Dr.Hab., Professor V.G. Shilko¹
PhD, Associate Professor E.S. Potovskaya¹
Dr.Med. T.A. Shilko¹
O.N. Krupitskaya¹
M.S. Lim^1
1National Research Tomsk State University, Tomsk

Keywords: stress tolerance, stress exposure symptoms, priority physical qualities, fitness, body conditioning, physical fitness, experimental method

Background. Stress may be defined as the individual mental and physical tension and over-tension triggered by some external (climatic, emotional, physical etc.) impacts. Academic process related stresses are largely due to everyday overloads associated with bodily responses to different problems arising in the academic environment, learning process, private life etc.

Presently a special priority is given to the initiatives to improve the female students’ stress tolerance to a variety of stressors by different methods. The key objective of such initiatives is to mitigate the stress responses by a range of most efficient tools and methods including physical training. It is commonly acknowledged today that adequate physical loads are necessary to keep students’ mental, physical and somatic health standards within the norm in the academic environments. However, the issues of what physical education tools and methods are the most effective in the stress tolerance building aspects (including training process timing, intensity and loads related provisions etc.) are still contradictory at this juncture.

Objective of the study was to rate benefits of the special fitness and body conditioning practices for the female students’ physicality and stress tolerance building process.

Methods and structure of the study. Subject to the experimental study were the first-to-third year female students (n=240) aged 17-25 years sampled at 19 departments and institutes of National Research Tomsk State University. The subjects’ physical development rating data were analysed versus their stress tolerance rates for the experimental academic year. On the whole, as many as 19 pre- and post-experimental physical fitness and functional status test rates were analysed prior to and after the experimental academic year. The experimental group subjects’ stress tolerance was tested and rated using 29 rating criteria to assess benefits of the special fitness and body conditioning practices versus the initial physical fitness rates.

The proposed method includes 10 to 20 exercises designed to develop the high-priority physical qualities and improve the students’ stress tolerance by circuit training sessions (3min per exercise) timed to the starting phase of each regular academic training session, with the session intensity rated at 80–90% of the maximum.

Study results and discussion. The post-experimental physical fitness tests showed progress in the key physical qualities in both of the experimental groups (EG) albeit the progress rates were widely different. Thus, the three (first, second and third year) fitness EG showed progress in the right/left wrist strength as verified by 5 tests out of 6, including statistically significant progress in two tests (p<0.05). Of the body conditioning EG only the second-year subgroup showed some progress in two tests albeit the progress rates were insignificant in fact (p>0.05). The strength endurance rating push-up test showed great progress of the fitness EG versus the body conditioning EG; including significant progress in two test versions out of three demonstrated by the fitness EG; versus the moderate progress trend in the the first- and third-year body conditioning EG. In the static and coordinative endurance rating tests (legs holding at 45 degrees and stuffed/ tennis ball juggling tests), both EG in the three age subgroups showed significant progress (as verified by the pre- versus post-experimental test rates) in virtually every test version with the only exclusion for the body conditioning first-year EG that showed an insignificant progress trend in the stuffed ball juggling test.

The coordination abilities rating tests (Romberg test and ball throws on target) showed virtually the same progress of the fitness EG versus the body conditioning EG. Significant progress difference (p<0.05) was found only in two age subgroups out of three in the Romberg test (second- and third-year fitness EG and first- and third-year body conditioning EG, respectively). The ball throw test showed no significant progress differences across the groups.

The agility rating shuttle run test showed the same clear progress gap in favour of the fitness EG versus the body conditioning EG, with the significant progress difference fixed in two test versions out of three. Actual progress as verified by the pre- versus post-experimental test rates made up more than 20%. The body conditioning EG showed moderate agility growth trends of 3-5% only in the second- and third-year subgroups. It should be noted that the first-year body conditioning EG showed even a 12% regress in this test.

Having analysed findings of the response speed rating tests (falling object catching test), we found only one case of the body conditioning EG acting better versus the fitness EG in the three age subgroups. The progress differences varied from 23.9% in the first-year to 31.9% in the third-year subgroups. The fitness EG showed the lowest progress in this test, with only second- and third-year subgroups showing a moderate progress trend in the response speed rating test. It should be noted that the first-year fitness EG showed even a 5.5% regress as a result of the experiment.

The run speed rating 100m sprint test did not show any progress in both EG as verified by the pre- versus post-experimental test rates in three age subgroups. The progress test rates of the fitness versus body conditioning EG showed some inconsistent differences albeit they were rated statistically insignificant.

The speed-strength qualities rating standing long jump test of the fitness versus body conditioning EG in the three age subgroups showed progress as verified by the pre- versus post-experimental test rates only in the fitness EG; with the first-year fitness EG tested with the highest progress of 14.8cm and the third-year fitness EG tested with the lowest progress of 7.9cm. Actually the fitness EG showed widely different progress rates in this speed-strength qualities rating test. Thus, the second-year fitness EG showed a significant progress in this test versus the moderate regress of -1-3cm showed by the first- and third-year fitness EG.

The 2000m run test showed widely different progress rates of the EG, with the body conditioning EG tested with notable progress in this test versus the fitness EG showing regress in all the age subgroups with the only exclusion for the third-year fitness EG tested with a significant progress in the 2000m run test.

In the flexibility tests, significant progress (p<0.05) in all the age subgroups was found only in the fitness EG versus the body conditioning EG that were mostly tested with much lower albeit still notable progress; with the only exclusion for the first-year body conditioning EG tested with a significant progress difference.

On the whole, the test data and analysis showed a clear progress of the fitness EG versus the body conditioning EG in most of the physical quality tests. The Harvard Step Test further confirmed this difference in progress. Thus the 2nd and 3rd year fitness EG and the 1st year body conditioning EG showed some progress; versus the 3rd year body conditioning EG showing a significant regress (p<0.05) as a result of the experiment.

Having compared the pre- and post-experimental physicality test rates of the fitness and body conditioning EG and RG in the three age subgroups, we found clear benefits of the experimental training method as verified by the progress test rates. On the whole, the EG showed progress in 83 specific tests versus RG that showed progress in 67 tests.

It should be noted that the study data and analyses showed no significant variations and differences in the cardio-respiratory system test rates (breath-holding tests during inspiration and jumping tests) and anoxia tolerance rests (breath-holding test during exhalation) in the EG versus RG (trained as required by the traditional curriculum). Having analysed the physical fitness rates of the fitness and body conditioning EG versus the stress tolerance rates, we should note that effects of the training were quite contradictory in the first-to-third year EG vs. RG groups. The numbers of the first-year fitness EG students reporting improvements in the working capacity and fatigue tolerance were found to grow by 28% versus 35% in the body conditioning EG as a result of experiment. In addition, numbers of the first-year body conditioning EG students reporting improvements in the working capacity and fatigue tolerance were found to grow by 31%.

Furthermore, the experimental special physical training sessions were tested to help reduce aggressiveness and irritability rates, with the progress particularly expressed in the first-year fitness EG where the progress was reported by 34% of the group members. The same group was tested with 20% reduction in the number of students reporting stress and helplessness when facing different academic process problems; and 18% reduction in the numbers reporting low confidence and poor self-rates.

The second-year fitness and body conditioning EG were also tested with significant progress in the stress conditions as a result of the experimental training. By the end of the academic year, only 25% of the fitness EG did not report any changes in the working capacity and fatigue tolerance rates versus 40-50% in the body conditioning EG and RG. More than 20% of the group reported the same progress as the first-year students in their working capacity, fatigue, irritability, anxiety and fear rates.

Most of the third-year fitness and body conditioning EG reported, in addition to the above physical progress, positive variations in the functionality rates. Good functional progress was found as verified by reduction of the negative physiological symptoms including muscle stiffness/ tremor, gastrointestinal system disorders, headache and other aching including pains in the cardiovascular system etc.

Conclusion

• Comparative analysis of the pre- versus post-experimental (at the beginning and at the end of the academic year) physical fitness test rates showed progress of the fitness EG (experimental groups) as verified by 19 rating tests and 44 test rates versus 39 test rates in the body conditioning EG. Virtually the same progress differences were found in the relevant reference groups. On the whole, the fitness groups showed higher progress as verified by 39 test rates versus 28 test rates in the body conditioning EG.
• Stress tests of the first-to-third year fitness EG with application of 39 test rates found at least 20% growth of stress exposure in only one case (gastrointestinal problems reported by the first-year students). In 7 other stress exposure factors, stress exposure growth was less expressed in this group (2-15%) versus the other groups; and in 19 stress exposure factors the tests showed mitigation of at least 20% as a result of the experiment.

Similar variations in the stress tolerance rates were found in the body conditioning EG, with the 20% progress and regress found in 10 and 2 tests, respectively. The reference groups were also tested with progress in the stress tolerance as verified by the pre- versus post-experimental tests, albeit the variations were less expressed versus those in the experimental groups.

The study data and analyses showed benefits of the proposed experimental physical practices both in the physicality building and stress tolerance improvement domains.

References

1. Ivanova E.V. Razvitie koordinatsionnykh sposobnostey u zanimayuschikhsya ekstremalnymi vidami deyatelnosti [Development of coordination abilities for those engaged in extreme activities]. Psikhopedagogika v pravookhranitelnykh organakh, 2008, no. 2, pp. 18-19.
2. Karyakina S.N., Maslyaninova O.M. Professionalny stress pedagogov gorodskikh i selskikh shkol [Professional stress of municipal and rural school teachers]. LAP Lambert Academic Publishing GmbH & Co. KG Dudweiler Landstr. 99, 66123 Saarbrücken, Germany, 2012, 131 p.
3. Lyakh V.I. Koordinatsionnye sposobnosti: diagnostika i razvitie [Coordination abilities: diagnostics and development]. Moscow: TVT Divizion publ., 2006, 290 p.
4. Selye G. Stress bez distressa [Stress without distress]. Moscow: Progress publ., 1979, 124 p.
5. Shil'ko V.G., Shil'ko T.A., Potovskaya E.S. Vliyanie fizkulturno-sportivnykh zanyatiy na pokazateli stressoustoychivosti studentov [Relationship of physical education and sport sessions and stress tolerance indices of students]. Teoriya i praktika fiz. kultury. 2016, no. 10, pp. 91–92.

Corresponding author: vshilko@mail.ru

Abstract

The article analyses findings of an educational experiment geared to improve physical fitness and stress tolerance rates of the first-to-third year female students by special fitness and body conditioning methods under the regular academic Physical Education curriculum, the experiment taking one academic year. The proposed new method includes 10 to 20 exercises designed to develop the high-priority physical qualities and improve the students’ stress tolerance by circuit training practices timed to the starting phase of each regular academic training session [1].

Having analysed the experimental data, we found correlations of the stress exposure rates with the physical fitness rates and demonstrated practical benefits of the experimental training method, the benefits being dependent both on the design and content of the physical training process generally classified into the strength-building and body conditioning practices.