Primary role is related to doctorial research relating to the aerobic capacity and oxygen uptake kinetics of stroke survivors but am also involved in teaching of undergraduate sports students and postgraduate physiotherapy students.  Also involved in the physiological testing of athletes as a probationary BASES accreditated physiologist providing scientific support.

I have a particular interest in muscular adaptations in response to neural changes and the impact they have on physiological function.  I am currently working in the area of stroke where I am examining thigh muscle blood oxygen saturation in order to determine any relationship with total body oxygen consumption.   I anticipate being able to expand this research further by prescribing resistance training exercise programmes which may result in positive adaptations in terms of aerobic function.

Sports Science programmes

• SE1100 - Physiological Aspects of Exercise and Sport
• SE1102 - Personal and Professional Development
• SE1106 - Management and Leadership in Sport and Exercise
• PTM008 - Muscles, movement and Exercise

• Hastings K and Goss-Sampson MA. (2005), Comparison of postural sway in gymnasts and non-gymnasts. Journal of Sports Sciences, 23: 1154.

• Johnstone J, Doyle G, Hastings K, Cousins S (2007) “Comparison of VO2peak, heart rate and blood lactate during arm-cranking and upper-body rowing” Journal of Sports Sciences 25: S2; S59.

• Cousins, S., Johnstone, J., Hastings, K., Carpenter, R., & Ford, P.A. Performance and anthropometric characteristics of junior track and field athletes. BASES 2008 Annual Conference.

• Current research activities relate to exercise testing of stroke patients. I am examining aerobic capacity and oxygen uptake kinetics in addition to thigh muscle blood oxygen saturation levels during rest and exercise.

• I am also involved with the physiological testing of athletes with a view to improve training programmes and this data will be presented at conference later in the academic year.

• I am a member of BASES and am currently engaged in Supervised Experience which is about to lead to my accreditation in the provision of physiological scientific support.

• I am also a member of the ACSM and ECSS.

• Also engaged in consultancy.

• Hastings K and Goss-Sampson M (2005) "Comparison of postural sway between gymnasts and non-gymnasts" Journal of Sports Sciences, 23: 1154.

Maintaining a normal upright stance usually requires minimal conscious control and relies on the continuous regulation and integration of somatosensory inputs from the central nervous system (Massion, 1998: Neuroscience and Biobehavioural Reviews, 22, 465–472).

Two mechanisms have been proposed for the control of quiet stance: first, that the body acts as a spring damped inverted pendulum pivoting at the ankle and, secondly, that postural adjustments are achieved using feedforward and feedback neural control. In competitive gymnastics, fine balance control is an essential skill, although little research has been published in relation to gymnasts using static postural control as the principal focus. The objective of this study was to investigate postural sway parameters in gymnasts and non-gymnasts using three postural conditions.

Fourteen female gymnasts (Club Grade 2) and 10 female non-gymnasts were recruited, all of whom provided written informed consent or parental consent if under 18 years. Three conditions were studied:

1. Normal stance, feet placed a pelvic width apart;
2. Narrow stance, with one foot in front of the other; and
3. Beam stance, which was the same as the ‘‘narrow’’ stance but on a 10 cm wide gymnastic beam set 80 cm above the floor.

To standardize the upper body position, the participants held a lightweight bar with their arms freely hanging along the body and forearms pronated. A visual target (11 6 8 cm picture) was positioned at eye level 2 m away. Retroreflective markers (19 mm) were placed bilaterally on the lateral malleoli (ankle), lateral femoral epicondyles (knee), anterior suprailiac spines (pelvis), acrominon processes (shoulder) and temporal bones (head). The participants performed five trials in each position, the order of which was randomized. For each trial 30 s of kinematic data were collected (100 Hz) using eight MPU 240 cameras (Qualisys SE). The transverse plane kinematic data for each segment were analysed using LabView to calculate the mean values and standard deviations of the minimum and maximum displacements. One standard deviation was used for sway ellipse coefficients to determine the sway area.

The stochastic nature of sway led to non-normally distributed data; therefore, statistical significance between groups was analysed using the Mann-Whitney U-test and between conditions using the Wilcoxon rank test. Significance for all statistical analyses was accepted at P40.05. All data are presented as the mean+standard error of the mean. No significant differences were found in segmental sway areas between the non-gymnasts and gymnasts in the normal stance condition. All participants exhibited an inverse conical sway volume when segmental absolute sway areas were viewed from the ankle to the head, irrespective of stance condition. The absolute sway areas for each segment were as follows: knee (5.2+1.1 mm2), pelvis (20.3+3.4 mm2), shoulder (30.3+4.5 mm2) and head (45.1+6.4 mm2), each being significantly different to the one above. In boththe narrow and beam stance conditions, both groups increased their sway areas at all segmental levels compared with normal stance.

When comparing the transition from narrow to beam stance, non-gymnasts further increased their sway areas at all segments except the pelvis. In contrast, gymnasts showed no further increase in any of the segmental sway areas. This is the first study to show segmental postural differences between non-gymnasts and gymnasts. Compared with normal stance, the reduced base of support in narrow stance provides a greater postural challenge as evidenced by both groups increasing their postural sway at all segmental levels. However, when this same position is performed on the beam, nongymnasts show a further increase in sway instability. It appears that this group is attempting to maintain focal centre of gravity stability around the hip/pelvic region through segmental adjustments above and below this segment. These findings do not appear to be explained by the inverted pendulum mechanism but suggest that feed-forward mechanisms may dominate in such conditions.

The possible reasons for the observed differences may, therefore, be due to greater postural control in gymnasts. However, it is also possible that standing on a narrow surface above the ground is interpreted as a postural threat by non-gymnasts, resulting in inappropriate modifications in postural control mechanisms through fear of falling based on the perceived risk of injury. Further analyses are being conducted on the components underlying the sway areas (anterior– posterior/mediolateral displacements, velocities and frequencies) to help identify the component(s) responsible for the observed findings.