Dr. Hab., Professor V.G. Shilko
National Research Tomsk State University, Tomsk

Keywords: stress, stressors, communication stress, stress tolerance, physical fitness (PF).

Background. It is common knowledge that individual stress tolerance is largely determined by the willpower. Willful individuals generally demonstrate high stress tolerance i.e. low sensitivity to the distracting impacts and high decision-making capacity under competitive pressures [3]. This is the reason for us to believe that the efforts to improve the students’ stress tolerance shall give a special priority to the physical education service making an emphasis on the adaptability, willpower and other core personality qualities to make the individual highly fit (in the psychophysical terms) to the academic studies [1].

Objective of the study was to rate benefits of a new strength and speed-strength building model to improve the physical fitness and stress tolerance in female students.

Methods and structure of the study. Sampled for the new model testing experiment were the 1-2-year 17-20 year-old female students (n=120) of National Research Tomsk State University trained in fitness groups. The new strength and speed-strength training model testing experiment was designed to rate progress of the EG versus RG and find the key factors of influence on the progress. The Experimental Group (EG) was trained using the new training model with the traditional training tools complemented by 20 special couple exercises in the core part of every training session at the sub-maximal (80-90% of the maximum) intensity rates [2]. The Reference Group (RG) trainings were dominated by traditional training machines assisted and weightlifting practices. Progress of both groups was rated by the physical fitness tests twice per academic year (spring and autumn tests, 4 in total); plus special questionnaire surveys were run to profile the stress tolerance variations for a two-year period. The SC was rated by a questionnaire survey including 8 modules (35 questions in total) to probe the sensitivity to classified stressors. It should be noted that the pre-experimental tests found insignificant intergroup differences in the physical fitness and stress tolerance test rates.

Results and discussion. The two-year model testing experiment and most of the pre- versus post-experimental tests showed significant progress of the EG versus RG. Thus the post-1-year right wrist dynamometry test showed significant progress of the EG versus their RG (p<0.05) that was confirmed by the post-2-year tests. The left wrist dynamometry test showed insignificant albeit still noticeable progress of the EG versus the RG (p>0.05).

The EG showed even higher progress in the prone push-up (test 1) and 45° forearm rest (test 2), with the post-1-year and post-2-year progresses estimated at 100% and 54% to the pre-experimental test rates, respectively. The RG post-1-year and post-2-year tests also showed some progress as a result of the training machines assisted trainings and weightlifting practices, although the progress was far behind that of the EG. It should be noted that the EG made significant progress in test 2 versus the own pre-experimental and peer RG test rates. The RG made a significant progress in this test (p<0.05), although the EG progress was significantly higher (+13.3s) versus the RG. The group SS rating standing long jump test showed lower progresses in both groups versus the strength (wrist dynamometry) progress. It should be mentioned that only EG made a significant progress for the first year as found by the post-1-year test versus the pre-experimental test.

We used the questionnaire survey form to profile the group stress tolerance for the two years of experiment. The EG was found to make significant (p<0.05) progress in the academic stress tolerance rates (in 6 out of 7 group 1 stressor-specific tests), with the particularly high progress in tolerance to the data inflow processing and high academic workload related stressors. Tolerance to these stressors in the EG was tested to fall three times in the post- versus the pre-experimental tests, whilst the RG was tested with virtually no progress in the stress tolerance rates classified by the stressors for the two-year fitness training period (p<0.05) [2].

The stress tolerance to group 2 stressors (academic motivations and institutional aspects) was found to change only for 2 stressors out of 6. The EG stress tolerance improved to the stressors associated with the two-shift schedules and windows in the schedule, and tolerance to the other 4 stressors was also tested to improve notably albeit statistically significantly. The RG tolerance to group 2 stressors was found to insignificantly vary on a random basis.

It should be emphasized that the female students’ stress tolerance is often undermined by an unhealthy lifestyle, diet and physical inactivity (group 3 stressors). Tolerance to these stressors may be effectively improved by the persistent efforts to reasonably schedule the work and rest time and thereby facilitate the academic trainings and rehabilitation so as to maintain the performance and protect/ improve the physical and mental health. The EG was also tested with progress in tolerance to the group 3 stressors; with the post-1-year and post-2-year test rates showing significant improvements in 4 tests out of 7 (p<0.05); and 6 tests out of 7, respectively. The RG made insignificant progress in neither of the group 3 tests (p>0.05).

Communicative stress tolerance was rated by the group 4 tests. The pre- versus post-experimental tests showed significant progress of the EG in relations with the teachers; relaxation skills; and interpersonal communication skills. The RG was also tested with some progress in the overall tolerance/ patience and interpersonal communication aspects.

The group sensitivity to the everyday/ financial problems was rated by the group 5 stressors. The tests found some significant progress in tolerance to 2 stressors out of 8, with only the EG tested with significant progresses in own finance management and everyday problems solving domains. It should be mentioned that both groups showed virtually no sensitivity to the threats of terrorism and hostilities for the two years of experiment. The post-1-year tests showed significant progress of the EG versus the own pre-experimental test rates and the RG ones; albeit the post-experimental tests showed the EG tolerance to these stressors turning back to the statistically significant difference versus the pre-experimental rates (p <0.05).

Conclusion. On the whole, the EG was tested, as a result of the experimental trainings, with a higher progress in the self-management domain, better stress tolerance in the communication domain and lower sensitivity to the harmful effects of the unhealthy daily regimen, unhealthy diets and physical inactivity (stressor groups 3-5), as verified by the significant improvements in 9 anxiety tests out of 17 (p<0.05). Generally the two-year strength and speed-strength building model testing experiment found the model being beneficial for the physical fitness and stress tolerance improvement purposes; and thus it may be recommended as complementary to the academic physical education curricula.

References

1. Zagrevskaya A.I., Lubysheva L.I. Ontokinesiological approach for sportization of physical education within national educational system. Teoriya i praktika fiz. kultury, 2017, no. 6, pp. 6–8.
2. Shilko V.G., Shilko T.A., Potovskaya E.S., Krupitskaya O.N.  Stress control practices reported by university students engaged in physical education. Teoriya i praktika fizicheskoy kultury, 2017, no. 6, pp. 86–88.
3. Shcherbatykh Yu.V. Psychology of stress and correction methods. St. Petersburg: Piter publ., 2006, 256 p.

Corresponding author: tashilko@gmail.com

Abstract

It is common knowledge that an individual stress tolerance is largely determined by the willpower. The study was designed in this context to rate benefits of the strength and speed-strength building practices for physical progress and stress tolerance in the female students’ groups at National Research Tomsk State University. The Experimental Group (EG) was trained for the study purposes by a special training system with the traditional training tools complemented by 20 special couple exercises in the core part of every training session. The Reference Group (RG) trainings were dominated by traditional practices on training machines and with weights. Progress of the both groups was rated by the physical fitness tests and special questionnaire surveys to rate the stress tolerance variations for a two-year period.

A comparative analysis of the test data found the following: meaningful progress of the Experimental Group versus Reference Group (p<0.05) in the right wrist strength pre-versus post-experimental tests; meaningful progress in the prone push-ups test (+2 reps on average) and the 45° forearm rest test (+12s); and notable albeit meaningless EG progress in the speed-strength tests. The pre- versus post-experimental questionnaire surveys found the progress of the Experimental Group in many stress tolerance aspects, with tolerance to 8 stressors out of 13 and the anxiety rates tested to meaningfully (p<0.05) fall in the EG versus RG. The Reference Group was tested with meaningless progress (p>0.05) in the anxiety rates for the study period.