Search

This study aimed to compare the effects of bilateral and unilateral conditioning activities (CA; combined isometric and plyometric) on countermovement jump performance, modified t-agility test, Achilles tendon stiffness and skin surface temperature. Thirteen female semi-professional volleyball players performed two CAs in random order: 1) bilateral isometric half back squats followed by bilateral drop jumps (BI-CA); and 2) unilateral isometric half back squats followed by unilateral drop jumps (UNI-CA). To assess the effects of CAs, countermovement jump, modified t-agility test, Achilles tendon stiffness and skin surface temperature measurements were performed 5 min before and 6 min after the CA. Both CAs significantly increased thigh skin surface temperature from pre- to post-CA (BI-CA, p < 0.001; effect size [ES] = 1.41 and UNI-CA, p = 0.001; ES = 1.39) but none of them influenced modified t-agility test time (interaction: p = 0.338, main effect of time: p = 0.121 and condition: p = 0.819). The countermovement jump height and modified reactive strength index significantly increased from pre-to post-CA during the BI-CA condition (p = 0.003, ES = 0.45, and p = 0.008, ES = 0.48) but not for UNI-CA (p = 0.061, ES = 0.18 and p = 0.065, ES = 0.26). No significant impact has been found for countermovement depth (interaction: p = 0.054, main effect of time: 0.097, and condition: p = 0.41) as well as for contraction time (interaction: p = 0.536, main effect of time: p = 0.224, and condition: p = 0.807). Moreover, stronger and weaker limb CMJ relative peak force significantly decreased from pre-to post-CA (p = 0.014, ES = −0.31, and p = 0.027, ES = −0.26; respectively) during UNI-CA condition but not for BI-CA (p = 0.096, ES = 0.23, and p = 1.41, ES = 0.18). The stronger and weaker limb Achilles tendon stiffness significantly increased from pre-to post-CA during the UNI-CA condition (p = 0.013, ES = 0.60 and p < 0.001, ES = 0.79; respectively) but not for BI-CA (p = 0.66; ES = 0.15 and p = 0.265; ES = 0.42). Furthermore, the post-CA stronger limb Achilles tendon stiffness during the UNI-CA was significantly higher than that noted during the BI-CA (p = 0.006, ES = 0.7). The present study showed that combined isometric and plyometric bilateral CA effectively improved the countermovement jump but did not enhance the t-agility test performance. These findings indicate that exercise combinations could effectively produce a post-activation performance enhancement effect but should replicate the following explosive task as much as possible.

The main aim of the present study was to evaluate the acute effects of ischemia used during rest periods on bar velocity changes during the bench press exercise at progressive loads, from 20 to 90% of 1RM. Ten healthy resistance trained men volunteered for the study (age = 26.3 ± 4.7 years; body mass = 89.8 ± 6.3 kg; bench press 1RM = 142.5 ± 16.9 kg; training experience = 7.8 ± 2.7 years). During the experimental sessions the subjects performed the bench press exercise under two different conditions, in a randomized and counterbalanced order: (a) ischemia condition, with ischemia applied before the first set and during every rest periods between sets, and (b) control condition where no ischemia was applied. During each experimental session eight sets of the bench press exercise were performed, against loads starting from 20 to 90% 1RM, increased progressively by 10% in each subsequent set. A 3-min rest interval between sets was used. For ischemia condition the cuffs was applied 3 min before the first set and during every rest period between sets. Ischemia was released during exercise. The cuff pressure was set to ∼80% of full arterial occlusion pressure. The two-way repeated measures ANOVA showed a statistically significant interaction effect for peak bar velocity (p = 0.04) and for mean bar velocity (p = 0.01). There was also a statistically significant main effect of condition for peak bar velocity (p < 0.01) but not for mean bar velocity (p = 0.25). The post hoc analysis for interaction showed significantly higher peak bar velocity for the ischemia condition compared to control at a load of 20% 1RM (p = 0.007) and at a load of 50% 1RM (p = 0.006). The results of the present study indicate that ischemia used before each set even for a brief duration of

Considering the effectiveness of resisted sprint training, and the acute enhancement of sprinting performance through locomotor post-activation performance enhancement, the main objective of the research was to determine the acute effects of resisted activation with loads of 5, 10, and 15% body mass on sprint and flying start sprint performance in elite female sprinters using resisted drag technology system. Ten elite female sprinters (age: 23.2 ± 5.4 years, body mass: 54.2 ± 6.1 kg, height: 167.4 ± 7.3 cm, personal best for 100 m: 12.05 ± 0.56 s, and for 400 m: 53.17 ± 2.76 s) performed two unresisted 20-m sprints (from a crouched and flying start) before and after a single resisted sprint loaded with 5, 10, or 15% body mass to verify the effectiveness of the activation stimulus. Compared with pre-activation, Friedman tests showed that peak velocity increased by 1.6 ± 2.2% [effect size (ES) = 0.66], 2.3 ± 1.5% (ES = 1.33), and 0.2 ± 1% (ES = 0.09), as well as peak force by 2.8 ± 2.1% (ES = 0.49), 3.5 ± 2.3% (ES = 1), and 0.5 ± 2.4% (ES = 0.14), concomitant with a significant decreased in sprint time by −0.5 ± 1.2% (ES = −0.07), −2.5 ± 1.3% (ES = −0.64), and −1 ± 1.4% (ES = −0.36) for the 5, 10, and 15% body mass post-activation, respectively (p < 0.001; for all). Furthermore, the ANOVA showed that peak power increased by 2.9 ± 2.3% (ES = 0.61), 3.8 ± 2.2% (ES = 1.05), and 2 ± 7.1% (ES = 0.22) for the 5, 10, and 15% body mass resisted-conditioning activity, respectively, with no difference between the three conditions (p = 0.003 main effect time, no interaction). Moreover, compared with the 5 and 15% body mass trials [−1.5 ± 2% (ES = −0.44), −0.8 ± 0.8% (ES = −0.44), respectively], the ANOVA showed that flying start sprint time significantly decreased by −4.3 ± 1.1% (ES = −1.25) (p < 0.001, interaction effect) after a 10% body mass resisted-conditioning activity. The results of this study indicated that resisted sprints acutely enhance sprint performance; however, their effectiveness depends on the applied load. A single resisted sprint using 10% body mass is effective at inducing a potentiating effect on subsequent 20-m flying start sprint performance in elite female sprinters. Therefore, keeping in mind the optimal load, it is recommended to perform resisted sprints as a conditioning activation when seeking to acutely enhance 20-m flying start sprint performance in these athletes.

Introduction: This study examined the effects of blood flow restriction (BFR) and reperfusion on the mechanical properties of the rectus femoris muscle at rest (frequency and stiffness).Methods: Fourteen trained men (body weight = 81.0 ± 10.3 kg; BMI = 25 ± 3.0 m/kg2; height = 181 ± 4 cm; training experience = 6.0 ± 2.2 years) participated in an experimental session involving their dominant (BFR) and non-dominant leg (control). Muscle mechanical properties were measured using Myoton’s accelerometer at the midpoint of the rectus femoris muscle at five time points. In the BFR leg, an 80% arterial occlusion pressure was applied by a cuff for 5 min. No cuff was applied in the control leg. Femoral Myoton measurements were taken from both legs 2 and 4 min after the start of BRF as well as 30 s and 2 min after the end of the occlusion period.Results: The two-way ANOVA revealed a statistically significant interaction effect for stiffness and frequency (p < 0.001; η2 > 0.67). The post hoc analysis showed that both stiffness and frequency increased during BFR compared with rest and then dropped to the resting levels post BFR period. Also, stiffness and frequency were higher than control only during the BFR period, and similar during rest and post BFR.Conclusion: These results indicate that the application of BFR at rest leads to significant changes in mechanical properties of the rectus femoris muscle.

This study compared the effects of short-duration ischemic preconditioning, a single-set high-resistance exercise and their combination on subsequent bench press performance. Twelve men (age: 25.8 ± 6.0 years, bench press 1-RM: 1.21 ± 0.17 kg kg−1 body mass) performed four 12 s sets as fast as possible, with 2 min of recovery between sets, against 60% 1-RM, after: a) 5 min ischemic preconditioning (IPC; at 100% of full arterial occlusion pressure), b) one set of three bench press repetitions at 90% 1-RM (PAPE), c) their combination (PAPE + IPC) or d) control (CTRL). Mean barbell velocity in ischemic preconditioning was higher than CTRL (by 6.6–9.0%, p < 0.05) from set 1 to set 3, and higher than PAPE in set 1 (by 4.4%, p < 0.05). Mean barbell velocity in PAPE was higher than CTRL from set 2 to set 4 (by 6.7–8.9%, p < 0.05), while mean barbell velocity in PAPE + IPC was higher than CTRL only in set 1 (+5.8 ± 10.0%). Peak barbell velocity in ischemic preconditioning and PAPE was higher than CTRL (by 7.8% and 8.5%, respectively; p < 0.05). Total number of repetitions was similarly increased in all experimental conditions compared with CTRL (by 7.0–7.9%, p < 0.05). Rating of perceived exertion was lower in ischemic preconditioning compared with CTRL (p < 0.001) and PAPE (p = 0.045), respectively. These results highlight the effectiveness of short-duration ischemic preconditioning in increasing bench press performance, and suggest that it may be readily used by strength and conditioning coaches during resistance training due to its brevity and lower perceived exertion.

This study aimed to determine whether the intra-complex active recovery within the strength-power potentiating complex will impact the upper-body post-activation performance enhancement effect and how the magnitude of this effect will change across the upper-body complex training session. Thirteen resistance-trained males [the age, body mass, height, experience in resistance training, and one-repetition maximum (1RM) in bench press were 27 ± 4 years; 92.3 ± 15.4 kg; 182 ± 6 cm; 6.4 ± 2.4 years, and 118 ± 29 kg, respectively) participated in this study. Each participant completed a baseline bench press throw performance assessment at 30% 1RM. Next, five strength-power potentiating complexes consisting of a bench press at 80% 1RM were tested until the average barbell velocity decreased by 10% as a conditioning activity, and 6 min later, a re-test of bench press throw was carried out. During one experimental session during the rest interval inside the complex, they performed swiss ball leg curls, while between the complexes, a plank exercise (PAP-A) was performed. During the second experimental session, participants performed no exercises within the strength-power potentiating complexes and between them (PAP). Under control conditions, participants ran the same protocol (as the PAP condition) without the conditioning activity (CTRL). Friedman’s test showed significant differences in peak (test = 90.634; p < 0.0001; Kendall’s W = 0.410) and average (test = 74.172; p < 0.0001; Kendall’s W = 0.336) barbell velocities during bench press throw. Pairwise comparisons indicated that the peak and average barbell velocities significantly increased in the fourth set [p = 0.022, effect size (ES) = 0.76 and p = 0.013, ES = 0.69, respectively], and the average barbell velocity was also increased in the second set (p = 0.018, ES = 0.77) in comparison to the baseline value during the PAP-A condition. Moreover, the peak barbell velocity was increased in the second (p = 0.008, ES = 0.72) and third (p = 0.019, ES = 0.76) sets compared to the baseline value during the PAP condition. This study showed that body-weight lower-body exercise as an intra-complex active recovery did not impair the upper-body post-activation performance enhancement effect across the complex training session.

The main goal of the present study was to evaluate the effects of different blood flow restriction (BFR) protocols (continuous and intermittent) on peak bar velocity (PV) and mean bar velocity (MV) during the squat exercise at progressive loads, from 40 to 90% 1RM. Eleven healthy men (age = 23.4 ± 3.1 years; body mass = 88.5 ± 12.1 kg; squat 1RM = 183.2 ± 30.7 kg; resistance training experience, 5.7 ± 3.6 years) performed experimental sessions once a week for 3 weeks in random and counterbalanced order: without BFR (NO-BFR), with intermittent BFR (I-BFR), and with continuous BFR (C-BFR). During the experimental session, the participants performed six sets of the barbell squat exercise with loads from 40 to 90% 1RM. In each set, they performed two repetitions. During the C-BFR session, the cuffs were maintained throughout the training session. During the I-BFR, the cuffs were used only during the exercise and released for each rest interval. The BFR pressure was set to ∼80% arterial occlusion pressure (AOP). Analyses of variance showed a statistically significant interaction for MV (p < 0.02; η2 = 0.18). However, the post hoc analysis did not show significant differences between particular conditions for particular loads. There was no significant condition × load interaction for PV (p = 0.16; η2 = 0.13). Furthermore, there were no main effects for conditions in MV (p = 0.38; η2 = 0.09) as well as in PV (p = 0.94; η2 = 0.01). The results indicate that the different BFR protocols used during lower body resistance exercises did not reduce peak bar velocity and mean bar velocity during the squat exercise performed with various loads.

This study evaluated the effects of ischemic conditioning on power output and bar velocity in the bench press exercise. Ten healthy males (age: 25 ± 2 years; body mass: 92 ± 8 kg; bench press one repetition maximum −1RM: 145 ± 13 kg), took part in two experimental sessions (with and without ischemia), 1 week apart in random and counterbalanced order. In the ischemic condition, cuffs placed around the upper part of the arms were inflated to 80% of arterial occlusion pressure before each set, while in the control condition there was no blood flow restriction. The exercise protocol included 5 sets of three repetitions each, against a resistance equal to 60% 1RM, with 5 min recovery intervals between sets. There was a main effect of condition for mean power output (MP) and mean bar velocity (MV) (p = 0.01), with overall MP being higher in ischemia than in control by 5.6 ± 4.1% (mean ± 90% compatibility limits), a standardized effect size (ES) of 0.51. Overall MV was also higher by 5.5 ± 4.0%, ES = 0.63. Peak power output (PP) and peak bar velocity (PV) were similar in set 1 of the control and ischemia condition (1039 ± 105 vs. 1054 ± 82 W; 684 ± 74 vs. 696 ± 53 W; 1.09 ± 0.07 vs. 1.12 ± 0.09 m/s; 0.81 ± 0.05 vs. 0.82 ± 0.05 m/s, p = 0.67 to 0.99, mean ± standard deviation). However, from set 3 onward (p = 0.03 to 0.001), PP and PV were higher in ischemia compared with control, with the highest difference observed in set 5 (10.9 ± 5.9%, ES = 0.73 for PP and 8.6 ± 4.6%; ES = 0.89 for PV). These results indicate that ischemia used before each set of the bench press exercise increases power output and bar velocity and this may be used as performance-enhancing stimulus during explosive resistance training.

Background: Mechanical power output is recognized as a critical characteristic of an athlete with regard to superior performance during a competition. It seems fully justified that ballistic exercises, in which the external load is projected into a flight phase, as in the bench press throw (BPT), are the most commonly prescribed exercises for the development of power output. In addition, the muscular phenomenon known as post-activation performance enhancement (PAPE), which is an acute improvement in strength and power performance as a result of recent voluntary contractile history, has become the focus of many strength and conditioning training programs. Although the PAPE phenomenon is widely used in the upper-body training regimens, there are still several issues regarding training variables that facilitate the greatest increase in power output and need to be resolved.Objective: The purposes of this meta-analysis were to determine the effect of performing a conditioning activity (CA) on subsequent BPT performances and the influence of different types of CA, intra-complex rest intervals, and intensities during the CA on the upper-body PAPE effect in resistance-trained men.Methods: A search of electronic databases (MEDLINE, PubMed, and SPORTDiscus) was conducted to identify all studies that investigated the PAPE in the BPT up to August 2020. Eleven articles, which met the inclusion criteria, were consequently included for quality assessment and data extraction. All studies included 174 resistance-trained men [age: 25.2 ± 2.1 years; weight: 88.4 ± 7.5 kg; height: 1.82 ± 0.03 m; bench press (BP) relative strength: 1.31 ± 0.14 kg ± kg−1] as participants. Meta-analyses of standardized mean effect size (ES) between pre-CA mean and post-CA mean from individual studies were conducted using the random-effects model.Results: The effect of PAPE in the BPT was small (ES = 0.33; p < 0.01). The BP exercise as a CA at an intensity of 60–84% one-repetition maximum (1RM) (ES = 0.43) induced slightly greater PAPE effect than a ballistic–plyometric (ES = 0.29) and a BP exercise at ≥85% 1RM and at >100% 1RM as well as a concentric-only BP (ES = 0.23 and 0.22; ES = 0.11, respectively). A single set (ES = 0.37) of the CA resulted in a slightly greater effect than a multiple set (ES = 0.29). Moderate rest intervals induced a slightly greater PAPE effect for intensity below 85% 1RM (5–7 min, ES = 0.48) than shorter (0.15–4 min, ES = 0.4) and longer (≥8 min, ES = 0.36) intra-complex rest intervals. Considering an intensity above 85% 1RM during the CA, a moderate rest interval resulted in a similar PAPE effect (5–7 min, ES = 0.3) compared with longer (8 min, ES = 0.29) intra-complex rest interval, whereas shorter rest intervals resulted in a negative effect on BPT performance (0.15–4 min, ES = −0.13).Conclusion: The presented meta-analysis shows that performing a CA induces a small PAPE effect for the BPT performance in resistance-trained men. Individuals seeking to improve their BPT performance should consider preceding them with a single set of the BP exercise at moderate intensity (60–84% 1RM), performed 5–7 min before the explosive activity.

In this study, we examined the impact of contrast movement tempo (fast vs. slow) on power output and bar velocity during the bench press exercise. Ten healthy men (age = 26.9 ± 4.1 years; body mass = 90.5 ± 10.3 kg; bench press 1RM = 136.8 ± 27.7 kg) with significant experience in resistance training (9.4 ± 5.6 years) performed the bench press exercise under three conditions: with an explosive tempo of movement in each of three repetitions (E/E/E = explosive, explosive, explosive); with a slow tempo of movement in the first repetition and an explosive tempo in the next two repetitions (S/E/E = slow, explosive, explosive); and with a slow tempo of movement in the first two repetitions and an explosive tempo in the last repetition (S/S/E = slow, slow, explosive). The slow repetitions were performed with a 5/0/5/0 (eccentric/isometric/concentric/isometric) movement tempo, while the explosive repetitions were performed with an X/0/X/0 (X- maximal speed of movement) movement tempo. During each experimental session, the participants performed one set of three repetitions at 60%1RM. The two-way repeated measures ANOVA showed a statistically significant interaction effect for peak power output (PP; p = 0.03; η2 = 0.26) and for peak bar velocity (PV; p = 0.04; η2 = 0.24). Futhermore there was a statistically significant main effect of condition for PP (p = 0.04; η2 = 0.30) and PV (p = 0.02; η2 = 0.35). The post hoc analysis for interaction revealed that PP was significantly higher in the 2nd and 3rd repetition for E/E/E compared with the S/S/E (p < 0.01 for both) and significantly higher in the 2nd repetition for the S/E/E compared with S/S/E (p < 0.01). The post hoc analysis for interaction revealed that PV was significantly higher in the 2nd and 3rd repetition for E/E/E compared with the S/S/E (p < 0.01 for both), and significantly higher in the 2nd repetition for the S/E/E compared with the S/S/E (p < 0.01). The post hoc analysis for main effect of condition revealed that PP and PV was significantly higher for the E/E/E compared to the S/S/E (p = 0.04; p = 0.02; respectively). The main finding of this study was that different distribution of movement tempo during a set has a significant impact on power output and bar velocity in the bench press exercise at 60%1RM. However, the use of one slow repetition at the beginning of a set does not decrease the level of power output in the third repetition of that set.

This study evaluated the effects of continuous and intermittent blood flow restriction (BFR) with 70% of full arterial occlusion pressure on bar velocity during the bench press exercise against a wide range of resistive loads. Eleven strength-trained males (age: 23.5 ± 1.4 years; resistance training experience: 2.8 ± 0.8 years, maximal bench press strength – 1RM = 101.8 ± 13.9 kg; body mass = 79.8 ± 10.4 kg), performed three different testing protocols in random and counterbalanced order: without BFR (NO-BFR); intermittent BFR (I-BFR) and continuous BFR (C-BFR). During each experimental session, subjects performed eight sets of two repetitions each, with increasing loads from 20 to 90% 1RM (10% steps), and 3 min rest between each set. In the C-BFR condition occlusion was kept throughout the trial, while in the I-BFR, occlusion was released during each 3 min rest interval. Peak bar velocity (PV) during the bench press exercise was higher by 12–17% in both I-BFR and C-BFR compared with NO-BFR only at the loads of 20, 30, 40, and 50% 1RM (p < 0.001), while performance at higher loads remained unchanged. Mean bar velocity (MV) was unaffected by occlusion (p = 0.342). These results indicate that BFR during bench press exercise increases PV and this may be used as an enhanced stimulus during explosive resistance training. At higher workloads, bench press performance was not negatively affected by BFR, indicating that the benefits of exercise under occlusion can be obtained while explosive performance is not impaired.

The main goal of this study was to assess the impact of the cambered bar (CB) during the bench press exercise on power output and bar velocity when compared to a standard bar (SB). Ten healthy strength-trained men (age = 27.9 ± 3.7 years; body mass = 90.1 ± 12.5 kg; resistance training experience = 6.5 ± 2.7 years; bench press one-repetition maximum (1RM) = 118.5 ± 21 kg) performed a single set of 3 repetitions of the bench press exercise with an SB and a CB at 50%1RM to assess differences in peak power output (PP), mean power output (MP), peak bar velocity (PV), and mean bar velocity (MV), range of motion (ROM), and positive work time under load (TUL) between conditions. The t-test indicated significantly higher mean ROM for the cambered bar in comparison to the standard bar (52.7 vs. 44.9 cm; P < 0.01; ES = 1.40). Further, there was a significantly higher PP (907 vs. 817 W; P < 0.01; ES = 0.35), MP (556 vs. 496 W; P < 0.01; ES = 0.46), PV (1.24 vs. 1.14 m/s; P < 0.01; ES = 0.35) and MV (0.89 vs. 0.82 m/s; P < 0.01; ES = 0.34) for the CB condition when compared to the SB. A significantly longer TUL for the CB was observed, when compared to the SB (1.89 vs. 1.51 s; P < 0.01; ES = 1.38). The results of this study showed that the CB significantly increased power output and bar velocity in the bench press exercise at 50%1RM compared to the SB. Therefore, the additional ROM, made possible through the use of the CB, allows for the acceleration of the bar through a significantly longer displacement, which has a positive impact on power output. However, a simultaneous increase in TUL may cause higher fatigue when the bench press is performed with the CB compared to the SB.

The aim of this study was to compare the electromyographic activity between the standard and cambered bar during the bench press (BP) exercise. Twelve resistance-trained males performed the flat BP with a standard and a cambered bar at selected loads (50%, 70%, and 90% 1RM). Muscle activation assessed by surface electromyography (sEMG) was recorded for the pectoralis major, anterior deltoid, and the lateral and long heads of the triceps brachii during each attempt. A three-way repeated measures ANOVA indicated statistically significant main interaction for bar × load × muscle (p < 0.01); bar × load (p < 0.01); bar × muscle (p < 0.01); load × muscle (p < 0.01). There was also a main effect for the bar (p < 0.01); load (p < 0.01); and muscle group (p < 0.01). The post hoc analysis for the main multiple interaction effect of bar × load × muscle showed a statistically significant increase in sEMG for the standard bar in the pectoralis major compared to the cambered bar at 50% 1RM (p < 0.01) and 90% 1RM (p < 0.01), as well as in the triceps brachii long at 90% 1RM (p < 0.01). Furthermore, a statistically significant decrease in sEMG was registered for the standard bar in the anterior deltoid compared to the cambered bar at 90% 1RM (p = 0.02). The results indicated that the cambered bar was superior in activating the anterior deltoid muscle compared to the standard bar during the BP exercise, whereas the standard bar provided higher pectoralis major and triceps brachii long head sEMG activity at 90% 1RM.

The main goal of the present study was to evaluate the acute effects external compression with blood flow restriction (BFR) at 100 and 150% of full arterial occlusion pressure (AOP) on maximal strength and strength-endurance performance during the bench press (BP) exercise. The study included 12 strength-trained male subjects (age = 23.2 ± 2.66 years; body mass = 75.3 ± 6.33 kg; height = 179.1 ± 3.82 cm), experienced in resistance training (5.7 ± 2.93 years). During the experimental sessions in a randomized crossover design, the subjects performed a 1 repetition maximum (1RM) test and three sets of the BP using 60% 1RM to failure with three different conditions: without BFR (NO-BFR); BFR with a pressure of 100% AOP (BFR100); and BFR with a pressure of 150% AOP (BFR150). The differences between the NO-BFR, BFR100, and BFR150 conditions were examined using repeated measures ANOVA. The ANOVA indicated significant main effect for condition in 1RM, number of performed repetitions (REP), and time under tension (TUT) (p < 0.01). Post hoc analyses for the main effect indicated significant increases in 1RM (p < 0.01; 95.00 ± 15.37 vs 91.87 ± 15.99), REP (p < 0.01; 17.56 ± 3.36 vs 15.67 ± 5.24), and TUT (p < 0.01; 32.89 ± 6.40 vs 28.72 ± 6.18) for the BFR150 condition compared to NO-BFR. Furthermore, significant increases in REP (p = 0.03; 17.56 ± 3.36 vs 16.47 ± 4.01) and TUT (p = 0.03; 32.89 ± 6.40 vs 30.00 ± 6.45) were observed for the BFR150 condition compared to the BFR100. The results of the present study indicate that high external compression increases maximal strength evaluated by the 1RM test, as well as endurance performance during three sets of the BP exercise.