Search

Lower-limb wearable resistance (WR) facilitates targeted resistance-based training during sports-specific movement tasks. The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of two different WR placements (thigh and shank) on joint kinematics during the acceleration phase of sprint running. Eighteen participants completed maximal effort sprints while unloaded and with 2% body mass thigh- or shank-placed WR. The main findings were as follows: 1) the increase to 10 m sprint time was small with thigh WR (effect size [ES] = 0.24), and with shank WR, the increase was also small but significant (ES = 0.33); 2) significant differences in peak joint angles between the unloaded and WR conditions were small (ES = 0.23-0.38), limited to the hip and knee joints, and <2° on average; 3) aside from peak hip flexion angles, no clear trends were observed in individual difference scores; and, 4) thigh and shank WR produced similar reductions in average hip flexion and extension angular velocities. The significant overload to hip flexion and extension velocity with both thigh- and shank-placed WR may be beneficial to target the flexion and extension actions associated with fast sprint running.

Fusiform weighted garments enable specific loading strategies during sport-specific movements. Loading the arms over during accelerated sprinting from a 2-point start position is pertinent to a variety of sporting performances. Fourteen sprint-trained individuals (age = 20.61 ± 1.16 years; height = 1.73 m ± 3.85 cm; body mass 65.33 ± 4.86 kg; personal best 100-m race time 11.40 ± 0.39 s) performed unloaded/loaded wearable resistance (WR) sprints. Between-condition step kinematics and kinetics were compared over four acceleration phases: steps 1-4, 5-8, 9-12 and 13-16. Sprint performance did not differ between unloaded and loaded WR at 10-m (-1.41%; ES = -0.32), or 30-m (-0.76%; ES = -0.24). Sprinting with forearm WR significantly decreased step frequency during phase two (p < 0.05, -3.42%; ES = -0.81) and three (-3.60%; ES = -0.86) and step velocity during phase four of the 30 m sprinting task (p < 0.05, -3.61%; ES: 0.91) only. There were no significant differences (p ≤ 0.05) between step kinetics amongst the two conditions. Findings indicate that arm-loaded WR may provide specific sprinting overload for 2-point starting positions. This may be relevant to a wider sporting context such as field and team sport performances.

Lower-limb wearable resistance (WR) provides a specific and targeted overload to the musculature involved in sprint running, however, it is unknown if greater impact forces occur with the additional limb mass. This study compared the contact times and ground reaction force waveforms between sprint running with no load and 2% body mass (BM) shank-positioned WR over 30 m. Fifteen male university-level sprint specialists completed two maximum effort sprints with each condition in a randomized order. Sprint running with shank WR resulted in trivial changes to contact times at 5 m, 10 m, and 20 m (effect size [ES] = <0.20, p > 0.05) and a small, significant increase to contact time at 30 m by 1.94% (ES = 0.25, p = 0.03). Significant differences in ground reaction force between unloaded and shank loaded sprint running were limited to the anterior-posterior direction and occurred between 20% and 30% of ground contact at 10 m, 20 m, and 30 m. Shank WR did not result in greater magnitudes of horizontal or vertical forces during the initial impact portion of ground contact. Practitioners can prescribe shank WR training with loads ≤2% BM without concern for increased risk of injurious impact forces.

This study determined the effects of two wearable resistance (WR) placements (i.e. thigh and shank) on horizontal force-velocity and impulse measures during sprint running acceleration. Eleven male athletes performed 50 m sprints either unloaded or with WR of 2% body mass attached to the thigh or shank. In-ground force platforms were used to measure ground reaction forces and determine dependent variables of interest. The main findings were: 1) increases in sprint times and reductions in maximum velocity were trivial to small when using thigh WR (0.00-1.93%) and small to moderate with shank WR (1.56-3.33%); 2) athletes maintained or significantly increased horizontal force-velocity mechanical variables with WR (effect size = 0.32-1.23), except for theoretical maximal velocity with thigh WR, and peak power, theoretical maximal velocity and maximal ratio of force with shank WR; 3) greater increases to braking and vertical impulses were observed with shank WR (2.72-26.3% compared to unloaded) than with thigh WR (2.17-12.1% compared to unloaded) when considering the entire acceleration phase; and, 4) no clear trends were observed in many of the individual responses. These findings highlight the velocity-specific nature of this resistance training method and provide insight into what mechanical components are overloaded by lower-limb WR.

When new protocols are developed, there is a requirement to investigate test-retest reliability of measures for valid use and interpretation of data in research and practice. Therefore, the aim of this investigation was to determine the inter-day reliability of the cable put and seated rotation assessment protocols. On three occasions, nine resistance-trained men performed cable puts and cable rotations at different loads between 6 and 42 kg on a commercially available cable cross over machine. Load stack movement was recorded using a PT5A linear position transducer from which all kinematic and kinetic variables were calculated. Reliability was excellent for peak velocity and displacement based on intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and coefficient of variation (CV) across the majority of loads and movements (cable put: ICC = 0.92 to 0.99, CV = 3.1% to 8.6%; cable seated rotation: ICC = 0.76 to 0.99, CV = -1.7% to 16.1%). However, kinetic variables demonstrated inadequate reliability across the majority of days, loads and movements (ICC = 0.70, CV >10%). It was concluded that peak velocity is a reliable kinematic measure to assess muscular capability from cable put and seated rotation protocols; however, kinetic measures are too variable to provide reliable outputs across testing occasions.

Manoeuvring a motorcycle at high-speed in official competition has been shown to expose riders to substantial and complex physiological and psychological demands, however few studies have analysed the physical load experienced by professional racers. This study aimed to quantify the physical stress experienced by riders and explore relationships between performance related variables (i.e. crashes). Performance and braking data were collected from official race reports from 2013 to 2015 of the top class of the FIM Road Racing Grand Prix World Championship. Top-level riders are exposed to a considerable volume (175 ± 42 brakes and 372 ± 48 leans to corner per race) of high intensity actions (>40% of brakes initiated at speeds higher than 260 km.h -1 , and 13.2% over 300 km.h -1 ), where 1 out of every 4 braking actions generated inertial stresses greater than 10 m.s -2 . Furthermore, the mean speed across competitions increased over the years (from 161.7 ± 6 km.h -1 to 164.5 ± 6 km.h -1 ), however no clear relationships between the amount of crashes and competition-related factors were found. Given the findings it would seem that riders could benefit from strength training specifically designed to prepare the body to counteract the repetitive inertial stresses of racing.

The purpose of this project was to evaluate the utility of low- and high-repetition maximum (RM) strength tests used to assess rowers. Twenty elite heavyweight males (age 23.7 ± 4.0 years) performed four tests (5 RM, 30 RM, 60 RM and 120 RM) using leg press and seated arm pulling exercise on a dynamometer. Each test was repeated on two further occasions; 3 and 7 days from the initial trial. Per cent typical error (within-participant variation) and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated using log-transformed repeated-measures data. High-repetition tests (30 RM, 60 RM and 120 RM), involving seated arm pulling exercise are not recommended to be included in an assessment battery, as they had unsatisfactory measurement precision (per cent typical error > 5% or ICC < 0.9). Conversely, low-repetition tests (5 RM) involving leg press and seated arm pulling exercises could be used to assess elite rowers (per cent typical error ≤ 5% and ICC ≥ 0.9); however, only 5 RM leg pressing met criteria (per cent typical error = 2.7%, ICC = 0.98) for research involving small samples (n = 20). In summary, low-repetition 5 RM strength testing offers greater utility as assessments of rowers, as they can be used to measure upper- and lower-body strength; however, only the leg press exercise is recommended for research involving small squads of elite rowers.

The purpose of this study was to compare changes in aerobic condition, strength, and muscular endurance following 8 weeks of endurance rowing alone or in combination with weight-training. Twenty-two elite rowers were assigned to (1) rowing (n = 10, 250-270 km · week⁻¹) or (2) rowing (n = 12, 190-210 km · week⁻¹) plus four weight-training sessions each week. Pre and post mean and standardized effect-size (ES) differences in aerobic condition (watts at 4 mmol · L⁻¹) and strength (isometric pull, N), prone bench-pull (6-repetition maximum, 6-RM), 5- and 30-repetition leg-press and 60-repetition seated-arm-pull (J, performed on a dynamometer) normalized by body mass and log-transformed were analysed, after adjusting for gender. The standardized differences between groups were trivial for aerobic condition (ES [±90% CI] = 0.15; ±0.28, P = 0.37) and prone bench-pull (ES = 0.27; ±0.33, P = 0.18), although a moderate positive benefit in favour of rowing only was observed for the seated-arm-pull (ES = 0.42; ±0.4, P = 0.08). Only the weight-training group improved isometric pull (12.4 ± 8.9%, P < 0.01), 5-repetition (4.0 ± 5.7%, P < 0.01) and 30-repetition (2.4 ± 5.4%, P < 0.01) leg-press. In conclusion, while gains in aerobic condition and upper-body strength were comparable to extensive endurance rowing, weight-training led to moderately greater lower-body muscular-endurance and strength gains.

The aims of this study were to establish whether anthropometry, muscle strength and endurance accounted for differences between junior and senior elite rowing ergometer performance, and to determine annual development rates for juniors associated with training. Twenty-six junior (8 females, age 18.0 ± 0.3 years and 18 males, age 17.9 ± 0.2 years) and 30 senior (12 females, 23.7 ± 3.0 years and 18 males, 24.0 ± 3.9 years) heavyweight rowers, were assessed anthropometrically, performed a 2000-m ergometer time-trial, and completed various muscular strength and endurance tests. There were no anthropometrical differences between males; however after controlling for body-fat and standing-height, senior females were of greater body-mass (70.5 ± 4.6 kg and 77.2 ± 5.9 kg, P = 0.01) and sitting-height (89.8 ± 2.2 cm and 92.2 ± 6.1 cm, P = 0.04) than juniors. Moderate to very large standardised differences in all strength and endurance tests were observed between juniors and seniors (effect size (ES) range 0.9-1.9). Greater development rates (5.0% to 6.0%) and adjusted 2000-m performance was associated with upper-body strength (males) and endurance (females). In conclusion, after identification of desirable anthropometry, the 2000-m ergometer potential of juniors may be accounted for by upper-body strength and endurance.

The aims of this study were to: (1) assess the reliability of various kinetic and temporal variables for unilateral vertical, horizontal, and lateral countermovement jumps; (2) determine whether there are differences in vertical ground reaction force production between the three types of jumps; (3) quantify the magnitude of asymmetry between limbs for variables that were established as reliable in a healthy population and whether asymmetries were consistent across jumps of different direction; and (4) establish the best kinetic predictor(s) of jump performance in the vertical, horizontal, and lateral planes of motion. Thirty team sport athletes performed three trials of the various countermovement jumps on both legs on two separate occasions. Eccentric and concentric peak force and concentric peak power were the only variables with acceptable reliability (coefficient of variation = 3.3-15.1%; intra-class correlation coefficient = 0.70-0.96). Eccentric and concentric peak vertical ground reaction force (14-16%) and concentric peak power (45-51%) were significantly (P < 0.01) greater in the vertical countermovement jump than in the horizontal countermovement jump and lateral countermovement jump, but no significant difference was found between the latter two jumps. No significant leg asymmetries (-2.1% to 9.3%) were found in any of the kinetic variables but significant differences were observed in jump height and distance. The best single predictors of vertical countermovement jump, horizontal countermovement jump, and lateral countermovement jump performance were concentric peak vertical power/body weight (79%), horizontal concentric peak power/body weight (42.6%), and eccentric peak vertical ground reaction force/body weight (14.9%) respectively. These findings are discussed in relation to monitoring and developing direction-specific jump performance.