
from zero than the experimental group (−8.66±13.28 vs
0.40±2.67 mm, p= 0.005).
Ymeanl showed a main time effect (p=0.042) and a sta-
tistically signicant group*time interaction (p=0.043). In
within-group analysis, the control group showed an increase
at Post30Mi n from −11.83±7.07 at baseline to −4.97±7.61 mm
(p=0.005), and another increase at Post24H fr om −11.26 ±8.91
to −7.11±5.41 mm (p=0.015), while the experimental group
showed similar values for all measurements with no sig-
nicant differences (p>0.05). Furthermore, between-group
analysis showed signicant differences at Post0Min and
Post6H, when the experimental group had values nearer to
zero that the control group (−11.83±7.07 vs −0.73±10.84 mm,
p=0.009 and −11.26±8.91 vs −3.22±5.10 mm, p=0.036, re-
spectively).
Ymeanr showed a main time effect (p=0.003) and a non-
J. Phys. Ther. Sci. Vol. 26, No. 1, 201448
signicant group*time interaction, (p=0.052). Between-
group analysis showed statistically signicant diferences at
Post6H (p=0.017) when the control group had values fur-
ther from zero than the experimental group (−11.72±7.57 vs
−3.91±10.73 mm). Similar results were observed at Post24H,
with values further from zero than the control group
(−7.47±7.69 vs −1.15±9.27 mm, p=0.032). Also, results close
to the level of signicance (p=0.066) were found at Post30Min
when the control group had values further from zero than
the experimental group (−8.01±9.46 vs −1.39±11.47 mm).
Within-group analysis did not nd any signicant result.
The other variables did not show any signicant group*time
interactions (p>0.05).
Length and Area covered by CoP (Lengthl and Lengthr,
Areal and Arear) and Velocity of CoP movement (Velocityl
and Velocityr) are shown in Table 3.
Lengthr showed a main time effect (p<0.001) and a
statistically signicant group*time interaction (p=0.048).
Within-group analysis showed that the control group ex-
perienced a decrease at Post30Min from 392.53±146.63 to
329.40±49.80 mm (p= 0.014) and a new signicant de-
crease at Post24H from 367.80±83.67 to 302.91±70.88 mm
(p<0.001); however, the experimental group showed similar
values for all measurements (p>0.05). In between-group
analysis, signicant differences were found at Post0Min
when the experimental group showed lower values than the
control group (392.53±146.63 mm vs 325.06±83.44 mm,
p=0.030). Results close to the level of signicance were ob-
served at Post6H (p=0.068).
Velocityr showed a main time effect (p<0.001) and a
statistically signicant group*time interaction (p= 0.032).
In within-group analysis, the control group showed a de-
crease at Post30M in from 24.51±6.65 mm/sec at baseline
to 19.53±3.70 mm/sec (p=0.001), a signicant increase at
Post6H from 19.27±2.63 to 23.33±5.84 mm/sec (p=0.024),
and another decrease at Post24H from 23.33±5.84 to
19.09±4.62 mm/sec (p<0.001). In between-group analysis,
signicant differences were observed at Post0Min, when the
experimental group showed lower values than the control
group (24.51±6.65 vs 19.96±4.74 mm, p=0.021). Signi-
cant results were also observed at Post6H (23.33±5.84 vs
20.04±3.77 mm/sec, p=0.046). The main time effects in
Lengthr and Velocityr showed that both groups had signi-
cantly lower values with respect to Pre at all measurements
except that of Post0Min one. The other variables did not show
any signicant group*time interactions (p>0.05).
DISCUSSION
The purpose of the present study was to analyze the
short-term effects of a proprioceptive training session with
unstable platforms on the monopodal stability of athletes.
To this end, athletes were subjected to a monopodal stabi-
lometry test before a 25-minute proprioceptive session and
Tab le 2 . Mean values of variables of center of pressure position in mediolateral (Xmean) and anteroposterior (Ymean)
directions
Control Experimental Control Exper imental
n=17 n=20 n=17 n=20
Xmeanl
(mm) Mean SD Mean SD Xmeanr
(mm) Mean SD Mean SD
Pre −6.44 18 .55 1.4 6 3.95 Pre −1. 35 3.48 −1.19 3 .16
Post0Min 0.66 2.69 −4.09 16. 01 Post0Min 0.67 20.48 −2.78 9.02
Post30Min + −1.81 3.28 −1.2 6 3Post30Mi n −0.98 3.88 −0.73 5.47
Post1H** +−8.66 13.28 0.4 2.67 Post1H 1.14 5.14 1.0 6 3.29
Post6H + +1.6 8 2.93 1. 29 3.45 Post6H −1. 37 5.09 −2.04 3.47
Post24H +−1.27 3.47 − 0.29 3.05 Post2 4H −0.84 3.12 −1.48 3.72
Ymeanl
(mm)† Mean SD Mean SD Yme anr
(mm)† Mean SD Mean SD
Pre −6.44 18 .55 1.61 3.89 Pre −10.6 7. 87 −1.5 7 9.9 7
Post-
0Min** −11. 83 7. 0 7 −0.73 10.8 4 Post0Min 0.67 20.48 −2.78 9.02
Post30Min ++ –4.97 7.61 − 0. 31 9.82 Post30Mi n −8.01 9.46 −1.3 9 11.47
Post1H 1.03 16. 27 −1.72 8.48 Post1H 4.24 20.82 1.07 18 .66
Post6H*−11.2 6 8.91 −3.22 5.1 Post6H*−11.7 2 7. 57 −3.91 10.73
Post24H + –7.11 5.41 − 0.13 8.13 Post24H*−7.4 7 7.69 −1.15 9.2 7
Xmeanl= mediolateral mean position of center of pressure in left –side monopodal support. Ymeanl=anteroposterior
mean position of center of pressure in lef t-side monopodal support. Xmeanr = mediolateral mean position of center of
pressure in right-side monopodal suppor t. Ymeanr=anteroposterior mean position of center of pressure in right-side
monopodal support. Pre = measures before training session. Post0Min = measures just after the training session. Post-
30Min = measu res 30 minutes after the t raining session. Post1H = measures after 1 hour after the training session. Post6H
= measures 6 hours after the training session. Post24H = measures 24 hours after the t raining session·†=pre measure-
ment as covariable; + (p<0.05), ++ (p<0.01)=denotes within-group differences with signicant decrease or increase
from the previous measurement; * (p<0.05), **p<0.01=denotes between-group differences in the same measurement.
49
then 5 times more: right after the training, after 30 minutes,
after 1 hour, after 6 hours and after 24 hours from the end
of the proprioceptive training session.
Important ndings were observed in variables refering to
position of CoP in both the mediolateral and anteroposterior
directions of the experimental group (Xmean and Ymean).
The control group experienced several and impor tant uc-
tuations in the mediplateral and anteroposterior directions
during the 24 hours after the conventional warm-up session
in left-side monopodal suppor t. These uctuations were not
observed in the experimental group, which showed values
over the whole time. These ndings agree with the st udy of
Romero-Franco et al., in which the control group showed
worse stabilometric parameters with certain uctuations
in mediolateral stability after a 25-minute warm-up16). In
contrast, Subasi et al., reported that a shorter warm-up had
positive effects on the balance of healthy young individuals,
without any difference between a 5-minute and a 10-min-
ute warm up20). Regarding the uniformity of stabilomet-
ric parameters of the experimental group, the only study
to date, to our knowledge, which has analyzed immediate
effects of proprioceptive training on stability did not nd
similar results, only a certain deterioration in mediolateral
stability16).
All differences found between the experimental and
control groups on both the left and right-side monopodal
supports were always in favour of the experimental ath-
letes, who showed values closer to zero than the control
group, and consequently, a more central position of CoP in
the anteroposterior and mediolateral directions of left-side
monopodal support and in the anteroposterior direction of
right-side monopodal support. In spite of these between-
group differences, no clear stabilometric improvement
was shown in the mediolateral and anteroposterior stabil-
ity after the proprioceptive training session. Our ndings
partly agree with Romero-Franco et al., who showed that
a proprioceptive training session had no effect on most
stabilometric parameters of athletes16). They also reported
a certain deterioration in the mediolateral stability in bipo-
dal support after proprioceptive training, which would have
Tab le 3 . Mean values of variables of CoP movement (Length, Area, Velocity) in both left-side and right-side monopodal
supports
Control Experimental Control Exper imental
n=17 n=20 n=17 n=20
Lengthl
(mm) Mean SD Mean SD Length r
(mm) Mean SD Mean SD
Pre 357. 3 138.86 348.29 10 6. 47 Pre 401.99 140 .27 359.53 8 9.8 3
Post0Min 380.04 91.2 8 339.24 14 6.63 Post0Min*392.53 97.6 3 325.0 6 83.44
Post30Min 32 2. 61 63.12 320.47 84.34 Post30Min +329. 4 49.8 325.48 76.38
Post1H 295.08 36.46 305.86 89.96 Post1H 322.33 4 6.77 318 .5 43.01
Post6H 315. 3 105.74 353.68 20 9.0 2 Post6H 36 7.8 83.67 322 .17 63.75
Post24H 289.64 72.61 3 09.41 72.17 Post 24H +++302.91 70.88 319. 82 82.48
Areal
(mm) Mean SD Mean SD Arear
(mm) Mean SD Mean SD
Pre 421.16 3 57. 2 2 4 47.0 8 342.23 Pre 664.84 778.65 4 67.9 4 352.93
Post0Min 372.62 212 .11 468.87 338.88 Post0Min 501. 49 311.79 4 01.14 260.49
Post30Min 496.95 273.64 459.30 32 6.13 Post30 Min 391.60 14 4.14 518.99 330. 55
Post1H 569.22 333.67 417. 35 305.88 Post1H 348.67 129. 88 394 .13 134.59
Post6H 425.98 289.62 631.77 10 42 .4 4 Post6H 375.9 4 244.97 466.36 326. 35
Post24H 215.73 117.6 6 325.53 224.87 Post24H 306.42 160.09 313.4 8 146. 86
Velocityl
(mm/se c) Mean SD Mean SD Velocityr
(mm/se c) Mean SD Mean SD
Pre 22.47 9.3 4 22 .61 6.67 Pre 25.17 9. 55 22.49 5.82
Post0Min 23.22 6.19 21. 68 9. 20 Post0Min*24 .51 6.65 19.9 6 4.74
Post30Min 17.61 4.99 19.74 4.97 Post30Min + +19.53 3.70 19. 89 4.88
Post1H 18.98 2.45 19. 46 5.51 Post1H 19.27 2.63 19.19 2.09
Post6H 20.54 7.21 22.57 13.51 Post6H*+23.33 5.84 20.04 3.77
Post24H 17.5 6 4.54 18 .80 4. 52 Post 24H +++19.09 4.62 19.82 4.54
Lengthl= Length of Center of Pressure movement in left monopodal support. Areal=Area of Center of Pressure move-
ment in left monopodal support. Velocityl=Velocity of Center of Pressure movement in left monopodal support. Lengthr=
Length of Center of Pressure movement in right monopodal support. Arear=Area of Center of Pressure movement in righ
monopodal support. Velocityr=Velocity of Center of Pressure movement in right monopodal suppor t. Pre = measures
before training session. Post0Mi n = measures just after the training session. Post30Min = measures 30 minutes after the
training session. Post1H = measures after 1 hour after the training session. Post6H = measures 6 hours after the training
session. Post24H = measures 24 hours af ter the training session; + (p<0.05), ++ (p<0.01), +++(p<0.001) =within-g roup
dif ferences with sign icant dec rease or inc rease from the pr evious measurement; *(p <0.05)=betwe en-gr oup differenc es.
J. Phys. Ther. Sci. Vol. 26, No. 1, 201450
been distinct from our results, where no changes were ob-
served in the experimental group.
Regarding variables about the path covered by CoP,
signicant ndings were observed in Length and Velocity
of the right-side monopodal stabilometry. Both the experi-
mental and control groups experienced a stabilometric im-
provement after the training session, and this improvement
was higher in the experimental group after the propriocep-
tive training. Our ndings differ from Romero-Franco et al.
who reported deterioration in bipodal stability right after a
proprioceptive training session16 ). The difference between
our results and those of Romero-Franco et al. seems to
mean that the effects of proprioceptive training are differ-
ent for the cases of monopodal and bipodal support. This
result could be explained by Ashton-Miller’s suggestion
about the specic improvement proprioceptive training
often induces, which means that only similar exercises are
improved21). This would explain the difference between the
result of the present study and those of Romero-Franco et
al., since proprioceptive training in both studies comprised
mainly monopodal exercises. This explanation would also
support the study of Pater no et al., in which athletes showed
improvements in anteroposterior and general stability, but
not in mediolateral stability in monopodal support after six
weeks of proprioceptive training. Paterno et al. suggested
that these results may have been due to the lack of medio-
lateral perturbation during their proprioceptive training
program, which only consisted of anteroposterior perturba-
tions1).
In the present study signicant uctuations were found
in the stabilometric values of the control group after the
warm-up session, while the experimental group showed
similar values for all measurements after the proprioceptive
training session.
Despite the fact that no clear stabilometric improve-
ment was found during the 24 hours after the propriocep-
tive training session, the uniformity observed in the stabi-
lometric values of the experimental group may mean the
proprioceptive training session had a stabilizing effect on
stabilometry. Thus, taking into account the consensus about
stabilometric deterioration as a risk factor of injuries22–24),
a more stable CoP without signicant uctuations would
appear to be extremely important for injury prevention.
However, further investigation is needed to verify this sup-
position.
Also, we suggest that differences found between right
and left-side monopodal support may be explained by the
sense of the curve of the track where all the athletes par-
ticiping in this study trained, which is always to the left,
according to the coaches of all athletes. However, no studies
to date have analysed the effect of this on athletes.
This study had limitations that need to be considered.
First, the size sample was small, which could have affect the
limits of signicance. Also, the athletes’ inexperience with
proprioceptive training may have been the main cause why
clear improvements in monopodal stability did not appear.
In futher investigations, we recommend the inclusion of a
group of athletes experienced in proprioceptive training,
in order to analyze its immediate effect and detail the best
schedule for a training routine.
The inclusion of a 25-minute proprioceptive training
session on unstable platfoms after a conventional warm-up
by athletes stabilized the position of CoP in the anteropos-
terior and mediolateral planes in monopodal stability by
decreasing CoP displacement. Contrary to our hypothesis,
after 25-minutes of conventional warm-up, athletes showed
stabilometric alterations. However, the inclusion of an ad-
ditional 25-minute proprioceptive training on unstable plat-
forms helped to regulate monopodal stabilometric param-
eters in the short-term mantaining the monopodal stability
level of athletes.
In practical application, coaches and physiotherapists
should taken into account the “stable stabilometry” gained
immediately after the proprioceptive training which elimi-
nates signicant stabilometric uctuations which could
be a potential risk factor of injuries for athletes. Besides,
the incorporation of proprioceptive exercises as part of the
warm-up would not only result in better stability than a
typical warm-up, but would also elicit medium and long-
term improvements in stability that are essential for injury
prevention.
REFERENCES
1) Pater no MV, Myer GD, Ford KR, et a l.: Neuromu scular trai ning i mproves
single-limb st abilit y in young fe male ath letes. J O rthop Sport s Phys Ther,
2004, 34: 305 –316. [Medli ne] [C ros sRe f ]
2) Arokosk i JP, Valta T, Airaksinen O, et al.: Ba ck and abdo minal muscle
func tion dur ing st abilization exercises. A rch Phys Med Rehabil, 20 01, 82:
1089 –1098. [ Me dl in e] [Cr os sRef]
3) McGill SM, Gre nier S, K avcic N, et al.: Coor dinat ion of muscle ac tivit y
to assu re stabi lity of the lumbar spine. J Elec tromyog r Kine siol, 2003, 13:
353–359. [ Me dl in e] [Cr os sRe f]
4) Chu lvi I, Her edia JR. Acondicionamie nto Depo rtivo: An álisis del trabajo
con Fitball p ara el for talecimient o de la zona Me dia. Alt o rendi miento:
ciencia de port iva, ent renamiento y t ness. 20 06 31: 3.
5) Behm D, Colado JC: The effect iveness of resista nce tr aini ng using u n-
stable su rfaces and dev ices for rehabilitation. Int J Sport s Phys Ther, 2012,
7: 226–241. [Me dl in e]
6) Mattacola CG, Lloyd J W: Effects of a 6-week strength and proprioception
trai ning pr ogram o n measu res of dyn amic balance: a sin gle-case desig n. J
Athl Trai n, 1997, 32: 127–135. [Me dl in e]
7) Stanton R, Reabur n PR, Humph ries B: The effect of shor t-ter m Swiss
ball tr aini ng on core st abilit y and r unn ing economy. J Streng th Cond Res ,
2004, 18: 522–528. [M ed li ne]
8) Yaggie JA, Campbell BM: Ef fects of ba lance t rain ing on sele cted sk ills. J
Streng th Cond Re s, 2006, 20: 422–428 . [Me dl ine]
9) Romero-Fr anco N, Ma rti nez-Lop ez E, Lom as-Vega R, et al.: Effect s of
proprio ceptive trai ning program on core sta bility a nd cente r of gravity
control i n spri nters. J Streng th Cond Re s, 2012, 26: 2071–2077. [Me dl in e]
[Cro ssR ef ]
10) Yasuda T, Naka gawa T, Inoue H, et al.: The role of the la byri nth, pro prio-
ception a nd plantar mecha nosens ors in the maintenance of an uprig ht pos-
ture. E ur Arch Otorhinolar yngol, 1999, 256: S27–S32. [ Me dl in e] [Cr oss-
Ref]
11) Marshall P, Murphy B: Ch anges i n muscle act ivity a nd perceived exer-
tion dur ing exer cises pe rform ed on a swis s ball. Appl Physiol Nutr Met ab,
2006, 31: 376–383. [Me dl in e] [Cr oss Ref ]
12) Anderson KG, Beh m DG: Mai ntena nce of EMG act ivity and loss of force
output w ith instability. J Streng th Cond Res, 2004, 18: 637–640. [M ed li ne]
13) Anderson K, Beh m DG: Tru nk muscle activity inc reases with un stable
squat moveme nts. Can J Appl Physiol, 2005, 30: 33–45. [Medli ne] [C ros s-
Ref]
14) Drin kwater EJ, Pritchett E J, Behm DG: Ef fect of instabil ity and resista nce
on unintention al squat-lift ing ki netics. I nt J Sport s Physiol Perfor m, 2007,
2: 400– 413. [Medl ine]
15) McArdle W, Katch F, Katch V: Funda mentos de siología del ejercicio. 2nd
Edición. M ardr id: McGr awHill-i nterameric ana. 20 04.
51
16) Romero- Franco N, Martinez-Lopez E, Lomas-Vega R, et al.: Shor t-ter m
effects of p roprioceptive t raining w ith unstable plat form on athlete s’ stabi-
lometr y. J Streng th Cond Res , 2013, 27: 2189–2197. [Medli ne] [C ros sRef ]
17) Mundial AM. D eclara ción de Helsi nki de l a Asocia ción Médica Mu ndial .
Prin cipios étic os para l as invest igacione s médica s en sere s human os.[In-
ter net]. 20 08.
18) Spalding A , Kelly L, Sa ntopiet ro J, et al.: Kid s on the bal l: using Sw iss
balls in a complete t ness program: Human K inetics; 1999.
19) Behm DG, A nders on K, Cu rnew RS: Muscle force an d activat ion unde r
stable and unst able condit ions. J St rengt h Cond Res, 2002, 16: 416–422.
[Me dl ine]
20) Subasi SS, Gele cek N, Ak sakoglu G: Ef fects of differe nt warm -up per iods
on knee proprioception a nd balance in healthy young i ndividuals. J Sport
Rehabil, 2008, 17: 186–205. [Me dl in e]
21) Ashton-M iller JA, Wojtys EM, Huston LJ, et al.: Can proprioception r eally
be improve d by exercise s? Knee Su rg Spor ts Trauma tol Ar throsc, 2001, 9:
128–13 6. [ Med li ne] [Cro ss Ref ]
22) Tropp H, Ekstr and J, Gillquist J: Stabilom etr y in functional instabilit y of
the an kle and its value i n predicting i njury. Med Sci Spor ts Exerc, 1984, 16:
64– 66. [Med li ne] [C ro ssR ef ]
23) Trojian TH, McKeag DB: Single leg bala nce test t o identi fy ris k of ankle
sprai ns. Br J Spor ts Med, 2006, 40: 610– 613. [Med li ne] [Cro ssR ef ]
24) Wang HK, Chen CH, Shiang TY, et al.: Risk-factor analysis of high school
basketba ll-player a nkle injur ies: a prosp ective controlled cohort study
evaluat ing post ural sway, ankle strength, a nd exibility. Arch Phys Me d
Rehabil, 2006, 87: 821–825. [Me dli ne] [C ros sRe f ]
