↓ Skip to main content

Neuromuscular Adaptations to Training, Injury and Passive Interventions

Overview of attention for article published in Sports Medicine, October 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
64 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
425 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Neuromuscular Adaptations to Training, Injury and Passive Interventions
Published in
Sports Medicine, October 2012
DOI 10.2165/11317850-000000000-00000
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jason Bonacci, Andrew Chapman, Peter Blanch, Bill Vicenzino

Abstract

Performance in endurance sports such as running, cycling and triathlon has long been investigated from a physiological perspective. A strong relationship between running economy and distance running performance is well established in the literature. From this established base, improvements in running economy have traditionally been achieved through endurance training. More recently, research has demonstrated short-term resistance and plyometric training has resulted in enhanced running economy. This improvement in running economy has been hypothesized to be a result of enhanced neuromuscular characteristics such as improved muscle power development and more efficient use of stored elastic energy during running. Changes in indirect measures of neuromuscular control (i.e. stance phase contact times, maximal forward jumps) have been used to support this hypothesis. These results suggest that neuromuscular adaptations in response to training (i.e. neuromuscular learning effects) are an important contributor to enhancements in running economy. However, there is no direct evidence to suggest that these adaptations translate into more efficient muscle recruitment patterns during running. Optimization of training and run performance may be facilitated through direct investigation of muscle recruitment patterns before and after training interventions. There is emerging evidence that demonstrates neuromuscular adaptations during running and cycling vary with training status. Highly trained runners and cyclists display more refined patterns of muscle recruitment than their novice counterparts. In contrast, interference with motor learning and neuromuscular adaptation may occur as a result of ongoing multidiscipline training (e.g. triathlon). In the sport of triathlon, impairments in running economy are frequently observed after cycling. This impairment is related mainly to physiological stress, but an alteration in lower limb muscle coordination during running after cycling has also been observed. Muscle activity during running after cycling has yet to be fully investigated, and to date, the effect of alterations in muscle coordination on running economy is largely unknown. Stretching, which is another mode of training, may induce acute neuromuscular effects but does not appear to alter running economy. There are also factors other than training structure that may influence running economy and neuromuscular adaptations. For example, passive interventions such as shoes and in-shoe orthoses, as well as the presence of musculoskeletal injury, may be considered important modulators of neuromuscular control and run performance. Alterations in muscle activity and running economy have been reported with different shoes and in-shoe orthoses; however, these changes appear to be subject-specific and non-systematic. Musculoskeletal injury has been associated with modifications in lower limb neuromuscular control, which may persist well after an athlete has returned to activity. The influence of changes in neuromuscular control as a result of injury on running economy has yet to be examined thoroughly, and should be considered in future experimental design and training analysis.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 425 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 6 1%
Brazil 4 <1%
United Kingdom 4 <1%
Germany 2 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Poland 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 404 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 89 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 61 14%
Student > Bachelor 57 13%
Researcher 33 8%
Other 29 7%
Other 85 20%
Unknown 71 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 183 43%
Medicine and Dentistry 67 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 26 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 3%
Social Sciences 12 3%
Other 41 10%
Unknown 82 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 August 2023.
All research outputs
#7,960,512
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine
#2,211
of 2,875 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,982
of 202,129 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine
#574
of 979 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,875 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 56.8. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 202,129 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 979 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.