Search

This study investigated whether loads for assistance exercises of the upper body can be predicted from the loads of the bench press exercise. Twenty-nine physically active collegiate students (age: 22.6 ± 2.5; weight training experience: 2.9 ± 2.1 years; estimated 1RM bench press: 54.31 ± 14.60 kg; 1RM: body weight ratio: 0.80 ± 0.22; BMI: 22.7 ± 2.1 kg·m(-2)) were recruited. The 6RM loads for bench press, barbell bicep curl, overhead dumbbell triceps extension, hammer curl and dumbbell shoulder press were measured. Test-retest reliability for the 5 exercises as determined by Pearson product moment correlation coefficient was very high to nearly perfect (0.82-0.98, p < 0.01). The bench press load was significantly correlated with the loads of the 4 assistance exercises (r ranged from 0.80 to 0.93, p < 0.01). Linear regression revealed that the bench press load was a significant (R(2) range from 0.64 to 0.86, p < 0.01) predictor for the loads of the 4 assistance exercises. The following 6RM prediction equations were determined: (a) Hammer curl = Bench press load (0.28) + 6.30 kg, (b) Barbell biceps curl = Bench press load (0.33) + 6.20 kg, (c) Overhead triceps extension = Bench press load (0.33) - 0.60 kg, and (d) Dumbbell shoulder press = Bench press load (0.42) + 5.84 kg. The difference between the actual load and the predicted load using the four equations ranged between 6.52% and 8.54%, such difference was not significant. Fitness professionals can use the 6RM bench press load as a time effective and accurate method to predict training loads for upper body assistance exercises. Key pointsThe bench press load was significantly correlated with the loads of the 4 assistance exercises.No significant differences were found between the actual load and the predicted load in the four equations.6RM bench press load can be a time effective and accurate method to predict training loads for upper body assistance exercises.

THE AIM OF THIS STUDY WAS TO EXAMINE THE EFFECT OF MANIPULATING DEFENSIVE RULES: with and without man-marking (MM and NMM) on exercise intensity in 3 vs. 3 small- sided games (SSGs). Twelve adolescent soccer players (age: 16.2 ± 0.7 years; body mass: 55.7 ± 6.4 kg; body height: 1.70 ± 0.07 m) participated in this repeated measures study. Each participant performed in four different SSGs formats: 3 vs. 3 MM with and without goals and 3 vs. 3 NMM with and without goals. Each SSG lasted 3 x 4 minutes interspersed with 4 minutes passive recovery. The percentage heart rate reserve (%HRreserve) was recorded continuously during SSG and session-rating of perceived exertion (session-RPE) after the SSG. MANOVA showed that defensive rule had significant effects on intensity (F = 5.37, p < 0.01). Specifically, MM during SSG induced significantly higher %HRreserve compared to NMM (Goal: 80.5 vs. 75.7%; No goal: 80.5 vs. 76.1%; p < 0.05, effect size = 0.91-1.06), irrespective of the presence or absence of goals. However, only MM with the presence of goals induced significant higher session-RPE compared to NMM (7.1 vs. 6. 0; p < 0.05, effect size = 1.36), whereas no difference in session-RPE was observed between MM and NMM (7.4 vs. 6.9; p > 0.05, effect size = 0.63) when no goals were used. Higher intra-class reliability and lower coefficient of variation values were also reported in MM as compared to NMM. This study in youth soccer players shows there is ~4.5% increase in heart rate response by using the man-marking in 3 vs. 3 SSG thus the intensity of SSG can be significantly increased when using man-marking tactics. Key pointsIntensity level of exercise during games can be raised if man-marking rule is adopted.No significant differences in perceived exertion were found in no goal SSG with and without man-marking.Adding goals in 3 vs. 3 SSG can lower perceived exertion without leading to large variations in intensity level.

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of 8-week retraining programs, with either two or three training sessions per week, on measures of functional performance and muscular power in athletes with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). Sixteen male athletes were randomly assigned to two groups after ACLR: a functional training group (FTG, n = 8) training 2 intense sessions per week (4hrs/week), and a control group (CG, n = 8) training 3 sessions per week with moderate intensity (6hrs/week). The two groups were assessed at four and six months post-ACLR and the effects of retraining were measured using the following assessments: the functional and the muscular power tests, and the agility T-test. After retraining, the FTG had improved more than the CG in the operated leg in the single leg hop test (+34.64% vs. +10.92%; large effect), the five jump test (+8.87% vs. +5.03%; medium effect), and single leg triple jump (+32.15% vs. +16.05%; medium effect). For the agility T-test, the FTG had larger improvements (+17.26% vs. +13.03%, medium effect) as compared to the CG. For the bilateral power tests, no significant training effects were shown for the two groups in the squat jump (SJ), the counter movement jump (CMJ) and the free arms CMJ (Arm CMJ). On the other hand, the unilateral CMJ test with the injured and the uninjured legs showed a significant increase for the FTG with respect to CG (p < 0.05). The present study introduces a new training modality in rehabilitation after ACLR that results in good recovery of the operated limb along with the contra-lateral leg. This may allow the athletes to reach good functional and strength performance with only two physical training sessions per week, better preparing them for a return to sport activity at 6 months post- ACLR and eventually sparing time for a possible progressive introduction of the sport specific technical training. Key pointsFunctional training (plyometrics, neuromuscular, proprioceptive and agility exercises) in athletes during 4th to 6th months post-ACLR further improved functional outcomes, compared to a conventional rehabilitation program.The former program was more time-efficient compared to the latter one as indicated by the weekly training duration (4hrs/week vs. 6hrs/week).This study provides evidence of the functional training in knee rehabilitation and provides important information that is highly relevant to clinicians, physiotherapists, coaches and trainers who are in charge of the injured athletes during the later phase of the rehabilitation after ACLR.

This study aimed to compare the effect of different static stretching durations followed by dynamic stretching on repeated sprint ability (RSA) and change of direction (COD). Twenty-five participants performed the RSA and COD tests in a randomized order. After a 5 min aerobic warm up, participants performed one of the three static stretching protocols of 30 s, 60 s or 90 s total duration (3 stretches x 10 s, 20 s or 30 s). Three dynamic stretching exercises of 30 s duration were then performed (90 s total). Sit-and-reach flexibility tests were conducted before the aerobic warm up, after the combined static and dynamic stretching, and post- RSA/COD test. The duration of static stretching had a positive effect on flexibility with 36.3% and 85.6% greater sit-and-reach scores with the 60 s and 90 s static stretching conditions respectively than with the 30 s condition (p ≤ 0.001). However there were no significant differences in RSA and COD performance between the 3 stretching conditions. The lack of change in RSA and COD might be attributed to a counterbalancing of static and dynamic stretching effects. Furthermore, the short duration (≤ 90 s) static stretching may not have provided sufficient stimulus to elicit performance impairments. Key pointsThe duration of combined static and dynamic stretching had a positive effect on flexibility with 36.3% and 85.6% greater sit and reach scores with the 60 s and 90 s static stretching conditions respectively than with the 30 s condition (p ≤ 0.001).No significant differences in RSA and COD between the 3 stretching conditions.The lack of change in RSA and COD might be attributed to a counterbalancing of static and dynamic stretching effects.The short duration (≤ 90 s) static stretching may not have provided sufficient stimulus to elicit performance impairments.