2017
DOI: 10.1519/jsc.0000000000001460
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Effect of the Gravity Loading Countermeasure Skinsuit Upon Movement and Strength

Abstract: . (2016). The effect of the gravity loading countermeasure skinsuit upon movement and strength. JOURNAL OF STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING RESEARCH, 154-161. DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001460 Citing this paperPlease note that where the full-text provided on King's Research Portal is the Author Accepted Manuscript or Post-Print version this may differ from the final Published version. If citing, it is advised that you check and use the publisher's definitive version for pagination, volume/issue, and date of publicati… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
18
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

2
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 25 publications
(18 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
0
18
0
Order By: Relevance
“…To address the Pengvin Suit's limitations, the Gravity Loading Countermeasure SkinSuit (GLCS) was conceived to produce “1 Gz” using elastic fibers to generate multi-stage tension (that accumulates according to the proportion of body mass) in the vertical axis toward the feet (Waldie and Newman, 2011 ). Following various prototypes, the Mk III GLCS was found to provide ~0.7 Gz (measured at the feet) and shown to be compatible with acute strength (Carvil et al, 2017a ) and aerobic exercise (Attias et al, 2017 ). Following several critical design and material innovations, the Mk VI SkinSuit was developed by ESA's Space Medicine Office and King's College London to specifically address whether the modified SkinSuit could reduce in-flight spinal elongation, without being uncomfortable or interfering with nominal ISS spaceflight activities.…”
Section: Spinal Loading In-flightmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…To address the Pengvin Suit's limitations, the Gravity Loading Countermeasure SkinSuit (GLCS) was conceived to produce “1 Gz” using elastic fibers to generate multi-stage tension (that accumulates according to the proportion of body mass) in the vertical axis toward the feet (Waldie and Newman, 2011 ). Following various prototypes, the Mk III GLCS was found to provide ~0.7 Gz (measured at the feet) and shown to be compatible with acute strength (Carvil et al, 2017a ) and aerobic exercise (Attias et al, 2017 ). Following several critical design and material innovations, the Mk VI SkinSuit was developed by ESA's Space Medicine Office and King's College London to specifically address whether the modified SkinSuit could reduce in-flight spinal elongation, without being uncomfortable or interfering with nominal ISS spaceflight activities.…”
Section: Spinal Loading In-flightmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Elastic bands, such as Theraband, could be used to perform exercises in three dimensions. In addition, axial loading through the use of skinsuits is a possibility (Carvil et al, 2017). Different combinations of exercise countermeasures would be possible, for example, astronauts could perform exercises while wearing skinsuits, and while using technology based solutions already developed on Earth for conditions such as LBP.…”
Section: Implications For Exercise Countermeasures For Future Human Ementioning
confidence: 99%
“…In general, these countermeasures are specific to individual physiological systems. Cardiovascular countermeasures, for example, have included aerobic and resistive exercise ( Buckey, 2006 ; Trigg, 2013 ), Lower Body Negative Pressure (LBNP) ( Charles and Lathers, 1994 ; Clément and Bukley, 2007 ), fluid loading ( Clément and Bukley, 2007 ), intra-vehicular activity suits ( Kozlovskaya et al, 1995 ; Kozlovskaya and Grigoriev, 2004 ; Waldie and Newman, 2011 ), landing compression garments ( Platts et al, 2009 ), and nutrition and dietary supplements ( Buckey, 2006 ; Smith et al, 2012 ). To date, however, countermeasures have failed to consistently preserve pre-flight levels of physiological function, despite the significant crew time that needs to be allocated to them ( Clément and Pavy-Le Traon, 2004 ; Kozlovskaya and Grigoriev, 2004 ; Buckey, 2006 ; Clément and Bukley, 2007 ; Trappe et al, 2009 ; Lee et al, 2015 ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%