3. Discussion

About the production of force, for the exercises of the upper limb, high decreases in values have been observed for the unstable condition. These differences have ranged from 20 to 75% loss in force development in unstable conditions. According to Kornecki, Kebel, and Siemieński^[15], the stabilising function of the skeletal muscles is necessary for the coordinated performance of any voluntary movement, and it significantly influences muscle coordination patterns. Therefore, significant reductions in muscle production probably occurred because the muscles around the shoulder complex needed to give priority to stability over force production. Furthermore, under conditions of instability, the stiffness of the joints that act can limit gains in strength, power and speed of movement^[16].

However, in the data evidenced in the study by Koshida et al. ^[10], the losses in force values are much lower than in the rest of the studies (5.9% loss in instability) compared with 59.4% loss in Anderson and Behm ^[6] and in the case of Goodman et al. ^[9], no significant differences are observed. This inconsistency between the previous research can be attributed to the type of muscle contraction, the degree of instability during the recorded task and the equipment. In Koshida et al. ^[10] the bench press movement was performed in a supine position with the Swiss ball placed in the thoracic area, which provided a broader support base than for other activities performed in a sitting or standing position. Therefore, the instability imposed on the trunk stabilising muscles would probably be less significant than in previous research. Besides, both studies used dynamic contractions with an Olympic bar with weight plates, while Anderson and Behm ^[6] used isometric contractions with two independent handles held by straps to force the transducers into the ground. The difference in equipment could impose different levels of instability on the shoulder joint and trunk muscles. Although bilateral contractions were performed in both studies, the independence of each hand in the study by Anderson and Behm^[6] may have increased the effort required to maintain balance and the need for the muscles to stabilize during maximum isometric contractions, therefore reducing the net force output. In the case of Goodman et al. ^[9], where no differences were found, it could be due to the use of different loads, since 1RM was used while in Anderson and Behm^[6] 75% of 1RM loads were used and in Goodman et al. [

81

In the case of force production in the lower limbs, there have been notable decreases when comparing tasks performed in instability concerning stable conditions. These decreases ranged from 10% to 19%, so it seems that instability affects the upper body more than the lower. With the use of the semi-sphere ball, analysed in terms of strength, with the performance of a dominant hip exercise such as deadweight the decrease in strength was 10.2%^[8] while with a dominant knee exercise such as squat it was 19% ^[11]. This could indicate that certain movements could be affected to a lesser extent depending on the instability. However, as detailed above the methods and loads used were very different. It is noteworthy that many of the studies to check force production in the lower limb using isometric contractions. However, isometric contractions are not usually used in strength training. Despite this, results obtained under isometric contractions have reported that conditions are strongly correlated with dynamic mobility performance^[17]. However, due to the isometric test mode, subjects could gradually build up strength while stabilizing and maintaining balance on different surfaces. During the 3 s of maximum effort, the subjects may have been able to stabilize the limbs and trunk and therefore be able to exert a considerable amount of force in unstable conditions. We only know of one study that investigates the production of maximum force in squats on a stable and unstable surface^[18]. These researchers used an inflatable balance disk and reported a decrease of approximately 46% in peak force. Although there was a greater decrease in force in that study, it could be attributed to the lack of a familiarization session, which the rest of the studies did consider appropriate.

Concerning the production of muscular power in the upper limb, decreases in the unstable condition have been observed. Decreases with the unstable condition ranged from 7% to 17%. The data found in the studies that analyzed the bench press with Swiss ball reported a very similar percentage decrease in terms of average power (10.3% ^[13]; 9.9% ^[10]; and 12.9% ^[14]). These small deviations found may again be due to the different percentage of load used (50% vs. 75%) and the different volume of training applied. However, in some situations, instability has produced better power data than a stable condition. These better data have been produced in the last repetitions of the executions with high numbers of repetitions in the exercise (22–25 repetitions). The improvements observed in average power were 5.6% and in the concentric phase 13.2%.

The increase in power observed could be due to previous evidence that has shown that producing a high power output with a light to moderate load would be more effective in developing maximum power than using a heavy load ^[19][20]. Thus, it appears that such a low rate of reduction may still allow muscle power to be gained from strength exercise in the unstable condition. The mechanism of energy production using the stretch-shortening cycle employs the energy storage capacity of several elastic components and the stimulation of the stretching reflex to facilitate muscle contraction for a minimum period. The concentric muscle action does not occur immediately after the eccentric, the stored energy is dissipated and lost in the form of heat and also the strengthening stretching reflex is not activated. Resistance to instability exercise can compromise the three phases of the stretching-shortening cycle, including the amortization phase. Around this turning point, where the eccentric phase becomes concentric, the maximum force is produced. At the same time, the subjects must stabilize the torso on an unstable surface to provide firm support for the contracted muscles. This additional task can compromise the contraction of the muscles acting on the bar. Their less intense contraction not only prolongs the change of direction of movement but, due to the lower maximum force, impairs the accumulation of elastic energy. The consequence is less speed and power in the subsequent concentric phase^[21][22]. However, the subjects of the study by Zemkova et al. ^[14] were able to produce greater power during the executions on an unstable surface than on a stable one. This higher energy production can be attributed to the so-called ball bounce effect.

Finally, about the speed of execution, a decrease in the values in unstable conditions in comparison to stable conditions is observed, but the analysis of this variable has hardly been studied. According to Adkin et al. ^[23], a postural threat in a subject (fear of falling) will lead to a reduction in the magnitude and speed of voluntary movements. Thus, muscle stabilization seems to compromise gains in strength, power and speed of movement^[24]. It should also be noted that new patterns of movement are generally learned at low speed, while sport-specific motor actions are executed at high speed^[25].