Search

González-Cano, H, Martín-Olmedo, JJ, Baz-Valle, E, Contreras, C, Schoenfeld, BJ, García-Ramos, A, Jiménez-Martínez, P, and Alix-Fages, C. Do muscle mass and body fat differ between elite and amateur natural physique athletes on competition day? A preliminary, cross-sectional, anthropometric study. J Strength Cond Res38(5): 951–956, 2024—Natural physique athletes strive to achieve low body fat levels while promoting muscle mass hypertrophy for competition day. This study aimed to compare the anthropometric characteristics of natural amateur (AMA) and professional (PRO) World Natural Bodybuilding Federation (WNBF) competitors. Eleven male natural physique athletes (6 PRO and 5 AMA; age = 24.8 ± 2.3 years) underwent a comprehensive anthropometric evaluation following the International Society for the Advancement of Kinanthropometry protocol within a 24-hour time frame surrounding the competition. The 5-component fractionation method was used to obtain the body composition profile of the muscle, adipose, bone, skin, and residual tissues. Five physique athletes exceeded the 5.2 cutoff point of muscle-to-bone ratio (MBR) for natural athletes. Professional physique athletes were older than AMA physique athletes (p= 0.05), and they also presented larger thigh girths (p= 0.005) and bone mass (p= 0.019) compared with AMA physique athletes. Although no statistically significant between-group differences were observed in body mass, height, or body fat levels, PRO physique athletes exhibited a higher body mass index (BMI; AMA: 24.45 ± 0.12; PRO: 25.52 ± 1.01; p= 0.048), lean body mass (LBM; AMA: 64.49 ± 2.35; PRO: 69.80 ± 3.78; p= 0.024), fat-free mass (FFM; AMA: 71.23 ± 3.21; PRO: 76.52 ± 4.31; p= 0.05), LBM index (LBMI; AMA: 20.65 ± 0.52; PRO: 21.74 ± 0.85; p= 0.034), and fat-free mass index index (FFMI; AMA: 22.80 ± 0.22; PRO: 23.83 ± 0.90; p= 0.037) compared with AMA physique athletes. These findings highlight the unique characteristics and anthropometric differences between PRO and AMA natural physique athletes on competition day, emphasizing the significance of age, thigh girth, bone mass, BMI, LBM, FFM, and FFMI in distinguishing these 2 groups. Based on our findings, the established boundaries for muscle mass in natural physique athletes, based on FFMI and MBR, warrant reconsideration.

Velocity-based training is a contemporary resistance training method, which uses lifting velocity to prescribe and assess the effects of training. However, the high cost of velocity monitoring devices can limit their use among strength and conditioning professionals. Therefore, this study aimed to examine the reliability and concurrent validity of an affordable linear position transducer (ADR Encoder) for measuring barbell velocity during the Smith machine bench press exercise. Twenty-eight resistance-trained males performed two blocks of six repetitions in a single session. Each block consisted of two repetitions at 40%, 60%, and 80% of their estimated one-repetition maximum. The mean velocity of the lifting phase was simultaneously recorded with the ADR Encoder and a gold-standard linear velocity transducer (T-Force®System). Both devices demonstrated high reliability for measuring mean velocity (ADR Encoder: CVrange = 2.80%–6.40% and ICCrange = 0.78–0.82; T-Force®System: CVrange = 3.27%–6.62% and ICCrange = 0.77–0.81). The ADR Encoder provided mean velocity at 40%1RM with a higher reliability than the T-Force®System (CVratio = 1.17), but the reliability did not differ between devices at higher loads (60%1RM–80%1RM) (CVratio ≤ 1.08). No fixed or proportional bias was observed for the different loads using least-products regression analysis, while the Bland–Altman plots revealed low systematic bias (0.01 m·s−1) and random errors (0.03 m·s−1). However, heteroscedasticity of the errors was observed between both devices (R2 = 0.103). The high reliability and validity place the ADR Encoder as a low-cost device for accurately measuring mean velocity during the Smith machine bench press exercise.

Weakley, J, Johnston, RD, Cowley, N, Wood, T, Ramirez-Lopez, C, McMahon, E, and García-Ramos, A. The effects and reproducibility of 10, 20, and 30% velocity loss thresholds on acute and short-term fatigue and recovery responses. J Strength Cond Res38(3): 465–473, 2024—This study aimed to establish the effects and reproducibility of implementing 10, 20, and 30% velocity loss thresholds (VLTs) during the free-weight barbell back squat on acute and short-term perceived soreness, neuromuscular fatigue, and physical performance. Using a repeated, counterbalanced, crossover design, 12 team-sport athletes completed on separate sessions 5 sets of the free-weight barbell back-squat until reaching VLTs of either 10, 20, or 30%. Outcomes were measured immediately postexercise and 24 hours after each session. To assess reproducibility, the same sessions were repeated after 4 weeks. Immediately postexercise, smalldifferences in countermovement jump (CMJ) and 10-m sprint performance were observed between VLT conditions, whereas smallto moderatedifferences in differential ratings of perceived exertion were reported (10% < 20% < 30%). At 24 hours, trivialdifferences in CMJ outcomes were found but smalldifferences in 10-m sprint performance were detected between conditions (10% < 20% < 30%). In addition, at 24 hours, a single smalldifference in radial deformation using tensiomyography was found between 10 and 30% conditions, whereas largeto very largedifferences in perceived soreness were reported between conditions (10% < 20% < 30%). Finally, the standard error of measurement of all outcome measures at 24 hours were of a similar magnitude to those reported in tightly controlled, short-term studies. Collectively, these findings demonstrate that VLTs help control the fatigue outcomes that occur as a response to resistance training and that they are reproducible. Therefore, for practitioners who wish to prescribe resistance training and be confident in the subsequent fatigue response, it is strongly advised that VLTs are implemented.

Piepoli, A, Miras-Moreno, S, Janicijevic, D, Martínez-Amat, A, and García-Ramos, A. Differences in various strength manifestations between the flat and retracted bench press variants: are they affected by subjects' experience or strength levels? J Strength Cond Res37(12): 2339–2345, 2023. The objective of this study was to explore the effect of retracting the scapulae during the free-weight bench press (BP) exercise on various strength manifestations and perceptual variables. Twenty-eight recreationally trained male lifters (BP 1-repetition maximum [1RM] = 96.1 ± 20.8 kg) randomly performed in 2 different sessions: the flat BP (scapulae free to move during the movement) and retracted BP (shoulders retracted during the movement). Three strength manifestations were evaluated: (a) explosive strength—mean velocity (MV) achieved against 3 submaximal loads (40, 60, and 80%1RM); (b) maximal strength—1RM; and (c) endurance strength—number of repetitions completed to failure against the 70%1RM. Discomfort and ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) values were also recorded immediately after completing each test. The upward displacement of the barbell was lower for the retracted BP compared with the flat BP at the 3 submaximal loads (p≤ 0.024), but no significant differences between the BP variants were observed for the MV at submaximal loads (p≥ 0.473), 1RM (p= 0.147), number of repetitions completed to failure (p= 0.447), RPE at submaximal loads (p≥ 0.363), or discomfort during any test (p≥ 0.611). Subjects always demonstrated a greater strength performance with the BP variant most used in their training programs, but the differences between the flat and retracted BP were not affected by subjects' maximal strength values (p≥ 0.162). These results suggest that retracting the scapulae during the BP exercise presents minor effects on different strength manifestations and perceptual measures of effort and discomfort.

The aim of this study was to examine the concurrent validity and reliability of a functional electromechanical dynamometer (FEMD) to assess the isometric mid-thigh pull (IMTP) kinetic variables: peak force (PF), rate of force development (RFD), and time-specific force values (50-, 100-, 150-, and 200-ms). Twenty-seven male collegiate athletes (age: 22.9 ± 1.9 years; stature: 184.8 ± 10.4 cm; body mass: 84.2 ± 11.8 kg) performed four IMTP trials simultaneously on a force platform and the FEMD. The PF variables calculated from performance of the IMTP on both devices were reliable (CV < 3%; ICC > 0.90) and valid (bias < 13.9 N; random error < 52.1 N; r= 1.00), but they showed heteroscedasticity of the errors (R2> 0.23). The RFD (CV > 10.88%; ICC < 0.76) and initial force (CV > 8.81%; ICC < 0.76) variables did not reach an acceptable reliability for any device, but they showed strong associations between them (rrange = 0.53–0.69). These results indicate that the FEMD is an acceptable alternative to assess athlete’s maximal force production (i.e. PF), but the data collected with FEMD and force plates should not be used interchangeably.

Weakley, J, Castilla, AP, Ramos, AG, Banyard, H, Thurlow, F, Edwards, T, Morrison, M, McMahon, E, and Owen, C. The effect of traditional, rest redistribution, and velocity-based prescription on repeated sprint training performance and responses in semi-professional athletes. J Strength Cond Res37(8): 1566–1572, 2023—The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of traditional, rest redistribution, and velocity-based repeated sprint training methods on repeated sprint performance, perceived effort, heart rate, and changes in force-velocity-power (FVP) profiles in male semiprofessional athletes. In a randomized crossover design, a traditional (2 sets of 6 repetitions [TRAD]), 2 different rest redistribution (4 sets of 3 repetitions [RR4] and 12 sets of 1 repetition [RR12]), and a 5% velocity loss (VL5%) (12 repetitions, with sets terminated when a 5% reduction in mean velocity had occurred) condition were completed. Mean and peak velocity, mean heart rate, and differential ratings of perceived exertion (dRPE) were measured throughout each session, while horizontal FVP profiles were assessed presession and postsession. The RR4 and RR12 conditions allowed the greatest maintenance of velocity, while the RR4, RR12, and VL5% had a moderate, significantly greater mean heart rate than the traditional condition. Trivial, nonsignificant differences between all conditions were observed in dRPE of the legs and breathlessness and FVP profiles. These findings indicate that rest redistribution can allow for greater maintenance of sprint velocity and heart rate, without altering perceived effort during repeated sprint training. In addition, velocity-loss thresholds may be a feasible method of prescription if athletes have diverse physical qualities and reductions in sprint performance during repeated sprint training are undesirable. Practitioners should consider these outcomes when designing repeated sprint training sessions because the strategic use of these methods can alter sprint performance and internal load without changing perceptions of intensity.

Pérez-Castilla, A, Miras-Moreno, S, Weakley, J, and García-Ramos, A. Relationship between the number of repetitions in reserve and lifting velocity during the prone bench pull exercise: an alternative approach to control proximity-to-failure. J Strength Cond Res37(8): 1551–1558, 2023—This study aimed to explore the goodness-of-fit and accuracy of both general and individual relationships between the number of repetitions in reserve (RIR) and the repetition velocity during the Smith machine prone bench pull exercise. Fifteen male sports science students completed 3 sessions separated by 48–72 hours. The first session was used to determine the bench pull 1 repetition maximum (1RM). The second and third sessions were identical and consisted of 3 single sets (60, 70, and 80% 1RM) of repetitions to momentary muscular failure separated by 10 minutes during the Smith machine prone bench pull exercise. General (i.e., pooling together the data from the 15 subjects) and individual RIR-velocity relationships were constructed from the data collected in the second session by pooling the data from the 3 loads (multiple-loads) or specifically for each load (load-specific). The 4 RIR-velocity relationship models were ranked by their goodness-of-fit as follows: individualload-specific(r= 0.93) > individualmultiple-loads(r= 0.83) > generalmultiple-loads(r= 0.65) > generalload-specific(r= 0.61). The accuracy when predicting the RIR in the third session based on the RIR-velocity equations obtained in the second session was acceptable and comparable for the 4 RIR-velocity relationship models (absolute errors ≤2 RIR). However, the 4 RIR-velocity relationship models significantly underestimated the RIR for ≥1 RIR and overestimated the RIR for 0 RIR. These results suggest that the 4 RIR-velocity relationship models are equally effective to quantify proximity-to-failure during the Smith machine prone bench pull exercise.

Janicijevic, D, Pérez-Castilla, A, Miras-Moreno, S, Ortega-Becerra, M, Morenas-Aguilar, MD, Smajla, D, Sarabon, N, and García-Ramos, A. Effect of a high-intensity handball-specific fatigue protocol focused on the leg contralateral to the throwing arm on interlimb asymmetries. J Strength Cond Res37(7): 1382–1389, 2023—This study aimed to elucidate which countermovement jump (CMJ) variant (unilateral or bilateral) is more sensitive to detect the decrement in kinetic CMJ-derived variables of the leg more actively involved in a handball-specific fatigue protocol. Seventeen female handball players (age: 20.6 ± 2.5 years) performed a fatigue protocol consisting of 8 repetitions of the following circuit separated by 10 seconds: 10 m sprint, 180° change of direction with the leg contralateral to the throwing arm, 10 m sprint with ball reception at 7 m, and handball throw preceded by a jump over a 40 cm hurdle with the leg contralateral to the throwing arm. Before and after the fatigue protocol, 6 unilateral CMJs (3 with each leg) and 3 bilateral CMJs were performed on a dual Kistler force platform (model 9260AA6). Bilateral CMJ height was reduced by 5.4% after the fatigue protocol (p< 0.001). However, the fatigue protocol did not promote any significant change in peak force, mean force, and propulsive impulse or in their asymmetry values (17 of 18 comparisons). The decrement of 6.1% during the unilateral CMJ in the propulsive impulse developed by the leg ipsilateral to the throwing arm (less involved in the fatigue protocol) was the only variable that reached statistical significance (p= 0.038). The pre-post fatigue changes in asymmetry values presented negligible correlations between both CMJ variants (rs= 0.01 to −0.19). These results suggest that neither unilateral nor bilateral CMJs are able to detect changes in interlimb asymmetries after a high-intensity handball-specific fatigue protocol.

Miras-Moreno, S, García-Ramos, A, Jukic, I, and Pérez-Castilla, A. Two-point method applied in field conditions: a feasible approach to assess the load-velocity relationship variables during the bench pull exercise. J Strength Cond Res37(7): 1367–1374, 2023—This study explored the between-session reliability and concurrent validity of the load-velocity (L-V) relationship variables obtained from different methods during the Smith machine bench pull exercise. In a counterbalanced order, 23 resistance-trained male subjects performed 2 sessions against 6 different loads in one week and 2 sessions against the lightest and heaviest loads in another week. The L-V relationship variables (load-axis intercept [L0], velocity-axis intercept [v0], and area under the L-V relationship line [Aline]) were obtained using the mean and peak velocity by the standard multiple-point (all 6 loads were used for the L-V modeling), modified multiple-point (the data point that most reduced the coefficient of determination was omitted from the L-V modeling), and 2-point (only 2 loads were used for the L-V modeling) methods. The reliability of the L-V relationship variables was acceptable for all methods (within-subjects coefficient of variation [CV] = 2.09–9.21%). The standard multiple-point and 2-point methods provided greater reliability for all L-V relationship variables compared with the modified multiple-point method (CVratio≥ 1.27), while the 2-point method provided similar (CVratio= 1.04 for Aline) or greater (CVratio= 1.50 for L0and 1.62 for v0) reliability than the standard multiple-point method. The concurrent validity of the modified multiple-point and 2-point methods was acceptable for the L-V relationship variables (effect size ≤ 0.62; r≥ 0.76). These results suggest that the 2-point method is not only a valid procedure but also more reliable, simpler, faster, and less prone to fatigue than multiple-point methods for assessing maximal neuromuscular capacities through the L-V relationship.

•The load−velocity relationship variables (L0, v0, and Aline) are obtained with an acceptable reliability during the countermovement jump exercise regardless of the method (multiple-point vs.2-point), load combination (heavy-squat vs.heavy countermovement jump), and velocity variable (mean velocity vs.mean propulsive velocity vs.peak velocity).•The concurrent validity of the 2-point method with respect to the multiple-point method was only acceptable for mean velocities.•The 2-point method obtained from a heavy squat load and mean velocities is a quick, safe, and reliable procedure to evaluate the maximal neuromuscular capacities of lower-body muscles through the assessment of the load−velocity relationship variables.

Pérez-Castilla, A, García-Pinillos, F, Miras-Moreno, S, Ramirez-Campillo, R, García-Ramos, A, and Ruiz-Alias, SA. Selective effect of different high-intensity running protocols on resistance training performance. J Strength Cond Res37(6): e369–e375, 2023—This study aimed to explore the acute effect of 2 high-intensity running protocols (high-intensity interval training [HIIT] and sprint interval training [SIT]) on resistance training (RT) performance and their combined effect on the lower-body maximal neuromuscular capacities. Eighteen healthy subjects randomly completed 3 experimental protocols: only RT, HIIT + RT, and SIT + RT. Characteristics of the RT protocol include 3 back-squat sets of 10 repetitions or 20% velocity loss against 60% of 1 repetition maximum with 3 minutes of interset rest. Characteristics of the high-intensity running protocols include HIIT (4 intervals of 4 minutes at ∼110% of functional threshold power with 3 minutes of interinterval rest) and SIT (6 all-out sprints of 30 seconds with 4 minutes and 24 seconds of interinterval rest). The force-velocity relationship (maximal values of force [F0], velocity [v0], and power [Pmax]) was evaluated at the beginning and at the end of each experimental protocol. The number of back-squat repetitions (p= 0.006; effect size [ES] = −0.96), fastest velocity (p= 0.003; ES = −0.63), and average velocity (p= 0.001; ES = −0.73) were lower for the SIT + RT protocol compared with the RT protocol, but no significant differences were observed between the RT and HIIT + RT (p≥T0.057; ES ≤.−0.46, except −0.82 for the number of back-squat repetitions) and HIIT + RT and SIT + RT (p≥T0.091; ES .0−0.35) protocols. The 3 protocols induced comparable decreases in v0and Pmax(F(2,34)2,0.96; p≥ 0.393), but F0tended to decrease after the SIT + RT protocol and to increase after the RT and HIIT + RT protocols (F(2,34)= 4.37; p= 0.035). Compared with RT alone, the data suggest that SIT deteriorates RT quality and F0capacity more than long-interval HIIT.

Janicijevic, D, González-Hernández, JM, Jiménez-Reyes, P, Márquez, G, and García-Ramos, A. Longitudinal effects of traditional and rest redistribution set configurations on explosive-strength and strength-endurance manifestations. J Strength Cond Res37(5): 980–986, 2023—This study aimed to compare the long-term effects of resistance training programs based on traditional and rest redistribution set configurations on explosive-strength and strength-endurance performance of lower-body and upper-body muscles. Thirty physically active men were randomly assigned to a traditional group (TRG: 6 sets of 5 repetitions with 3 minutes of interset rest) or a rest redistribution group (RRG: 30 sets of 1 repetition with 31 seconds of interrepetition rest). The training program lasted 6 weeks (2 sessions·wk−1), and in each training session, the squat and bench press exercises were performed with maximal concentric effort against approximately the 75% of the 1 repetition maximum. Before and after training, explosive-strength performance (peak velocity reached at submaximal loads during the countermovement jump and bench press throw) and strength-endurance performance (mean set velocity of 10 repetitions using both traditional and cluster sets in the squat and bench press) were assessed. Significant improvements in all dependent variables were observed after training for both the TRG (p≤ 0.004; effect size [ES] = 0.63–3.06) and RRG (p≤ 0.001; ES = 0.58–3.23). The magnitude of the changes was comparable for both groups with the only exception of the larger improvements observed in the RRG for the bench press mean set velocity using both traditional (ES = 0.77) and cluster (ES = 0.82) set configurations. Traditional and rest redistribution set configurations are equally effective to improve lower-body explosive strength, lower-body strength endurance, and upper-body explosive strength, whereas rest redistribution set configurations could induce greater adaptations in upper-body strength endurance.

Pérez-Castilla, A, Miras-Moreno, S, Janicijevic, D, and García-Ramos, A. Velocity loss is not an accurate predictor of the percentage of completed repetitions during the prone bench pull exercise. J Strength Cond Res37(5): 1001–1008, 2023—The primary aim of this study was to explore the goodness of fit and accuracy of both general and individual relationships between the magnitude of velocity loss (%VL) and the percentage of performed repetitions with respect to the maximal number of repetitions that can be completed to failure (%Rep) during the Smith machine prone bench pull exercise. Fifteen male sports science students completed a preliminary session to determine the bench pull one-repetition maximum (1RM) and 2 identical experimental sessions separated by 48–72 hours. In each experimental session, subjects randomly performed single sets of repetitions to failure separated by 10 minutes against the 60% 1RM, 70% 1RM, and 80% 1RM during the Smith machine bench pull exercise. Individual %Rep-%VL relationships presented a greater goodness of fit than general %Rep-%VL relationships at the 60% 1RM (R2= 0.85–0.97 vs. 0.79–0.85), 70% 1RM (R2= 0.84–0.99 vs. 0.77–0.84), and 80% 1RM (R2= 0.84–1.00 vs. 0.74–0.80). However, the accuracy (absolute errors) in estimating the %Rep during the second testing session based on the %Rep-%VL equations obtained in the first testing session did not differ between the individual and general %Rep-%VL equations in 8 of 9 comparisons (p≥ 0.102). The absolute errors between the actual and predicted %REP were unacceptable (>10%) in 11 of 18 comparisons, and acceptable (5–10%) in 7 of 18 comparisons. These results highlight that the %Rep cannot be estimated with high degree of accuracy from VL recordings during the Smith machine bench pull exercise, regardless of whether individual or general Rep-%VL relationships are considered.

Weakley, J, Munteanu, G, Cowley, N, Johnston, R, Morrison, M, Gardiner, C, Pérez-Castilla, A, and García-Ramos, A. The criterion validity and between-day reliability of the Perch for measuring barbell velocity during commonly used resistance training exercises. J Strength Cond Res37(4): 787–792, 2023—This study aimed to assess the criterion validity and between-day reliability (accounting for technological and biological variability) of mean and peak concentric velocity from the Perch measurement system. On 2 testing occasions, 16 subjects completed repetitions at 20, 40, 60, 80, 90, and 100% of 1-repetition maximum in the free-weight barbell back squat and bench press. To assess criterion validity, values from the Perch and a 3-dimensional motion capture system (criterion) were compared. Technological variability was assessed by determining whether the differences between the Perch and criterion for each load were comparable for both testing sessions, whereas between-day reliability with both technological and biological variability was calculated from Perch values across days. Generalized estimating equations were used to calculate R2and root mean square error, whereas Bland-Altman plots assessed magnitude of difference between measures. To support monitoring of athletes over time, standard error of measurement and minimum detectable changes (MDC) were calculated. There was excellent agreement between the Perch and criterion device, with mean velocity in both exercises demonstrating a mean bias ranging from −0.01 to 0.01 m·s−1. For peak velocity, Perch underestimated velocity compared with the criterion ranging from −0.08 to −0.12 m·s−1for the back squat and −0.01 to −0.02 m·s−1for the bench press. Technological variability between-days were all less than the MDC. These findings demonstrate that the Perch provides valid and reliable mean and peak concentric velocity outputs across a range of velocities. Therefore, practitioners can confidently implement this device for the monitoring and prescription of resistance training.

The aim of this study was to examine the test-retest reliability and concurrent validity of the PUSH Band™ 2.0 to measure barbell’s velocity during unconstrained (free-weights) and constrained (Smith machine) squat exercises. After an initial assessment of the Smith machine squat one-repetition maximum (1RM), 24 resistance-trained males completed one or two testing sessions separated by 7 days. In one session, the squat was performed with free-weights (n= 22), while in another session, the Smith machine was used (n= 16). Both testing sessions consisted of two blocks of eight repetitions (three repetitions at 45%1RM, three repetitions at 65%1RM, and two repetitions at 85%1RM). The mean velocity of the lifting phase was simultaneously recorded with the PUSH Band™ 2.0 and a gold-standard linear velocity transducer (T-Force®System). The PUSH Band™ 2.0 generally revealed an acceptable reliability (CVrange= 5.81%–13.14%), but the reliability was always greater for the T-Force®System (CVrange= 2.95%–7.86%). Regardless of the squat exercise, the concurrent validity of the PUSH Band™ 2.0 with respect to the T-Force®System was generally low at 45%1RM (ESrange= 0.18–0.33; rrange= 0.58–0.75; SEErange= 0.04–0.05 ms−1and 4.2%–6.0%), 65%1RM (ESrange= 0.26–0.44; rrange= 0.63–0.82; SEErange= 0.04–0.06 ms−1and 6.0%–9.2%), and 85%1RM (ESrange= 0.61–0.64; rrange= 0.66–0.82; SEErange= 0.05–0.07 ms−1and 11.4%–16.0%). Taken together, these results suggest that the PUSH Band™ 2.0 is a reliable, but not valid, wearable technology to measure the barbell velocity during the free-weight and Smith machine squat exercises.

González-Hernández, JM, Jiménez-Reyes, P, Cerón, JJ, Tvarijonaviciute, A, Llorente-Canterano, FJ, Martínez-Aranda, LM, and García-Ramos, A. Response of muscle damage markers to an accentuated eccentric training protocol: do serum and saliva measurements agree? J Strength Cond Res36(8): 2132–2138, 2022—This study aimed (a) to examine the acute and delayed responses of 3 muscle damage biomarkers: creatine kinase (CK), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) to an accentuated eccentric training protocol in serum, and (b) to explore the changes of these biomarkers in saliva and compare them with serum. Sixteen resistance-trained university students (10 men [age = 26.6 ± 4.8 years, full squat one repetition maximum [1RM] = 103.4 ± 14.4 kg] and 6 women [age = 22.7 ± 1.4 years, full squat estimated 1RM = 68.3 ± 10.5 kg]) completed an accentuated eccentric strength training protocol with the full squat exercise consisting of 8 sets of 10 repetitions against the 120% estimated 1RM load with 5 minutes of interset rest. The activity of muscle damage biomarkers (CK, AST, and LDH) was measured in serum and saliva before training (Pre), 24 hours after training (Post24), and 96 hours after training (Post96). In serum, lower values of the 3 muscle damage markers were observed at Pre compared to Post24 and Post96, whereas no significant differences were observed between Post24 and Post96 for any analyte. In saliva, there was a significant increase in men at Post96 compared with Pre in CK. The correlations between the measurements in serum and saliva ranged from trivial to small (r= −0.034 to 0.212). These results suggest that the measurement of muscle damage markers in serum and saliva do not provide the same information in the conditions of our study.

Fernández-Galván, LM, Casado, A, García-Ramos, A, and Haff, GG. Effects of vest and sled resisted sprint training on sprint performance in young soccer players: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Strength Cond Res36(7): 2023–2034, 2022—The aim of the meta-analysis was to determine the effect of resisted sprint training (RST) on sprint performance in young (<20 years) soccer players and to analyze whether the training equipment (sled or vest) and magnitude of the resistive load (above or below 20% of body mass [BM]) influences the long-term adaptations in sprint performance. Resisted sprint training reduced the acceleration phase time [standardized mean difference (SMD) = −0.41], with greater reduction in sprint time occurring in response to applying resistance with a vest (SMD = −0.70) when compared with a sled (SMD = −0.27). Similar reductions were determined for resistive loads <20% (SMD = −0.55) and ≥20% of BM (SMD = −0.31). Full sprint time showed a small reduction after RST (SMD = −0.36), regardless of the training equipment (sled: SMD = −0.44; vest: SMD = −0.26) and resistive load (<20% of BM: SMD = −0.40 ≥ 20% of BM: SMD = −0.21). There was a small and nonsignificant reduction in the maximum-velocity phase after RST (SMD = −0.25), which was comparable when the training was performed with vest (SMD = −0.34) or sled (SMD = −0.22). No significant differences in the changes of the acceleration phase time (SMD = 0.05) or full sprint time (SMD = 0.08) were observed between the experimental (sled or vest RST) and control groups (only soccer or unresisted sprint training). In conclusion, RST is effective to improve sprint performance in young soccer players, but the improvements are not superior to unresisted sprint training.

Soriano, MA, García-Ramos, A, Calderbank, J, Marín, PJ, Sainz de Baranda, P, and Comfort, P. Does sex impact the differences and relationships in the one repetition maximum performance across weightlifting overhead pressing exercises? J Strength Cond36(7): 1930–1935, 2022—This study aimed to determine the impact of sex on the differences and relationships of the one repetition maximum (1RM) performance between 3 overhead pressing exercises (push press [PP], push jerk [PJ] and split jerk [SJ]). 15 men (body mass [BM]: 82.3 ± 9.9 kg; weightlifting training experience: 2.6 ± 1.6 years) and 15 women (BM: 64.4 ± 7.0 kg; weightlifting training experience: 2.2 ± 1.4 years) participated in this study. A ratio-scaled (1RM·BM−1) was used for the comparison between them. The 1RM of the 3 exercises were evaluated within the same testing session using a combined 1RM assessment method. The interaction effect of exercise and sex did not reach statistical significance (p= 0.671; η2= 0.001). In contrast, there were significant main effects of exercise (p≤ 0.01) and sex (p< 0.001) with medium (η2= 0.096) and large effect sizes (η2= 0.306), respectively. A similar main effect of exercise was reported for both men (PP [1.0 ± 0.1 kg·kg−1] < PJ [1.1 ± 0.2 kg·kg−1] ∼ SJ [1.2 ± 0.2 kg·kg−1]) and women (PP [0.8 ± 0.1 kg·kg−1] < PJ [0.9 ± 0.2 kg·kg−1] ∼ SJ [0.9 ± 0.2 kg·kg−1]). The 1RM performance of the 3 exercises was significantly correlated for men (r[range] = 0.856–0.963) and women (r[range] = 0.636–0.925). Sex does not affect the differences in the 1RM performance across weightlifting overhead pressing exercises. However, stronger correlations and lower variation in the 1RM performance during the PP, PJ, and SJ are expected for men compared with women.

Cuevas-Aburto, J, Jukic, I, Chirosa-Ríos, LJ, González-Hernández, JM, Janicijevic, D, Barboza-González, P, Guede-Rojas, F, and García-Ramos, A. Effect of traditional, cluster, and rest redistribution set configurations on neuromuscular and perceptual responses during strength-oriented resistance training. J Strength Cond Res36(6): 1490–1497, 2022—This study aimed to compare the acute effect of traditional (TR), cluster (CL), and rest redistribution (RR) set configurations on neuromuscular and perceptual measures of fatigue. Thirty-one resistance-trained men randomly performed a Control session and 3 experimental sessions consisting of the squat (SQ) and bench press (BP) exercises performed against the 10 repetition maximum load using TR (3 sets of 6 repetitions; 3 minutes of interset rest), CL (3 sets of 6 repetitions; 30 seconds of intraset rest every 2 repetitions; 3 minutes of interset rest), and RR (9 sets of 2 repetitions; 45 seconds of interset rest) set configurations. A significant effect of “set configuration” (p= 0.002) was observed for barbell velocity. The average velocity of the training session was lower for TR compared with CL (% difference = 5.09% in SQ and 5.68% in BP) and RR (% difference = 5.92% in SQ and 2.71% in BP). The 3 set configurations induced comparable decrements in countermovement jump height (% difference from −6.0% to −8.1%) and throwing velocity (% difference from −0.6% to −1.2%). Ratings of perceived exertion (RPE-10) values collected after the sets were higher for TR (SQ: 6.9 ± 0.7 a.u.; BP: 6.8 ± 0.8 a.u.) compared with CL (SQ: 6.2 ± 0.8 a.u.; BP: 6.4 ± 0.7 a.u.) and RR (SQ: 6.2 ± 0.8 a.u.; BP: 6.6 ± 0.9 a.u.), while the session RPE did not differ between the set configurations (p= 0.595). CL and RR set configurations allow for higher velocities and lower RPE values during resistance training sessions not performed to failure in comparison with a TR set configuration.

Jiménez-Alonso, A, García-Ramos, A, Cepero, M, Miras-Moreno, S, Rojas, FJ, and Pérez-Castilla, A. Effect of augmented feedback on velocity performance during strength-oriented and power-oriented resistance training sessions. J Strength Cond Res36(6): 1511–1517, 2022—This study examined the effects of providing instantaneous velocity feedback (knowledge of results [KR]) on velocity maintenance across multiple sets during strength-oriented and power-oriented resistance training (RT) sessions. Seventeen men completed 2 strength-oriented RT sessions (4 sets of 5 repetitions at 75% of 1 repetition maximum [1RM] during the back squat [SQ] and bench press [BP] exercises) in 1 week and 2 power-oriented RT sessions (4 sets of 5 repetitions at 30% of 1RM during the countermovement jump [CMJ] and BP throw [BPT] exercises) in another week. Subjects received verbal velocity performance feedback in 1 session (KR) and no KR was provided in another session. Greater velocities during the 4 sets of both strength-oriented (from 4.6 to 11.6%) and power-oriented (from 1.4 to 3.5%) RT sessions were observed. The increments in velocity performance during the KR condition were greater for the CMJ (2.25 ± 0.14 vs. 2.18 ± 0.17 m·s−1; 3.0%) than the BPT (2.33 ± 0.13 vs. 2.29 ± 0.16 m·s−1; 1.7%) and similarly for the SQ (0.59 ± 0.07 vs. 0.55 ± 0.06 m·s−1; 7.5%) and BP (0.47 ± 0.09 vs. 0.44 ± 0.07 m·s−1; 7.8%). The raw differences in the RT velocity for BPT were positively correlated with the raw differences in the RT velocity for SQ (r= 0.524; p= 0.031) and CMJ (r= 0.662; p= 0.004), but the remaining correlations did not reach a statistical significance (r≤ 0.370; p≥ 0.123). Although these results support the provision of velocity performance feedback to increase training quality regardless of the type of RT session, the positive effect of KR seems to be more accentuated during strength-oriented compared with power-oriented RT sessions.

Jukic, I, García-Ramos, A, Malecek, J, Omcirk, D, and Tufano, JJ. Magnitude and reliability of velocity and power variables during deadlifts performed with and without lifting straps. J Strength Cond Res36(5): 1177–1184, 2022—This study aimed to compare the magnitude and reliability of mean velocity (MV), peak velocity (PV), mean power (MP), and peak power (PP) between deadlifts performed with (DLw) and without (DLn) lifting straps. Sixteen resistance-trained men performed a DLn 1-repetition maximum (1RM) session followed by 4 experimental sessions (2 with each deadlift variant in a randomized order). Each experimental session comprised lifts at 20, 40, 60, and 80% of the DLn 1RM. No significant differences were found between DLw and DLn for MV, MP, PV, and PP at any load (p= 0.309–1.00; g = 0.00–0.19). All mechanical variables showed an acceptable reliability for both deadlift conditions at each relative load (coefficient of variation [CV] <8%; intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] > 0.70; g < 0.5) with the only exception of MV at 60% 1RM for DLw (ICC = 0.62) and at 40% 1RM for DLn (ICC = 0.65). Furthermore, MV and PV generally had lower within-subject CV (CV = 3.56–5.86%) than MP and PP (CV = 3.82–8.05%) during both deadlift conditions. Our findings suggest that sport professionals might not need to consider implementing lifting straps with the aim to maximize velocity and power outputs with submaximal loads in a deadlift exercise. Because all mechanical variables measured showed an acceptable level of reliability for both DLw and DLn, they can all be used to track changes in performance during the deadlift exercise. However, velocity variables were slightly more consistent (lower CV), which makes them more appropriate to track DLw and DLn performance changes.

Jukic, I, García-Ramos, A, Malecek, J, Omcirk, D, and Tufano, JJ. Validity of load–velocity relationship to predict 1 repetition maximum during deadlifts performed with and without lifting straps: The accuracy of six prediction models. J Strength Cond Res36(4): 902–910, 2022—This study aimed to compare the accuracy of six 1 repetition maximum (1RM) prediction models during deadlifts performed with (DLw) and without (DLn) lifting straps. In a counterbalanced order, 18 resistance-trained men performed 2 sessions that consisted of an incremental loading test (20-40-60-80-90% of 1RM) followed by 1RM attempts during the DLn (1RM = 162.0 ± 26.9 kg) and DLw (1RM = 179.0 ± 29.9 kg). Predicted 1RMs were calculated by entering both group and individualized mean concentric velocity of the 1RM (V1RM) into an individualized linear and polynomial regression equations, which were derived from the load–velocity relationship of 5 ([20-40-60-80-90% of 1RM], i.e., multiple-point method) or 2 ([40 and 90% of 1RM] i.e., 2-point method) incremental warm-up sets. The predicted 1RMs were deemed highly valid if the following criteria were met: trivial to small effect size, practically perfect r, and low absolute errors (<5 kg). The main findings revealed that although prediction models were more accurate during the DLn than DLw, none of the models provided an accurate estimation of the 1RM during both DLn (r= 0.92–0.98; absolute errors: 6.6–8.1 kg) and DLw (r= 0.80–0.93; absolute errors: 12.4–16.3 kg) according to our criteria. Therefore, these results suggest that the 1RM for both DLn and DLw should not be estimated through the recording of movement velocity if sport professionals are not willing to accept more than 5 kg of absolute errors.

Jiménez-Alonso, A, García-Ramos, A, Cepero, M, Miras-Moreno, S, Rojas, FJ, and Pérez-Castilla, A. Velocity performance feedback during the free-weight bench press testing procedure: An effective strategy to increase the reliability and one repetition maximum accuracy prediction. J Strength Cond Res36(4): 1077–1083, 2022—This study aimed to determine whether the verbal provision of velocity performance feedback during the free-weight bench press (BP) exercise influences (a) the within-session reliability and magnitude of mean concentric velocity (MCV) values recorded against a range of submaximal loads and (b) the accuracy of the individualized load-velocity profile to estimate the BP 1 repetition maximum (1RM). Fifteen men (BP 1RM relative to body mass = 1.08 ± 0.22) performed an incremental loading test until reaching the 1RM on 2 separate sessions. Subjects received verbal velocity performance feedback in 1 session (knowledge of results [KR]), and no KR was provided in another session (Control). A linear velocity transducer was used to collect the MCV against 4 loads (40-55-70-85% 1RM), and the BP 1RM was estimated from the individualized load-velocity relationship modeled through the multiple-point (40-55-70-85% 1RM) and 2-point methods (40-85% 1RM). The KR condition provided a higher reliability (coefficient of variation [CV]: KR = 2.41%, Control = 3.54%; CV ratio = 1.47) and magnitude (p= 0.001; effect size [ES] = 0.78) of MCV for the 40% 1RM, but no significant differences in reliability (CV ratio ≤1.15) nor in the magnitude (p≥ 0.058; ES range = 0.00–0.32) were observed for higher loads. The accuracy in the estimation of the 1RM was higher for the KR (absolute errors: multiple-point = 3.1 ± 2.3 kg; 2-point = 3.5 ± 2.1 kg) compared with the Control condition (absolute errors: 4.1 ± 1.9 kg for both multiple-point and 2-point methods). These results encourage the provision of verbal velocity performance feedback during BP testing procedures.

Soriano, MA, García-Ramos, A, Torres-González, A, Castillo-Palencia, J, Ayuso, V, Marín, PJ, and Comfort, P. Validity and reliability of a standardized protocol for assessing the one repetition maximum performance during overhead pressing exercises. J Strength Cond Res35(11): 2988–2992, 2021—The aim of this study was to determine the validity of performing 3 one repetition maximum (1RM) assessments for the push press (PP), push jerk (PJ), and split jerk (SJ) in sequence in one testing session vs. the criterion method (testing on separate days), while determining the between-session reliability of the combined assessment. Twenty-two well-trained men (n= 22; age: 28.5 + 1.3 years; height: 1.80 + 0.04 m; body mass: 84.9 + 1.9 kg; training experience: 4.27 + 4.08 years) participated in this study. The 1RM was assessed in a sequential order in the same testing session (combined 1RM assessment) for the PP, PJ, and SJ on 2 occasions, to determine between-session reliability. The 1RM for each exercise was also examined on 3 separate sessions to compare the results against the combined method. A high reliability, low variability, and low measurement error were evident for the PP (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.960; coefficient of variation [CV] = 1.8%; smallest detectable difference [SDD] = 7.1%), PJ (ICC = 0.978; CV = 1.5%; SDD = 5.4%) and SJ (ICC = 0.987; CV = 0.8%; SDD = 4.6%). In addition, there were no significant (p> 0.05) or meaningful (η2≤0.001) differences between the single and combined assessments. The high reliability and validity of the combined assessment suggest that practitioners and researchers may simplify the testing procedure by assessing the 1RM during the 3 main overhead pressing exercises in a single testing session.

The aims of the study were (i) to determine the reliability and concurrent validity of a functional electromechanical dynamometer (FEMD) to measure different isokinetic velocities, and (ii) to identify the real range of isokinetic velocity reached by FEMD for different prescribed velocities. Mean velocities were collected simultaneously with FEMD and a linear velocity transducer (LVT) in two sessions that were identical, consisting of 15 trials at five isokinetic velocities (0.40, 0.60, 0.80, 1.00, and 1.20 m·s−1) over a range of movement of 40 cm. The results obtained using each method were compared using Paired samples t-tests, Bland-Altman plots and the Pearson’s product–moment correlation coefficient, while the reliability was determined using the standard error of measurement and coefficient of variation (CV). The results indicate that the mean velocity values collected with FEMD and LVT were practically perfect correlations (r> 0.99) with low random errors (<0.06 m·s−1), while mean velocity values were systematically higher for FEMD (p< 0.05). FEMD provided a high or acceptable reliability for mean velocity (CV ≤ 0.24%), time to reach the isokinetic velocity (CV range = 1.68%–9.70%) and time spent at the isokinetic velocity (CV range = 0.53%–8.94%). These results suggest that FEMD offers valid and reliable measurements of mean velocity during a fixed linear movement, as well as a consistent duration of the isokinetic phase. FEMD could be an appropriate device to evaluate movement velocity during linear movements. More studies are needed to confirm the reliability and validity of FEMD to measure different velocity metrics during more complex functional exercises.

Background: One-repetition maximum (1RM) tests are time-consuming, and they might not always be logistically possible or warranted due to increased risk of injury when performed incorrectly or by novice athletes. Repetitions-to-failure tests are a widespread method of predicting the 1RM, but its accuracy may be compromised by several factors such as the type of exercise, sex, training history, and the number of repetitions completed in the test.Hypothesis: The touch-and-go bench press would provide a higher 1RM than the concentric-only bench press for both genders regardless of whether the 1RM was obtained by the direct or repetitions-to-failure method and the error in the 1RM prediction would be positively correlated with the number of repetitions performed to failure and negatively correlated with the 1RM strength and resistance training experience.Study Design: Cross-sectional study.Level of Evidence: Level 3.Methods: A total of 113 adults (87 men and 26 women) were tested on 2 sessions during the concentric-only and touch-and-go bench press. Each session consisted of an incremental loading test until reaching the 1RM load, followed by a repetitions-to-failure test.Results: The 1RM was higher for the touch-and-go bench press using both the direct (men, 7.80%; women, 7.62%) and repetitions-to-failure method (men, 8.29%; women, 7.49%). A significant, although small, correlation was observed between the error in the estimation of the 1RM and the number of repetitions performed (r= 0.222; P< 0.01), 1RM strength (r= −0.169; P= 0.01), and resistance training experience (r= −0.136; P= 0.05).Conclusion: The repetitions-to-failure test is a valid method of predicting the 1RM during the concentric-only and touch-and-go bench press variants. However, the accuracy of the prediction could be compromised with weaker and less experienced individuals and if more than 10 repetitions are completed during the repetitions-to-failure test.Clinical Relevance: The repetitions-to-failure test does not require any sophisticated equipment and enables a widespread use in different training environments.

Purpose: The aim of this article is to investigate the acute effects of bench press sets leading to muscular failure with different loads on intraocular pressure and ocular perfusion pressure.Study design: A randomized experimental study.Methods: Seventeen physically active young men performed four resistance training sets of bench press to muscular failure against different relative loads (65% one-repetition maximum vs 75% one-repetition maximum vs 85% one-repetition maximum vs 95% one-repetition maximum). Intraocular pressure was measured before and immediately after the execution of each of the four sets, and ocular perfusion pressure was also assessed before and after physical effort.Results: We found that intraocular pressure increased after reaching muscular failure (p < 0.001, ƞ²= 0.52), being also dependent on the interaction load × point of measure (p < 0.001, ƞ²= 0.33). Our data demonstrated that higher intraocular pressure increases were found when participants performed the bench press exercise against heavier loads, showing statistical significance for the 75% one-repetition maximum (p = 0.020, d = –0.63, mean change = 0.9 mmHg), 85% one-repetition maximum (p = 0.035, d = –0.56, mean change = 1.4 mmHg), and 95% one-repetition maximum (p < 0.001, d = –1.36, mean change = 2.9 mmHg) relative loads. For its part, ocular perfusion pressure showed a reduction after exercise (p = 0.009, ƞ²= 0.35), being these changes independent on the load used.Conclusion: Bench press exercise leading to muscular failure provokes an acute intraocular pressure rise, with greater changes when heavier loads are used. Ocular perfusion pressure exhibited an acute reduction after exercise; however, its clinical relevance seems to be insignificant (lower to 4%). We argue that the use of heavy loads, when training to muscular failure, should be discouraged in order to avoid acute intraocular pressure fluctuations. Future studies should corroborate the generalizability of these findings in glaucoma patients.

ABSTRACTThis study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of a video-based technology for assessing the reaction time (RT) during karate kumite situations. The Simple RT (one stimulus and one response), 2-Choice RT (two stimuli and two responses), and 4-Choice RT (four stimuli and two responses) of 10 karate kumite, 10 karate kata, and 10 beginners were recorded during a single session. Four karate kumite offensive actions (“stimulus”) (front arm punch, front leg kick, back arm punch, and back leg kick) were projected in a real size, after which the participants performed a defensive action (“response”) (high and low block for front and back attacks, respectively). The results indicated that (1) the video-based method was sensitive to discriminate between beginners and karate practitioners (p < 0.05) (higher RT for beginners), (2) no differences in RT were observed between kumite and kata (p = 0.504), (3) Simple RT was lower than 2-Choice RT and 4-Choice RT (p < 0.001) but no differences were observed between 2-Choice RT and 4-Choice RT (p = 0.112), and (4) the RT was higher for the back attacks compared to front attacks (p < 0.001). These results support the video-based method for assessing RT during karate kumite situations.

Objectives: We compared the impact of a maximal treadmill test on intraocular pressure and ocular perfusion pressure between trained and untrained individuals.Methods: Based on the maximal aerobic capacity (relative VO2max), 31 military helicopter pilots were divided into groups of trained (n = 16; VO2max = 57.06 ± 1.66) and untrained (n = 15; VO2max = 43.42 ± 1.19) individuals. Intraocular pressure and blood pressure were collected before effort, just after volitional exhaustion and after 5 and 15 min of recovery.Results: The maximal treadmill test induced significant changes on intraocular pressure (p < 0.001, η2= 0.52) and ocular perfusion pressure (p < 0.001, η2= 0.60). Intraocular pressure and ocular perfusion pressure increased just after volitional exhaustion (effect size = 0.88 and 1.59, respectively), and these values returned to baseline levels after 5 (effect size = 0.87 and 1.26, respectively) and 15 (effect size = 1.23 and 1.91, respectively) min of recovery. The untrained group exhibited higher intraocular pressure and ocular perfusion pressure values in comparison with the trained group just after volitional exhaustion (effect size = 1.43 and 0.11 for intraocular pressure and effect size = 2.81 and 0.96 for ocular perfusion pressure). Five minutes of recovery was insufficient to reach baseline intraocular pressure and ocular perfusion pressure values only for the untrained group (effect size = 0.91 and 0.72, respectively).Conclusion: Our findings reveal that fitness level modulates the intraocular pressure and ocular perfusion pressure responses to a maximal treadmill test, being high fitness levels desirable in order to attenuate the impact of maximal efforts on these indices. These outcomes may be of clinical relevance for the management of glaucoma patients or those at risk, although future studies are needed to test these results in a clinical population.

Background: The fastest mean (MVfastest) and peak (PVfastest) velocity in a set are used to predict the maximum number of repetitions (RTF), but stretch-shortening cycle (SSC) effects on these relationships are unknown.Hypothesis: Velocity values associated with each RTF would show higher values for eccentric-concentric and multiple-point methods compared with concentric-only and 2-point methods.Study Design: Cross-sectional study.Level of Evidence: Level 3.Methods: After determining the prone bench pull (PBP) 1-repetition maximum (1RM), 23 resistance-trained male participants randomly performed 2 sessions (1 for each PBP exercise), consisting of single sets of RTFs against 3 relative loads (60%-80%-70%1RM). Individualized RTF-velocity relationships were constructed using the multiple-point (60%-80%-70%1RM) and 2-point (60%-80%1RM) methods.Results: Goodness-of-fit was very high and comparable for concentric-only (RTF-MVfastest, r2= 0.97; RTF-PVfastest, r2= 0.98) and eccentric-concentric (RTF-MVfastest, r2= 0.98; RTF-PVfastest, r2= 0.99) PBP exercises. Velocity values associated with different RTFs were generally higher for eccentric-concentric compared with concentric-only PBP exercise, but these differences showed heteroscedasticity (R2≥ 0.143). However, velocity values associated with different RTFs were comparable for the multiple- and 2-point methods (F≤ 2.4; P≥ 0.13).Conclusion: These results suggest that the inclusion of the SSC does not impair the goodness-of-fit of RTF-velocity relationships, but these relationships should be determined specifically for each PBP exercise (ie, concentric-only and eccentric-concentric). In addition, the 2-point method serves as a quick and less strenuous procedure to estimate RTF.Clinical Relevance: Practitioners only need to monitor the MVfastestor PVfastestand the RTF from 2 (2-point method) or 3 (multiple-point method) sets performed to failure to construct an RTF-velocity relationship. Once these relationships have been established, coaches need only monitor the MVfastestor PVfastestof the set to estimate RTF against a given absolute load.

Background: Fastest mean (MVfastest) and peak (PVfastest) velocity of the set have been proposed to predict the maximum number of repetitions to failure (RTF) during the Smith machine prone bench pull (PBP) exercise.Hypothesis: Goodness-of-fit would be higher for individualized compared with generalized RTF-velocity relationships and comparable for both execution equipment conditions (with or without straps), and the MVfastestand PVfastestassociated with each RTF would be comparable between execution equipment and prediction methods (multiple- vs 2-point method).Study Design: Cross-sectional study.Level of Evidence: Level 3.Methods: After determining the PBP 1-repetition maximum (1RM), 20 resistance-trained male athletes performed 2 sessions randomly, with and without lifting straps, consisting of single sets to failure against the same load sequence (60% to 80% to 70% 1RM). Generalized (pooling data from all subjects) and individualized (separately for each subject using multiple-point or 2-point methods) RTF-velocity relationships were constructed.Results: Individualized RTF-velocity relationships were always stronger than generalized RFT-velocity relationships, but comparable with (MVfastest: r2= 0.87-0.99]; PVfastest: r2= 0.88-1.00]) and without (MVfastest: r2= 0.82-1.00; PVfastest: r2= 0.89-0.99]) lifting straps. The velocity values associated with each RTF were comparable between execution equipment (P≥ 0.22), but higher for the multiple-point compared with the 2-point method (P< 0.01).Conclusion: The use of lifting straps during the Smith machine PBP exercise does not affect the goodness-of-fit of the RTF-velocity relationships or the velocity values associated with different RTFs. However, caution should be exercised when using different methods.Clinical Relevance: The benefits of the RTF-velocity relationships can be extrapolated when using lifting straps, and the 2-point method can also be used as a quick and more fatigue-free procedure. Nevertheless, it is imperative for coaches to ensure that these relationships are reflective of fatigue experienced during training.

Background: The execution of resistance exercise against heavy loads promotes an acute intraocular pressure (IOP) rise, which has detrimental effects on ocular health. However, the effect of load on the IOP behavior during exercise remains unknown due to technical limitations.Hypotheses: IOP monitoring during isometric squat exercise permits assessment of IOP behavior during physical effort. Second, greater loads will induce a higher IOP rise.Study Design: Randomized cross-sectional study.Level of Evidence: Level 2.Methods: Twenty-six young adults (13 women, 13 men) performed an isometric squat exercise against 3 loads relative to their maximum capacity (low, medium, and high). IOP was measured before, during (1 measurement every 6 seconds), and after exercise (10 seconds of recovery).Results: There was a progressive IOP rise during exercise, which was dependent on the load applied (Bayes factor10>100). Higher IOP values were found in the high load condition in comparison with the medium (mean IOP difference = 1.5 mm Hg) and low (mean IOP difference = 3.1 mm Hg) conditions, as well as when the medium load was compared with the low load condition (mean IOP difference = 1.6 mm Hg). Men reached higher IOP values in comparison with women during the last measurements in the high load condition. Ten seconds of recovery were enough to obtain IOP values similar to baseline levels.Conclusion: Isometric squat exercise induces an immediate and cumulative IOP elevation, which is positively associated with the load applied. These IOP increments return to baseline values after 10 seconds of recovery, and men demonstrate a more accentuated IOP rise in comparison with women when high levels of effort are accumulated.Clinical Relevance: These findings may help in better management of different ocular conditions and highlight the importance of an individualized exercise prescription in clinical populations.

The possible muscular strength, hypertrophy, and muscle power benefits of resistance training under environmental conditions of hypoxia are currently being investigated. Nowadays, resistance training in hypoxia constitutes a promising new training strategy for strength and muscle gains. The main mechanisms responsible for these effects seem to be related to increased metabolite accumulation due to hypoxia. However, no data are reported in the literature to describe and compare the efficacy of the different hypertrophic resistance training strategies in hypoxia. Moreover, improvements in sprinting, jumping, or throwing performance have also been described at terrestrial altitude, encouraging research into the speed of explosive movements at altitude. It has been suggested that the reduction in the aerodynamic resistance and/or the increase in the anaerobic metabolism at higher altitudes can influence the metabolic cost, increase the take-off velocities, or improve the motor unit recruitment patterns, which may explain these improvements. Despite these findings, the applicability of altitude conditions in improving muscle power by resistance training remains to be clarified. This review examines current knowledge regarding resistance training in different types of hypoxia, focusing on strategies designed to improve muscle hypertrophy as well as power for explosive movements.

Background: Using lifting straps during pulling exercises (such as deadlift) may increase absolute velocity performance. However, it remains unclear whether lifting straps could also reduce the degree of relative fatigue measured by velocity decline and maintenance in a training set.Hypothesis: There will be less mean velocity decline (MVD) and greater mean velocity maintenance (MVM) for deadlifts performed with (DLw) compared with without (DLn) lifting straps, and an underestimation of MVD and MVM when using the first compared with the fastest repetition as a reference repetition.Study Design: Randomized cross over design.Level of Evidence: Level 3.Methods: A total of 16 resistance-trained men performed a familiarization session, 2 1-repetition maximum [1RM] sessions (1 with and 1 without lifting straps), and 3 randomly applied experimental sessions consisting of 4 sets of 4 repetitions: (1) DLw against the 80% of DLn 1RM (DLwn), (2) DLn against the 80% of the DLn 1RM (DLnn), and (3) DLw against the 80% of the DLw 1RM (DLww). MVD and MVM were calculated using the first and the fastest repetition as the reference repetition.Results: MVD was significantly lower during DLwn and DLnn compared with DLww (P< 0.01), whereas MVM was greater during DLwn and DLnn compared with DLwn (P< 0.01) with no differences between DLwn and DLnn for both MVD and MVM (P> 0.05). The second repetition of the set was generally the fastest (54.1%) and lower MVD and higher MVM were observed when the first repetition was used as the reference repetition (P< 0.05).Conclusions: Lifting straps were not effective at reducing MVD and increasing MVM when the same absolute loads were lifted. Furthermore, using the first repetition as the reference repetition underestimated MVD, and overestimated MVM.Clinical relevance: The fastest repetition should be used as the reference repetition to avoid inducing excessive fatigue when the first repetition is not the fastest.

Background: The relationship between the external load lifted and movement velocity can be modeled by a simple linear regression, and the variables derived from the load-velocity (L-V) relationship were recently used to estimate the maximal neuromuscular capacities during 2 variants of the back-squat exercise.Hypothesis: The L-V relationship variables will be highly reliable and will be highly associated with the traditional tests commonly used to evaluate the maximal force and power.Study Design: Twenty-four male wrestlers performed 5 testing sessions (a 1-repetition maximum [1RM] session, and 4 experimental sessions [2 with the concentric-only back-squat and 2 with the eccentric-concentric back-squat]). Each experimental session consisted of performing 3 repetitions against 5 loads (45%-55%-65%-75%-85% of the 1RM), followed by single 1RM attempts.Level of Evidence: Level 3.Methods: Individual L-V relationships were modeled from the mean velocity collected under all loading conditions from which the following 3 variables were calculated: load-axis intercept (L0), velocity-axis intercept (v0), and area under the line (Aline= L0·v0/2). The back-squat 1RM strength and the maximum power determined as the apex of the power-velocity relationship (Pmax) were also determined as traditional measures of maximal force and power capacities, respectively.Results: The between-session reliability was high for the Aline(coefficient of variation [CV] range = 2.58%-4.37%; intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] range = 0.98-0.99) and generally acceptable for L0and v0(CV range = 5.08%-9.01%; ICC range = 0.45-0.96). Regarding the concurrent validity, the correlations were very large between L0and the 1RM strength (rrange= 0.87-0.88) and nearly perfect between Alineand Pmax(r= 0.98-0.99).Conclusion: The load-velocity relationship variables can be obtained with a high reliability (L0, v0, and Aline) and validity (L0and Aline) during the back-squat exercise.Clinical Relevance: The load-velocity relationship modeling represents a quick and simple procedure to estimate the maximal neuromuscular capacities of lower-body muscles.

This study aimed to compare the reliability and agreement of mean velocity (MV) and maximal velocity (Vmax) between the two velocity monitoring devices (GymAware vs T-Force) most commonly used in the scientific literature. Twenty resistance-trained males completed two testing sessions. The free-weight barbell back squat one-repetition maximum (1RM) was determined in the first session (125.0 ± 24.2 kg; mean ± standard deviation). The second session consisted of two blocks of 16 repetitions (six repetitions at 45% 1RM and 65% 1RM, and four repetitions at 85% 1RM). Half of the repetitions were performed with the GymAware on the left side of the barbell and the other half of the repetitions were performed on the right side of the barbell (opposite placement for the T-Force). MV and Vmaxwere recorded simultaneously with the GymAware and T-Force. The overall reliability, which was calculated pooling together the data of three loads, did not differ between the T-Force (coefficient of variation (CV) = 5.28 ± 1.79%) and GymAware (CV = 5.79 ± 2.26%) (CVratio= 1.10), but the reliability was higher for Vmax(CV = 5.08 ± 1.79%) compared to MV (CV = 5.98 ± 2.73%) (CVratio= 1.18). MV was significantly higher for the T-Force (p< 0.001, Δ = 4.42%), but no significant differences were detected between the devices for Vmax(p= 0.455, Δ = 0.22%). These results support the use of both the GymAware and T-Force as gold-standards in studies designed to validate other velocity monitoring devices. However, systematic bias, albeit rather constant, exists for the magnitude of MV between the two devices.