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

Keywords: stress tolerance, stress factors, fitness, physical fitness.

Background. Stress may be interpreted as the individual mental/ physical tension caused by external thermal, emotional, mental, physical and other adverse factors (stressors) [2]. It is commonly accepted today that somatic health of university students may be improved by reasonably designed physical trainings; albeit the modern sport science is still uncertain on what sport disciplines or technologies are the most efficient for the stress tolerance improvement purposes; and what the best scopes, intensities and timeframes of the trainings for success are.

Objective of the study was to test benefits of an experimental stress control and stress tolerance building model for the 1-3-year female university students.

Methods and structure of the study. Sampled for the new stress tolerance building model were the 1-3-year (17-25 years old) female university students (n=220) from 15 departments and institutes of the National Research Tomsk State University (NRTSU). The model offered 10 to 20 special physicality building sub-maximal (80-90%) intensity 3min practices performed in couples in a cycle format.

The tolerance building model was tested in the Experimental Group (EG) trainings giving a special priority to the following practices: overall endurance building 12min treadmill/ static run; agility building tennis ball joggling, racket mastering and ball throw practices; coordination endurance building staffed ball joggling/ throw/ rotation practices; static endurance building plank, static and suspension practices; and the strength endurance building controlled push-ups and dynamic practices. The Reference Group (RG) was trained under the traditional physical education curriculum dominated by training simulator assisted and weight practices focused on the strength building goals.

The pre- and post-experimental anxiety (stress sensitivity) of the sample was rated by a special questionnaire survey form of 35 questions grouped in 8 Stressors Groups – by the key stressors reported by the students [4].

Study findings and discussion. The pre- versus post-experimental surveys for the Group 1 Stressors (related to the academic learning process) tested the 1-year EG subgroup with the lower sensitivity (higher tolerance) to 6 stressors out of 7; with a significant (p<0.05) progress in tolerance to two stressors (high-intensity intellectual activity and responsible attitude to studies) and insignificant progress in tolerance to four stressors versus the RG peers. The 2-year EG subgroup was also tested with significant (p<0.05) improvement of tolerance to 4 stressors out of 7 in the pre-versus post-experimental tests versus the RG peers.

And the 3-year EG subgroup was tested with lower progress (p>0.05) in tolerance to 6 stressors out of 7, with a significant improvement of tolerance tested to only 1 stressor in the pre-versus post-experimental tests versus the RG peers.

On the whole, the pre-versus post-experimental tests of the EG versus the RG showed the EG being more tolerant to Group 1 Stressors, with the highest progress in stress tolerance found in the 1-year students and the lowest in the 3-year students.

The pre- versus post experimental tests for the Group 2 Stressors (related to the motivational and disciplinary aspects of the academic education service) found the two-shift learning regime and non-core disciplines in the curricula associated with the highest stresses, with the highest sensitivity to these stressors tested in the 1-year RG subgroup versus the peer EG subgroup.

The stress tolerance to Group 2 Stressors was tested to make the greatest progress in the 2-3-year EG subgroups. The pre- versus post-experimental tests found a significant progress in tolerance to 2 stressors out of 6 in the 2-year EG subgroup versus 4 stressors out of 6 in the 3-year EG subgroup.

The pre- versus post experimental tests for the Group 3 Stressors (related to daily regime, diets and physical activity) found a high anxiety rates in the RG, with the 2-year RG subgroup tested with the highest sensitivity to 5 stressors out of 7; with the peer EG subgroup stress tolerance tested meaningfully (p<0.05) higher. It should be noted, however, that variations of the tolerance to the Group 3 Stressors were more inconsistent in the both groups than to the Groups 1-2 Stressors.

Thus the 1-3-year EG subgroup were tested with significant improvements of tolerance to 9 stressors out of 21 in Group 3; with tolerance to 8 stressors found notable albeit insignificant; and tolerance to another 4 stressors was found higher in the RG versus EG.

It should be mentioned in this context that many studies [1-5] demonstrated the university students being sensitive not only to the academic education and examinations related stressors but also to communication related stressors that are no less hard for them. These are the Group 4 Stressors including psychological attacks, aggression, peer manipulations and many other situations that may arise in the everyday life.

Modern education technologies and practices offer a wide range of stress control tools [1, 3, 4], although the key role in the adaptability and stress tolerance improvement programs is still played by physical practices. This is why the new stress tolerance building model testing experiment was designed to qualify and quantify the physical training and sport practices so as to attain the highest stress tolerance levels. In addition, we strived to balance the strength, game, traditional conditioning, endurance and other components of the practices to contribute to the stress tolerance building effect.

The communication related stressors were found most serious for the 1-year (that is natural) and, surprisingly, the 3-year student subgroups. These stresses often come up in the students’ interrelations with the teachers and peers due to shyness and poor confidence further aggravated by the private-life related problems in the senior student population. To some extent, the high stress sensitivity (anxiety) may be also caused by family tensions.

Benefits of the new stress control and stress tolerance building model with a priority to special trainings and strength practices were rated by the post-experimental questioning tests. Significantly improved tolerance to 3 communication related stressors out of 12 [Group 4 Stressors] was tested in the 1- and 3-year EG subgroups versus the RG peers; and insignificant improvements were tested in 7 communication related stressors in the EG versus RG. In the private-life problems settlement issues, the 3-year RG subgroup was tested with significantly better rates than the EG peers.

It should be mentioned that the pre- and post-experimental test rates of the 2-year students showed their lower stress sensitivity and its variation range than that in the 1- and 3-year students. Despite this age specifics in the test data arrays, the EG was generally tested with significantly higher tolerance to 4 stressors out of 6 versus the RG peers.

The pre- versus post-experimental tests of the Group 5 Stressors (related to resettlement and accommodation) naturally found the highest sensitivity (anxiety) rates in the 1-year students. Despite that, the beginner students were tested to fast accommodate to the living problems by the end of experimental academic year. The 2- and 3-year students were tested virtually immune to the Group 5 resettlement- and accommodation-related stressors, with the immunity level staying almost the same for the whole period of the study. However, the relatively long experience of self-reliant living of the senior student subgroups was found of little help for them in the finance-management issues and the relevant stressors (p<0.05).

The pre- versus post-experimental tests of the Group 6 Stressors (related to the risks of terroristic attacks and military conflicts) found the 1-year RG subgroup less vulnerable to these stressors versus the EG peers. It should be mentioned that the experimental period was marked by the Syrian war and growing tensions between the RF, US and European Union. The growing confrontation between Russia and the western countries was found to cause virtually no negative effect on the anxiety test rates of the 2- and 3-year EG/RG fitness subgroups.

Furthermore, the 1-, 2- and 3-year EG/RG fitness subgroups were also tested with a high ethnic/ racial tolerance i.e. no sensitivity to the Group 7 Stressors related to inflow of migrants to the RF.

The 1-and 2-year EG/RG students were also tested virtually immune to the Group 8 Stressors related to volatility of the exchange rate of the national currency to USD and Euro and growing prices for petroleum products. Moreover, the 3-year students were tested with a significant drop in sensitivity to these stressors as verified by the pre- versus post-experimental test data.

The pre- versus post-experimental EG versus RG functionality tests showed improvements in the health conditions as verified by the reported improvements in muscle tension/ tremor, gastrointestinal problems, headaches and other pains, and the cardiovascular, respiratory and other systems conditions.

Conclusion. The new stress control and stress tolerance building model testing experiment showed its benefits, particularly expressed in the fitness subgroups. The model may be recommended for application in the academic education period for the stress mitigation and control purposes.

References

1. Karyakina S.N., Maslyaninova O.M. Professionalny stress pedagogov gorodskikh i selskikh shkol [Professional stress of urban and rural school teachers]. LAP Lambert Academic Publishing GmbH & Co. KG. KG Dudweiler Landstr. 99, 66123 Saarbrucken, Germany, 2012, 131 p.
2. Selye G. Stress bez distressa [Stress without distress]. Moscow: Progress publ., 1979, 124 p.
3. Faustov A.S., Shcherbatykh Yu.V. Korrektsiya urovnya ekzamenatsionnogo stressa u studentov kak faktor uluchsheniya ikh zdorovya [Correction of students' exam stress level as a factor of health improvement]. Zdravookhranenie Rossiyskoy Federatsii, 2001, no. 4, pp. 38-39.
4. Shilko V.G., Shilko T.A., Potovskaya E.S. et al Zavisimost pokazateley stressoustoychivosti studentov ot ikh otnosheniya k fizkulturno-sportivnoy deyatelnosti [Effects of physical training and sports on university students' stress tolerance rates]. Teoriya i praktika fiz. kultury, 2016, no. 12, pp. 41-43.
5. Shcherbatykh V.V. Psikhologiya stressa i metody korrektsii [Psychology of stress and correction methods]. St. Petersburg: Piter publ., 2006, 256 p.

Corresponding author: vshilko@mail.ru

Abstract

The study analyzes findings of an educational experiment geared to control stress by academic fitness practices of the 1-3-year NRTSU students. We developed a special stress control model and tested it in the Experimental Group (EG) trainings with a special priority to speed, agility, and overall/ coordination/ static/ strength endurance of the trainees. The stress control sub-maximal (80-90%) intensity practices took 30min prior to the main part of each training session. The practices (10 exercises of 3 min each) were performed in couples in a cycle format. The Reference Group (RG) was trained under the traditional physical education curriculum dominated by training simulator assisted and weight practices focused on the strength building goals.

The study found that sensitivity to stressors in the sample may be successfully controlled by special fitness programs. The experimental stress control model was found beneficial as verified by the EG versus RG progress in the stress mitigation and control – and is recommended for application in the academic physical education service and for further perfection based on the practical knowledge and experience.