Search

Purpose: This study aimed to quantify the potential variability in the volume of work completed after reaching different velocity loss (VL) thresholds and determine the effects of sex, training status and history, as well as psychological traits on the reliability and magnitude of the amount of work completed after reaching different VL thresholds using different loads in the back-squat exercise. Methods: Forty-six resistance-trained people (15 females and 31 males; 18 to 40 years of age) with a wide range of strength levels, training experience, and different training practices were recruited and performed a one-repetition maximum (1RM) test, and two repetitions to failure (RTF) tests 72 h apart. RTF tests were performed with 70, 80, and 90% of 1RM with 10 min of rest between sets. The Bland–Altman analysis for multiple observations per participant and equivalence tests were used to quantify the variability in the volume of work completed after reaching different VL thresholds, whereas linear and generalised mixed-effects models were used to examine the effects of different moderators on the stability and magnitude of the amount of work completed after reaching different VL thresholds. Results: The findings of the present study question the utility of using VL thresholds to prescribe resistance training (RT) volume as the agreement in the amount of work completed across two consecutive testing sessions was not acceptable. Regardless of the load used, females completed more repetitions than males across VL thresholds, while males performed repetitions at higher velocities. In addition, individuals with higher levels of emotional stability also tended to perform more repetitions across VL thresholds. Finally, sex, choice of load, strength levels and training practices, as well as emotional stability affected the linearity of the repetition–velocity relationship and when sets terminated. Conclusion: Using the same VL thresholds for all individuals, while assuming generalisability of the stimuli applied, would likely lead to variable acute physiological responses to RT and divergent neuromuscular adaptations over long term. Therefore, VL monitoring practices could be improved by considering sex, training status, history, and psychological traits of individuals due to their effects on the variability in responses to different VL thresholds. Key Points: This study comprehensively examined the stability and magnitude of work completed across velocity loss thresholds during resistance training with free-weights while also exploring the effects of several factors potentially influencing the use of velocity loss thresholds in practice. Velocity loss thresholds cannot be used to reliably control the amount of work completed during resistance training, but rather as a general variable quantifying the amount of fatigue experienced by an individual. Velocity loss thresholds should be highly individualised when used in practice since load, sex, training status, history, and personality traits can all influence, at least to some extent, the variability in responses to different velocity loss thresholds. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The aim of this study was to examine the goodness of fit, prediction accuracy, and stability of general and individual relationships between velocity loss and the percentage of completed repetitions out of maximum possible (VL-%repetitions) in the free-weight back squat exercise. The effects of sex, training status and history, as well as personality traits, on the goodness of fit and the accuracy of these relationships were also investigated. Methods: Forty-six resistance-trained people (15 females and 31 males) performed a one-repetition maximum (1RM) test, and two repetitions to failure (RTF) tests, 72 h apart. RTF tests were performed with 70, 80, and 90% of 1RM with 10 min inter-set rest. Results: The findings question the utility of using general and individual VL-%repetitions relationships to prescribe training volume with free-weight back squats as (1) the agreement in the %repetitions completed until reaching a given velocity loss threshold across two consecutive testing sessions was unacceptable, regardless of the load used; and (2) the ability of general and individual VL-%repetitions relationships to predict %repetitions in a subsequent testing session were poor (absolute errors > 10%). Sex, training status and history, and personality traits did not affect the goodness of fit of general and individual VL-%repetitions relationships or their prediction accuracy, suggesting potential generalisability of those findings among resistance-trained populations. Conclusions: VL-%repetitions relationships do not seem to provide any additional benefits compared to costless, traditional methods and hence should not be used for monitoring and prescribing resistance training with a free-weight back squat exercise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study examined the reproducibility of GymAware, PUSH2 and Vmaxpro velocity monitoring devices during resistance training (RT). The sensitivity of these devices to detect the smallest changes in velocity that correspond to true changes in RT performance was also investigated. Fifty-one resistance-trained men and women performed an incremental loading (1RM) test, and two repetitions to failure tests with different loads, 72 h apart. During all repetitions, mean velocity (MV) and peak velocity (PV) were simultaneously recorded by two devices of each brand. Overall, GymAware was the most reliable and sensitive device for detecting the smallest changes in RT performance, regardless of the velocity metric used. Vmaxpro can be considered as an equivalent, cheaper alternative to GymAware for RT monitoring and prescription, but only if the MV metric is used. Caution should be exercised when using PUSH2 in practice due to their comparatively higher, unacceptable measurement error and generally low sensitivity to detect changes in RT performance. Collectively, these findings support the use of MV and PV from GymAware and MV from Vmaxpro devices for RT monitoring and prescription due to their low magnitudes of error; thus, allowing for the detection of meaningful changes in neuromuscular status and functional performance during RT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Velocity loss (VL) experienced in a set during resistance training is often monitored to control training volume and quantify acute fatigue responses. Accordingly, various VL thresholds are used to prescribe resistance training and target different training adaptations. However, there are inconsistencies in the current body of evidence regarding the magnitude of the acute and chronic responses to the amount of VL experienced during resistance training. Objective: The aim of this systematic review was to (1) evaluate the acute training volume, neuromuscular, metabolic, and perceptual responses to the amount of VL experienced during resistance training; (2) synthesize the available evidence on the chronic effects of different VL thresholds on training adaptations; and (3) provide an overview of the factors that might differentially influence the magnitude of specific acute and chronic responses to VL during resistance training. Methods: This review was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Five databases were searched, and studies were included if they were written in English, prescribed resistance training using VL, and evaluated at least one (1) acute training volume, neuromuscular, metabolic, or perceptual response or (2) training adaptation. Risk of bias was assessed using a modified Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing the risk of bias in randomized trials. Multilevel and multivariate meta-regressions were performed where possible. Results: Eighteen acute and 19 longitudinal studies met the inclusion criteria, of which only one had more than one risk of bias item assessed as high risk. Based on the included acute studies, it seems that the number of repetitions per set, blood lactate concentration, and rating of perceived exertion generally increase, while countermovement jump height, running sprint times, and velocity against fixed loads generally decrease as VL increases. However, the magnitude of these effects seems to be influenced, among other factors, by the exercise and load used. Regarding training adaptations, VL experienced during resistance training did not influence muscle strength and endurance gains. Increases in VL were associated with increases in hypertrophy (b = 0.006; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.001, 0.012), but negatively affected countermovement jump (b = − 0.040; 95% CI − 0.079, − 0.001), sprint (b = 0.001; 95% CI 0.001, 0.002), and velocity against submaximal load performance (b = − 0.018; 95% CI − 0.029, − 0.006). Conclusions: A graded relationship exists between VL experienced during a set and acute training volume, neuromuscular, metabolic, and perceptual responses to resistance training. However, choice of exercise, load, and individual trainee characteristics (e.g., training history) seem to modulate these relationships. The choice of VL threshold does not seem to affect strength and muscle endurance gains whereas higher VL thresholds are superior for enhancing hypertrophy, and lower VL thresholds are superior for jumping, sprinting, and velocity against submaximal loads performance. Clinical Trial Registration: The original protocol was prospectively registered (https://osf.io/q4acs/) with the Open Science Framework. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The acute effects of resistance training (RT) set structure alteration are well established; however, less is known about their effects on chronic training adaptations. Objective: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to synthesise the available evidence on the effectiveness of traditional (TS), cluster (CS) and rest redistribution (RR) set structures in promoting chronic RT adaptations, and provide an overview of the factors which might differentially influence the magnitude of specific training adaptations between set structure types. Methods: This review was performed using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines encompassing the literature search of five databases. Studies in English that compared muscular strength, endurance, and/or hypertrophy adaptations, as well as vertical jump performance, velocity and power at submaximal loads and shifts in the slopes of force–velocity profiles between TS and CS or RR set structures (i.e., alternative set structures) were included. Risk of bias assessment was performed using a modified Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. Random-effects meta-analyses and meta-regressions were performed where possible. Results: 17 studies met the inclusion criteria, none had more than one risk of bias item assessed as high risk. Pooled results revealed that none of the set structures were more effective at inducing strength (standardised mean difference (SMD) = − 0.06) or hypertrophy (SMD = − 0.03). TS were more effective at improving muscular endurance compared to alternative set structures (SMD = − 0.38), whereas alternative set structures tended to be more effective for vertical jump performance gains (SMD = 0.13), but this effect was not statistically significant (p = 0.190). Greater velocity and power outputs at submaximal loads (SMD = 0.18) were observed when using alternative set structures compared to TS. In addition, alternative set structures promoted greater shifts of the slope of force–velocity profiles towards more velocity dominant profiles compared to TS (SMD = 0.28). Sub-group analyses controlling for each alternative set structure independently showed mixed results likely caused by the relatively small number of studies available for some outcomes. Conclusion: Modifying TS to an alternative set structure (CS or RR) has a negligible impact on strength and hypertrophy. Using CS and RR can lead to greater vertical jump performance, velocity and power at submaximal loads and shifts to more velocity dominant force–velocity profiles compared to training using TS. However, TS may provide more favourable effects on muscle endurance when compared to CS and RR. These findings demonstrate that altering TS to alternative set structures may influence the magnitude of specific muscular adaptations indicating set structure manipulation is an important consideration for RT program design. Protocol registration: The original protocol was prospectively registered (CRD42019138954) with the PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The alteration of individual sets during resistance training (RT) is often used to allow for greater velocity and power outputs, reduce metabolite accumulation such as lactate and also reduce perceived exertion which can ultimately affect the resultant training adaptations. However, there are inconsistencies in the current body of evidence regarding the magnitude of the effects of alternative set structures (i.e., cluster sets and rest redistribution) on these acute mechanical, metabolic, and perceptual responses during and after RT. Objective: This study aimed to systematically review and meta-analyse current evidence on the differences between traditional and alternative (cluster and rest redistribution) set structures on acute mechanical, metabolic, and perceptual responses during and after RT, and to discuss potential reasons for the disparities noted in the literature. Methods: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed, and five databases were searched until June 2019. Studies were included when they were written in English and compared at least one acute mechanical, metabolic, or perceptual response between traditional, cluster or traditional and rest redistribution set structures in healthy adults. Random-effects meta-analyses and meta-regressions were performed where possible. Results: Thirty-two studies were included. Pooled results revealed that alternative set structures allowed for greater absolute mean [standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.60] and peak velocity (SMD = 0.41), and mean (SMD = 0.33) and peak power (SMD = 0.38) during RT. In addition, alternative set structures were also highly effective at mitigating a decline in velocity and power variables during (SMD = 0.83–1.97) and after RT (SMD = 0.58) as well as reducing lactate accumulation (SMD = 1.61) and perceived exertion (SMD = 0.81). These effects of alternative set structures on velocity and power decline and maintenance during RT were considerably larger than for absolute velocity and power variables. Sub-group analyses controlling for each alternative set structure independently showed that cluster sets were generally more effective than rest redistribution in alleviating mechanical, metabolic, and perceptual markers of fatigue. Conclusion: Alternative set structures can reduce mechanical fatigue, perceptual exertion, and metabolic stress during and after RT. However, fundamental differences in the amount of total rest time results in cluster sets generally being more effective than rest redistribution in alleviating fatigue-induced changes during RT, which highlights the importance of classifying them independently in research and in practice. Additionally, absolute values (i.e., mean session velocity or power), as well as decline and maintenance of the mechanical outcomes during RT, and residual mechanical fatigue after RT, are all affected differently by alternative set structures, suggesting that these variables may provide distinct information that can inform future training decisions. Protocol Registration: The original protocol was prospectively registered (CRD42019138954) with the PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the quest to maximize average propulsive stroke impulses over 2000-m racing, testing and training of various strength parameters have been incorporated into the physical conditioning plans of rowers. Thus, the purpose of this review was 2-fold: to identify strength tests that were reliable and valid correlates (predictors) of rowing performance; and, to establish the benefits gained when strength training was integrated into the physical preparation plans of rowers. The reliability of maximal strength and power tests involving leg extension (e.g. leg pressing) and arm pulling (e.g. prone bench pull) was high (intra-class correlations 0.82-0.99), revealing that elite rowers were significantly stronger than their less competitive peers. The greater strength of elite rowers was in part attributed to the correlation between strength and greater lean body mass (r = 0.57-0.63). Dynamic lower body strength tests that determined the maximal external load for a one-repetition maximum (1RM) leg press (kg), isokinetic leg extension peak force (N) or leg press peak power (W) proved to be moderately to strongly associated with 2000-m er-gometer times (r = -0.54 to -0.68; p < 0.05). Repetition tests that assess muscular or strength endurance by quantifying the number of repetitions accrued at a fixed percentage of the strength maximum (e.g. 50-70% 1 RM leg press) or set absolute load (e.g. 40 kg prone bench pulls) were less reliable and more time consuming when compared with briefer maximal strength tests. Only leg press repetition tests were correlated with 2000-m ergometer times (e.g. r = -0.67; p < 0.05). However, these tests differentiate training experience and muscle morphology, in that those individuals with greater training experience and/or proportions of slow twitch fibres performed more repetitions. Muscle balance ratios derived from strength data (e.g. hamstring-quadriceps ratio <45% or knee extensor-elbow flexor ratio around 4.210.22 to 1) appeared useful in the pathological assessment of low back pain or rib injury history associated with rowing. While strength partially explained variances in 2000-m ergometer performance, concurrent endurance training may be counterproductive to strength development over the shorter term (i.e. <12 weeks). Therefore, prioritization of strength training within the sequence of training units should be considered, particularly over the non-competition phase (e.g. 2-6 sets x 4-12 repetitions, three sessions a week). Maximal strength was sustained when infrequent (e.g. one or two sessions a week) but intense (e.g. 73-79% of maximum) strength training units were scheduled; however, it was unclear whether training adaptations should emphasize maximal strength, endurance or power in order to enhance performance during the competition phase. Additionally, specific on-water strength training practices such as towing ropes had not been reported. Further research should examine the on-water benefits associated with various strength training protocols, in the context of the training phase, weight division, experience and level of rower, if limitations to the reliability and precision of performance data (e.g. 2000-m time or rank) can be controlled. In conclusion, while positive ergometer time-trial benefits of clinical and practical significance were reported with strength training, a lack of statistical significance was noted, primarily due to an absence of quality long-term controlled experimental research designs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This series of reviews focuses on the most important neuromuscular function in many sport performances: the ability to generate maximal muscular power. Part 1, published in an earlier issue of Sports Medicine, focused on the factors that affect maximal power production while part 2 explores the practical application of these findings by reviewing the scientific literature relevant to the development of training programmes that most effectively enhance maximal power production. The ability to generate maximal power during complex motor skills is of paramount importance to successful athletic performance across many sports. A crucial issue faced by scientists and coaches is the development of effective and efficient training programmes that improve maximal power production in dynamic, multi-joint movements. Such training is referred to as 'power training' for the purposes of this review. Although further research is required in order to gain a deeper understanding of the optimal training techniques for maximizing power in complex, sports-specific movements and the precise mechanisms underlying adaptation, several key conclusions can be drawn from this review. First, a fundamental relationship exists between strength and power, which dictates that an individual cannot possess a high level of power without first being relatively strong. Thus, enhancing and maintaining maximal strength is essential when considering the long-term development of power. Second, consideration of movement pattern, load and velocity specificity is essential when designing power training programmes. Ballistic, plyometric and weightlifting exercises can be used effectively as primary exercises within a power training programme that enhances maximal power. The loads applied to these exercises will depend on the specific requirements of each particular sport and the type of movement being trained. The use of ballistic exercises with loads ranging from 0% to 50% of one-repetition maximum (1RM) and/or weightlifting exercises performed with loads ranging from 50% to 90% of 1RM appears to be the most potent loading stimulus for improving maximal power in complex movements. Furthermore, plyometric exercises should involve stretch rates as well as stretch loads that are similar to those encountered in each specific sport and involve little to no external resistance. These loading conditions allow for superior transfer to performance because they require similar movement velocities to those typically encountered in sport. Third, it is vital to consider the individual athlete's window of adaptation (i.e. the magnitude of potential for improvement) for each neuromuscular factor contributing to maximal power production when developing an effective and efficient power training programme. A training programme that focuses on the least developed factor contributing to maximal power will prompt the greatest neuromuscular adaptations and therefore result in superior performance improvements for that individual. Finally, a key consideration for the long-term development of an athlete's maximal power production capacity is the need for an integration of numerous power training techniques. This integration allows for variation within power meso-/micro-cycles while still maintaining specificity, which is theorized to lead to the greatest long-term improvement in maximal power. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study compared the first and second exercise bouts consisting of electrically evoked isometric contractions for muscle damage profile. Nine healthy men (31 +/- 4 years) had two electrical muscle stimulation (EMS) bouts separated by 2 weeks. The knee extensors of one leg were stimulated by biphasic rectangular pulses (75 Hz, 400 mus, on-off ratio 5-15 s) at the knee joint angle of 100 degrees (0 degrees , full extension) to induce 40 isometric contractions, while the current amplitude was increased to maintain maximal force generation. Maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVC) torque of the knee extensors at 100 degrees , muscle soreness, pressure pain threshold and plasma creatine kinase (CK) activity were used as indirect markers of muscle damage, and measured before and 1, 24, 48, 72 and 96 h after EMS bout, and the changes over time were compared between bouts. The torque produced during exercise was approximately 30% of MVC, and no significant difference between bouts was evident for the changes in peak and average torque over 40 contractions. MVC decreased significantly (P < 0.05) by 26% immediately and 1 h after both bouts, but the recovery was significantly (P < 0.05) faster after the second bout (100% at 96 h) compared with the first bout (81% at 96 h). Development of muscle soreness and tenderness, and increases in plasma CK activity were significantly (P < 0.05) smaller after the second than the first bout. These results show that changes in muscle damage markers were attenuated in the second EMS bout compared with the initial EMS bout. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this investigation was to assess the myosin heavy chain (MHC) expression in the vastus lateralis muscle from elderly men and women, and to determine whether heavy resistance training influences its expression. Twenty healthy, mildly physically active subjects gave their informed consent to participate in the study. The experimental group consisted of seven men and seven women [mean (SD) age 65.5 (4.1) years] and the control group consisted of three men and three women [mean (SD) age 62.3 (3.6) years]. The 6-month resistance training program was divided into two phases with weeks 1–12 consisting of high-intensity resistance training, and weeks 13–24 involving power training. Muscle biopsy samples were taken from the vastus lateralis muscle at week 0 and week 24 using the needle biopsy technique. The male and female experimental groups both exhibited a significant decrease (P ≤ 0.05) in the percentage of MHC IIb, while the experimental female group also demonstrated a significant increase (P ≤ 0.05) in the expression of MHC IIa, after 24 weeks of heavy resistance training. There was no change in MHC expression within the control group. The male [130.4 (25.3) kg vs 171.1 (30.5) kg] and female [58.2 (8.3) kg vs 77.9 (11.1) kg] experimental groups exhibited a significant increase (P ≤ 0.05) in the maximal strength values for the 1 repetition maximum (1RM) squat exercise. The control group showed no change in strength for the 1RM squat exercise for either the male [115.8 (35.10 kg vs 123.8 (47.2) kg] or female [57.5 (99.0) kg vs 58.3 (2.9) kg] groups. The results clearly show that elderly subjects undergoing heavy resistance training have the ability to produce a similar shift in the expression of MHC isoforms from MHC IIb to MHC IIa, as has been shown to occur in younger subjects. This highlights the plasticity of human skeletal muscle in response to heavy resistance training, even at older ages. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]