Endurance and stress tolerance building circuit training model for female students
ˑ:
PhD E.S. Potovskaya1
I.T. Krupitskaya1
1Tomsk State University, Tomsk
Keywords: female students, fitness, new training model, stress tolerance, endurance.
Background. Due stress tolerance is required in the modern academic education to control the studies-specific stresses and secure good emotional balance and performance [4]. Physical activity is appreciated for its stress mitigation [2], mental conditioning and professional performance improvement effects under heavy job-specific stressors as it develops overall/ static/ strength/ coordination endurance [1].
Objective of the study was to test benefits of the overall/ static/ strength/ coordination endurance and stress tolerance building circuit training model for female students.
Methods and structure of the study. Sampled for the study were the 1-3-year (17-25 years old) female students (n=120) from 19 faculties and institutes of National Research Tomsk State University trained in fitness groups and split up into 3 Reference Groups (RG1, RG2, RG3) and 3 Experimental Groups (EG1, EG2, EG3) of 20 people each. The Reference Group trainings were dominated by the traditional weights-applying fitness practices; and the Experimental Group trainings were complemented by the new endurance and stress tolerance building circuit training model, with the group progress tested on a systemic basis. The EG trainings included 20 special 3-min couple practices run on a circuit basis prior to the core part of each session, with the intensity rated at 80-90% of the maximum: see Figure hereunder.
Figure 1. Stress tolerance building circuit training model
It should be noted that the EG trainings were the same for two years with the only revisions in the training scopes and intensities in every session: see Table 1.
Table 1. Experimental training toolkit
|
Target physical qualities |
Exercises |
||
|
Strength endurance |
Dynamic bents, squats, recumbent leg lifts, diverse jump thrusts: 10-30 reps each |
||
|
|
|
Prone push-ups with alternating knee/ tip support, and with crossed shins in the knee support version |
|
|
|
1-2kg stuffed ball varied-intensity throws in couples |
||
|
Coordination endurance |
1-2kg stuffed ball throws with varied time, intensity and height |
||
|
|
|
Varied-intensity/ position ball rotations in hand |
|
|
Static endurance |
Hangs on a bar with straight legs at 90º or bent arms |
||
|
|
|
Static stances with limb repositionings |
|
|
General endurance |
12-min treadmill run with the intensity harmonized with the musical illustrations |
||
The general endurance 12-min treadmill practices in the EG were run at the end of each session with the intensity stepped up in harmony with the musical illustrations on a 1-min basis. The RG trainings were run in the traditional formats specific for the dominant fitness model. The RG versus EG stress tolerance, stressors and individual stress coping models were probed and rated on a 5-point scale by a questionnaire survey using a special form [3].
Results and discussion. Given in Tables 2 and 3 are the endurance and stress tolerance test rates of the sample. Note that the pre-experimental test rates of the EG and RG found no significant intergroup differences (р>0.05).
Table 2. Pre- versus post-experimental endurance tests rates of the sample
|
Test time |
2000m race, min |
Harvard step test, points |
Prone push-ups, count |
450plank on forearms, s |
|
|
3-year group, pre-exp. (n=40) |
17,0±0,2 |
71,8±2,3 |
17,0±1,7 |
73,1±5,9 |
|
|
End of training year 1 |
RG1 (n=20) |
16,9±0,2 |
73,2±1,6 |
27,9±3,3 p2<0,05 |
81,4±4,6 |
|
EG1 (n=20) |
16,9±0,4 |
79,2±1,6 |
26,7±2,7 p2<0,05 |
95,9±3,2 р1<0,05 p2<0,05 |
|
|
2-year group, pre-exp. (n=40) |
17,6±0,2 |
76,7±1,8 |
16,7±1,0 |
53,9±3,3
|
|
|
End of training year 2 |
RG2 (n=20) |
17,5±0,5 |
68,7±2,4 |
19,7±2,0
|
84,3±3,9 p2<0,05 |
|
EG2 (n=20) |
15,4±0,5 р1<0,05 p2<0,05 |
86,2±2,4 |
22,0±2,0 p2<0,05 |
106,7±3,9 р1<0,05 p2<0,05 |
|
|
1-year group, pre-exp. (n=40) |
18,1±0,2 |
72,7±1,5 |
9,3±0,8 |
59,7±3,5 |
|
|
Continued after training year 2 |
RG3 (n=20) |
17,7±0,6
|
74,8±2,8 |
21,7±2,1 p2<0,05 |
95,4±5,0 р2<0,05 |
|
EG3 (n=20) |
16,0±0,6 р1<0,05 p2<0,05 |
83,2±2,5 |
23,6±2,2 p2<0,05 |
108,7±4,8 р1<0,05 p2<0,05 |
|
Note: р1<0.05 refers to the RG test data differences; р2<0.05 refers to the pre-versus post-experimental test rates
The post- versus pre-experimental tests showed statistically significant progress in the prone-push up test and the 450 plank on forearms test both in the EG and RG (that is not unusual for fitness groups), albeit the 1- and 2-year EG students made better progresses than their RG peers. The post-year-2 2000m race (general endurance rating) tests showed a significant progress in the EG versus their own pre-experimental test rates and the peer RG. The EG progress in the general endurance test was also verified by the Harvard step test rates. It should be mentioned that this test found progress in every group albeit it was the highest in the 2-year EG students. The 1-year EG questionnaire surveys found significant progress (3.2 to 2.2 points) in the stress tolerance rates, and a lesser (insignificant) progress in the 2- and 3-year EG students: see Table 3.
Table 3. Pre- versus post-experimental stress tolerance tests rates of the sample
|
Test time |
Academic stress, points |
Fears of future, points |
Poor self controls, points |
Examination stress, points |
|
|
3-year group, pre-exp. (n=40) |
3,3±0,3 |
2,7±0,2 |
2,4±0,2 |
3,6±0,4 |
|
|
End of training year 1 |
RG1 (n=20) |
3,0±0,2 |
3,4±0,2 |
1,5±0,2 |
3,2±0,3 |
|
EG1 (n=20) |
2,7±0,2 |
4,9±0,2 р1<0,05 р2<0,05 |
1,5±0,2 |
2,7±0,2 р2<0,05 |
|
|
2-year group, pre-exp. (n=40) |
2,9±0,2
|
2,5±0,2 |
2,0±0,2 |
3,6±0,3
|
|
|
End of training year 2 |
RG2 (n=20) |
3,2±0,3 |
3,0±0,2
|
1,8±0,2
|
3,6±0,4
|
|
EG2 (n=20) |
2,8±0,2 |
1,8±0,2 р1<0,05 p2<0,05 |
1,7±0,2 |
2,4±0,2 р1<0,05 p2<0,05 |
|
|
1-year group, pre-exp. (n=40) |
3,2±0,2 |
2,5±0,3 |
2,3±0,2
|
2,2±0,3
|
|
|
Continued after training year 2 |
RG3 (n=20) |
3,4±0,3 |
2,8±0,2 |
2,2±0,2
|
3,6±0,3 p2<0,05 |
|
EG3 (n=20) |
2,2±0,2 р1<0,05 p2<0,05 |
2,0±0,2 |
1,2±0,2 р1<0,05 p2<0,05 |
3,4±0,3 p2<0,05 |
|
Note: р1<0.05 refers to the RG test data differences; р2<0.05 refers to the pre-versus post-experimental test rates
It should be noted that the academic stress rates in the RG showed no progress with the only exclusion for the 3-year RG, with the particularly high examination stressors reported by every 1-year RG. The senior EG students, however, were tested to improve their examination stress tolerance rates: 3.6 to 2.4 and 3.8 to 2.7 points in the 2- and 3-year groups, respectively. With age the RG students were found to develop higher fears of the future – versus their more confident 2- and 3-year EG peers that showed progresses in this aspect of 2.5 to 1.8 and 2.7 to 1.9 points, respectively. Furthermore, the 1- and 3-year EG students were found to better cope with such stressors as the poor self-controls (daily regimen mismanagements), time pressures, sleeping disorders and unhealthy diets – versus their RG peers who remained high on these stress scales. The 2-year EG was tested with a stable albeit insignificant progress on this scale.
Conclusion. The pre- versus post-experimental tests showed benefits of the new model as verified by the significant progress in the endurance and stress tolerance test rates of the Experimental Group versus Reference Group.
References
- Ivanova E.V. Development of coordination abilities in athletes engaged in extreme activities. Psikhopedagogika v pravookhranitelnykh organakh. 2008. no. 2. pp. 15-16.
- Karyakina S.N. Characteristics of learning process of junior and senior university students. Uch. zapiski Orlovskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. [Bulletin of Orlov state university. Ser. Humanities and social sciences]. 2010. no. 3-2. pp. 210-215.
- Shil'ko V.G., Shil'ko T.A., Potovskaya E.S., Krupitskaya O.N. University students' stress tolerance rates versus their attitudes to physical training and sports. Teoriya i praktika fiz. kultury, 2016, no. 12, pp. 41-43
- Scherbatykh Y.V. Psychology of stress and correction methods. St. Petersburg: Piter publ., 2006, 256 p.
Corresponding author: biglard@yandex.ru
Abstract
Due stress tolerance is required in the modern academic education to control the studies-specific stresses and secure good emotional balance and performance. Physical activity is appreciated for its stress mitigation, mental conditioning and professional performance improvement effects under heavy job-specific stressors as it develops overall/ static/ strength/ coordination endurance. We run an experiment to test benefits of the overall/ static/ strength/ coordination endurance and stress tolerance building circuit training model for female students.
Sampled for the study were the 1-3-year female students (n=120) of National Research Tomsk State University trained in fitness groups and split up into Reference and Experimental Groups. The Reference Group trainings were dominated by the weighted fitness practices; and the Experimental Group trainings were complemented by the new endurance and stress tolerance building circuit training model, with the group progress tested on a systemic basis. The group progress in the stress tolerance domain was rated by a questionnaire survey. The pre- versus post-experimental tests showed benefits of the new model as verified by the significant progress in endurance and stress tolerance of the Experimental Group versus Reference Group.
