Search

Resistance exercises eliciting eccentric overload (EO) are considered to strongly promote muscular hypertrophy and broad neuromuscular adaptations but typically require specialized equipment. The aims of these experiments were to assess whether EO is achieved during common high‐speed stretch‐shortening cycle (SSC) exercises (rebound bench press throw [RBPT] and squat jump [SJ]), and to test the effect of the external load on the EO achieved. Twenty‐nine under 18 handball players and fifteen physically active males (24.9 ± 3.2 years) took part in the experiments. Testing consisted of a single set of 6 repetitions with light (25%–30% 1‐RM), moderate (50% 1‐RM), and heavy (70%–75% 1‐RM) loads. Eccentric and concentric force near the zero‐velocity point (50–200 ms) as well as eccentric‐concentric force ratio (EO; %) were calculated. In RBPT, higher EO values were found at 50% 1‐RM than 70% 1‐RM in the time interval 50 ms before and after the zero‐velocity point. Higher EO values were also found at 50% 1‐RM than both 30% 1‐RM and 70% 1‐RM 100 ms before and after the zero‐velocity point. For the SJ, higher EO values were found at 50% 1‐RM and 75% 1‐RM than 25% 1‐RM 100 ms before and after the zero‐velocity point. Higher EO values were found at 50% 1‐RM than 25% 1‐RM 200 ms before and after the zero‐velocity point. However, the higher EO values in the SJ were found far from the zero‐velocity point. High‐speed SSC resistance training provides similar EO to other methods and thus should promote muscle hypertrophy and other neuromuscular adaptations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present study aimed to investigate the influence of subjects' strength level on both the ability to maintain power output performance and the physiological and perceived exertion responses during a power training session when different rest intervals (RI) are used. Thirty-eight (18 men and 20 women) subjects were divided into a stronger or weaker group based on their ability to produce peak power output. Testing was performed using the same protocol (5 sets of 8 repetitions with 40% of 1 repetition maximum) in the bench press throw exercise, but differing the RI between sets (1, 2, and 3 minutes). During the sessions, mechanical (peak power), physiological ([La-]) and perceptual (RPE) variables were measured. In addition, delayed onset muscular soreness (DOMS) 24 and 48 hours after the training session was reported. Both stronger and weaker (men and women) groups showed significant impairments in mechanical, physiological, and perceptual data when resting 1 minute. Nevertheless, although stronger groups were able to sustain power output over the sets when using the 2-minute RI, weaker groups needed at least 3 minutes to maintain power output performance. Therefore, strength level heavily influences the rest interval required during a power training session and should be taken into account when prescribing such training sessions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To compare the effect of 4-week unknown vs known loads strength training intervention on power output performance and throwing velocity in junior team handball players. Methods: Twenty-eight junior team-handball players (17.2 ± 0.6 years, 1.79 ± 0.07 m, 75.6 ± 9.4 kg)were divided into two groups (unknown loads: UL; known loads: KL). Both groups performed two sessions weekly consisting of four sets of six repetitions of the bench press throw exercise, using the 30%, 50% and 70% of subjects’ individual 1 repetition maximum (1RM). In each set, two repetitions with each load were performed, but the order of the loads was randomised. In the KL group, researchers told the subjects the load to mobilise prior each repetition, while in the UL group, researchers did not provide any information. Maximal dynamic strength (1RM bench press), power output (with 30, 50 and 70% of 1RM) and throwing velocity (7 m standing throw and 9 m jumping throw) were assessed pre- and post-training intervention. Results: Both UL and KL group improved similarly their 1RM bench press as well as mean and peak power with all loads. There were significant improvements in power developed in all the early time intervals measured (150 ms) with the three loads (30, 50, 70% 1RM) in the UL group, while KL only improved with 30% 1RM (all the time intervals) and with 70% 1RM (at certain time intervals). Only the UL group improved throwing velocity in both standing (4.7%) and jumping (5.3%) throw (p > 0.05). Conclusions: The use of unknown loads has led to greater gains in power output in the early time intervals as well as to increases in throwing velocity compared with known loads. Therefore unknown loads are of significant practical use to increase both strength and in-field performance in a short period of training. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]