The effects of foot posture on postural stability and on muscular activation pattern for postural control remain unclear. This study aimed to investigate postural stability and muscular activation onset during the transition task from double- to single-leg stance in individuals with different foot postures. Twenty-seven healthy men (age 21.5 ± 1.5 years) were divided into 3 groups using the Foot Posture Index neutral foot (n = 10); flatfoot (n = 8); and high-arched foot (n = 9). Center of pressure (COP) data and muscle activation onset times of the tibialis anterior, peroneus longus, gastrocnemius medialis, and soleus during the transition task with eyes closed were compared among groups using one-way analysis of variance and a post-hoc Tukey honestly significant difference test (p less then 0.05) when the data were normally distributed and the Kruskal-Wallis test and a post-hoc Mann-Whitney U-test with Bonferroni correction (p less then 0.0167) when the data were not normally distributed. The COP displacements in the mediolateral and anteroposterior directions and the resultant COP displacement during the first 3 s after a stability time point, as determined by sequential estimation during the single-leg stance phase, differed significantly among the three groups (p less then 0.05). Post-hoc tests showed that the displacements were significantly greater in the flatfoot group than in the neutral and high-arched foot groups (p less then 0.05), and the effect sizes for these results were large. No muscular activation onset times showed significant intergroup differences.  https://www.selleckchem.com/products/blebbistatin.html  Postural stability was significantly decreased only in the flatfoot group, while muscle activation onsets did not differ significantly by foot posture during the transition task. Decreased postural stability may be one mechanism underlying the link between flatfoot and risk of lower limb injury, and foot posture represents a potential confounder for measuring postural stability during the transition task.The primary aim of this study was to describe the contribution of Gaelic football participation to youth physical activity (PA) levels. Secondary aims were to objectively quantify the overall daily PA levels of participants across sex and age, to determine the PA levels achieved during Gaelic football practice sessions and games, and to compare PA levels on days with organized sporting activity (sports days) and days without organized sporting activity (non-sports days). One hundred and sixty adolescents (87 male, 73 female; mean age 14.5 ± 1.8 yrs.) wore an activPAL accelerometer to determine total sitting/lying time, standing time, light intensity physical activity (LIPA), moderate physical activity (MPA), vigorous physical activity (VPA) and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) during a seven day measurement period, including during Gaelic football participation. Participants achieved an average of 58.5 ± 23.6 minutes of MVPA daily. Males accumulated significantly more MVPA daily than females (Males=70.8±22.1 min; Females = 45.5 ± 16.5 min; p less then 0.001; ηp² = 0.401) and time spent in MVPA daily significantly decreased with age (p less then 0.001; ηp² = 0.299). Participants accumulated significantly more MVPA during games (36.0 ± 9.2 min/hr (60%)) than practice sessions (29.0 ± 8.3 min/hr (48%); p less then 0.001; d = 0.80). On sports days, participants accumulated significantly more time in MVPA (Sports Days = 70.1 ± 36.0 min; Non-Sports Days = 54.2 ± 34.0; p less then 0.001; d = 0.45) and were 2.16 times more likely to achieve 60 minutes of MVPA (OR = 2.16; 95% CI = 1.60-2.92) than on non-sports days. The results reveal that Gaelic football provides an opportunity for adolescents to accumulate PA, however, participants currently spent more than 50% of their practice time inactive or in low intensity activities. An opportunity remains to enhance the contribution of Gaelic football to overall daily PA levels, by replacing time spent inactive with time in MVPA.The purpose of the study was to compare the muscle activity in the prime movers and antagonist between the barbell bench press (BBP) and the dumbbell flyes (DF) Seventeen resistance-trained men (age 22.9 ± 1.8 yrs; height 1.80 ± 0.06 m; body mass 80.0 ± 8.3 kg), with 4.8 ± 2.0 years resistance training experience, completed the study. The surface electromyographic activation was measured in four different muscles (pectoralis major, anterior deltoids, triceps brachii, and biceps brachii) during six repetition maximum loads in both exercises. To better understand eventual differences, an in-depth analysis of the fifth repetition was performed, dividing it into six phases (lower, middle, and upper phase of the descending and ascending movement). The results showed a higher muscle activation in the whole movement and the majority of the lifting phases for pectoralis major, deltoids anterior, and triceps brachii for the BBP compared to the DF (8-81 %, p ≤ 0.05). However, the antagonist biceps brachii showed a higher muscle activation (57-86 %, p ≤ 0.05) in the DF compared to the BBP. In conclusion, both exercises could be included in training programs, but the BBP should be emphasized because of the higher muscle activation overall. Among specific populations, were tasks based on strength and control in a horizontal shoulder flexion position with extended elbows often occurs, the DF might prove useful.Identifying the factors associated with table tennis performance may provide training information for competitive athletes and guide the general population for active participation. The purpose was to compare the joint, racket, and ball kinematics between the shakehand and penhold grips in table tennis forehand and backhand strokes when returning topspin and backspin balls in advanced male players. Nine penhold-grip players and 18 matched shakehand-grip players performed forehand and backhand strokes when returning topspin and backspin balls using their habitual grip styles, while the kinematics of the trunk, upper extremities, racket, and ball were collected. Racket angles were calculated as the relative motion of the racket to the forearm. For the forehand strokes, no significant differences were observed for ball or racket velocities between the two grips. The shakehand grip tended to demonstrate greater shoulder external rotation angles compared to the penhold grip. The shakehand grip resulted in racket flexion angular velocity compared to racket extension velocity for the penhold grip.