Search

Purpose: This study examined the associations among common assessments for measuring strength and power in the lower body of high-performing athletes, including both cross-sectional and longitudinal data. Methods: A total of 100 participants, including both male (n = 83) and female (n = 17) athletes (21 [4] y, 182 [9] cm, 78 [12] kg), were recruited for the study using a multicenter approach. The participants underwent physical testing 4 times. The first 2 sessions (1 and 2) were separated by ∼1 week, followed by a period of 2 to 6 months, whereas the last 2 sessions (3 and 4) were also separated by ∼1 week. The test protocol consisted of squat jumps, countermovement jumps, jump and reach, 30-m sprint, 1-repetition-maximum squat, sprint cycling, and a leg-press test. Results: There were generally acceptable correlations among all performance measures. Variables from the countermovement jumps and leg-press power correlated strongly with all performance assessments (r =.52–.79), while variables from sprint running and squat-jump power displayed more incoherent correlations (r =.21–.82). For changes over time, the correlations were mostly strong, albeit systematically weaker than for cross-sectional measures. Conclusions: The associations observed among the performance assessments seem to be consistent for both cross-sectional data and longitudinal change scores. The weaker correlations for change scores are most likely mainly caused by lower between-subjects variations in the change scores than for the cross-sectional data. The present study provides novel information, helping researchers and practitioners to better interpret the relationships across common performance assessment methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This study examined the test–retest reliability of common assessments for measuring strength and power of the lower body in high-performing athletes. Methods: A total of 100 participants, including both male (n = 83) and female (n = 17) athletes (21 [4] y, 182 [9] cm, and 78 [12] kg), were recruited for this study, using a multicenter approach. The participants underwent physical testing 4 times. The first 2 sessions (1 and 2) were separated by ∼1 week, followed by a period of 2 to 6 months, whereas the last 2 sessions (3 and 4) were again separated by ∼1 week. The test protocol consisted of squat jumps, countermovement jumps, jump and reach, 30-m sprint, 1-repetition-maximum squat, sprint cycling, and a leg-press test. Results: The typical error (%) ranged from 1.3% to 8.5% for all assessments. The change in means ranged from −1.5% to 2.5% for all assessments, whereas the interclass correlation coefficient ranged from.85 to.97. The smallest worthwhile change (0.2 of baseline SD) ranged from 1.2% to 5.0%. The ratio between the typical error (%) and the smallest worthwhile change (%) ranged from 0.5 to 1.2. When observing the reliability across testing centers, considerable differences in reliability were observed (typical error [%] ratio: 0.44–1.44). Conclusions: Most of the included assessments can be used with confidence by researchers and coaches to measure strength and power in athletes. Our results highlight the importance of controlling testing reliability at each testing center and not relying on data from others, despite having applied the same protocol. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The aim of this study was to examine the concurrent validity of force–velocity (FV) variables assessed across 5 Keiser leg press devices. Methods: A linear encoder and 2 independent force plates (MuscleLab devices) were mounted on each of the 5 leg press devices. A total of 997 leg press executions, covering a wide range of forces and velocities, were performed by 14 participants (29 [7] y, 181 [5] cm, 82 [8] kg) across the 5 devices. Average and peak force, velocity, and power values were collected simultaneously from the Keiser and MuscleLab devices for each repetition. Individual FV profiles were fitted to each participant from peak and average force and velocity measurements. Theoretical maximal force, velocity, and power were deduced from the FV relationship. Results: Average and peak force and velocity had a coefficient of variation of 1.5% to 8.6%, near-perfect correlations (.994–.999), and a systematic bias of 0.7% to 7.1% when compared with reference measurements. Average and peak power showed larger coefficient of variations (11.6% and 17.2%), despite excellent correlations (.977 and.952), and trivial to small biases (3.9% and 8.4%). Extrapolated FV variables showed near-perfect correlations (.983–.997) with trivial to small biases (1.4%–11.2%) and a coefficient of variation of 1.4% to 5.9%. Conclusions: The Keiser leg press device can obtain valid measurements over a wide range of forces and velocities across different devices. To accurately measure power, theoretical maximal power calculated from the FV profile is recommended over average and peak power values from single repetitions, due to the lower random error observed for theoretical maximal power. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this study was to compare the effects of autoregulating strength training volume based on an objective (external load match performance) versus a subjective (self-selected) method in professional male football players. Sixteen players completed a 10-week strength training programme where the number of sets was regulated based on football match high-intensity running distance (HIR >19.8 km/h, AUTO, n = 7), or self-selected (SELF, n = 9). In addition to traditional physical performance assessments (30-m sprint, countermovement jump, leg-strength, and body composition), external load match performance was assessed with five matches in the beginning and in the end of the study period. Both groups performed ~ 1 weekly bout of ~ 6 sets in leg extensor exercises during the 10-week period, and maintained physical performance during the competitive season, with no group differences detected after the training period. Non-overlap of all pairs (NAP) analysis showed weak-to-moderate effects in external load match performance from before to after the study period, suggesting that players maintained or improved their performance. In conclusion, no group differences were observed, suggesting that both external load autoregulated and self-selected, low-volume in-season strength training maintained physical, and external load match performance in professional male football players. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present study aimed to examine the effectiveness of an individualized training program based on force‐velocity (FV) profiling on jumping, sprinting, strength, and power in athletes. Forty national level team sport athletes (20 ± 4years, 83 ± 13 kg) from ice‐hockey, handball, and soccer completed a 10‐week training intervention. A theoretical optimal squat jump (SJ)‐FV‐profile was calculated from SJ with five different loads (0, 20, 40, 60, and 80 kg). Based on their initial FV‐profile, athletes were randomized to train toward, away, or irrespective (balanced training) of their initial theoretical optimal FV‐profile. The training content was matched between groups in terms of set x repetitions but varied in relative loading to target the different aspects of the FV‐profile. The athletes performed 10 and 30 m sprints, SJ and countermovement jump (CMJ), 1 repetition maximum (1RM) squat, and a leg‐press power test before and after the intervention. There were no significant group differences for any of the performance measures. Trivial to small changes in 1RM squat (2.9%, 4.6%, and 6.5%), 10 m sprint time (1.0%, −0.9%, and −1.7%), 30 m sprint time (0.9%, −0.6%, and −0.4%), CMJ height (4.3%, 3.1%, and 5.7%), SJ height (4.8%, 3.7%, and 5.7%), and leg‐press power (6.7%, 4.2%, and 2.9%) were observed in the groups training toward, away, or irrespective of their initial theoretical optimal FV‐profile, respectively. Changes toward the optimal SJ‐FV‐profile were negatively correlated with changes in SJ height (r = −0.49, p < 0.001). Changes in SJ‐power were positively related to changes in SJ‐height (r = 0.88, p < 0.001) and CMJ‐height (r = 0.32, p = 0.044), but unrelated to changes in 10 m (r = −0.02, p = 0.921) and 30 m sprint time (r = −0.01, p = 0.974). The results from this study do not support the efficacy of individualized training based on SJ‐FV profiling. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of the present study was to compare the effects of short‐term high‐frequency failure vs non‐failure blood flow–restricted resistance exercise (BFRRE) on changes in satellite cells (SCs), myonuclei, muscle size, and strength. Seventeen untrained men performed four sets of BFRRE to failure (Failure) with one leg and not to failure (Non‐failure; 30‐15‐15‐15 repetitions) with the other leg using knee‐extensions at 20% of one repetition maximum (1RM). Fourteen sessions were distributed over two 5‐day blocks, separated by a 10‐day rest period. Muscle samples obtained before, at mid‐training, and 10‐day post‐intervention (Post10) were analyzed for muscle fiber area (MFA), myonuclei, and SC. Muscle size and echo intensity of m.rectus femoris (RF) and m.vastus lateralis (VL) were measured by ultrasonography, and knee extension strength with 1RM and maximal isometric contraction (MVC) up until Post24. Both protocols increased myonuclear numbers in type‐1 (12%–17%) and type‐2 fibers (20%–23%), and SC in type‐1 (92%–134%) and type‐2 fibers (23%–48%) at Post10 (p < 0.05). RF and VL size increased by 5%–10% in both legs at Post10 to Post24, whereas the MFA of type‐1 fibers in Failure was decreased at Post10 (−10 ± 16%; p = 0.02). Echo intensity increased by ~20% in both legs during Block1 (p < 0.001) and was ~8 to 11% below baseline at Post24 (p = 0.001–0.002). MVC and 1RM decreased by 5%–10% after Block1, but increased in both legs by 6%–11% at Post24 (p < 0.05). In conclusion, both short‐term high‐frequency failure and non‐failure BFRRE induced increases in SCs, in myonuclei content, muscle size, and strength, concomitant with decreased echo intensity. Intriguingly, the responses were delayed and peaked 10–24 days after the training intervention. Our findings may shed light on the mechanisms involved in resistance exercise‐induced overreaching and supercompensation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The effects of 4 mg·kg−1caffeine ingestion on strength and power were investigated for the first time, in resistance‐trained females during the early follicular phase utilizing a randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, crossover design. Fifteen females (29.8 ± 4.0 years, 63.8 ± 5.5 kg [mean ± SD]) ingested caffeine or placebo 60 minutes before completing a test battery separated by 72 hours. One‐repetition maximum (1RM), repetitions to failure (RTF) at 60% of 1RM, was assessed in the squat and bench press. Maximal voluntary contraction torque (MVC) and rate of force development (RFD) were measured during isometric knee extensions, while utilizing interpolated twitch technique to measure voluntary muscle activation. Maximal power and jump height were assessed during countermovement jumps (CMJ). Caffeine metabolites were measured in plasma. Adverse effects were registered after each trial. Caffeine significantly improved squat (4.5 ± 1.9%, effect size [ES]: 0.25) and bench press 1RM (3.3 ± 1.4%, ES: 0.20), and squat (15.9 ± 17.9%, ES: 0.31) and bench press RTF (9.8 ± 13.6%, ES: 0.31), compared to placebo. MVC torque (4.6 ± 7.3%, ES: 0.26), CMJ height (7.6 ± 4.0%, ES: 0.50), and power (3.8 ± 2.2%, ES: 0.24) were also significantly increased with caffeine. There were no differences in RFD or muscle activation. Plasma [caffeine] was significantly increased throughout the protocol, and mild side effects of caffeine were experienced by only 3 participants. This study demonstrated that 4 mg·kg−1 caffeine ingestion enhanced maximal strength, power, and muscular endurance in resistance‐trained and caffeine‐habituated females during the early follicular phase, with few adverse effects. Female strength and power athletes may consider using this dose pre‐competition and ‐training as an effective ergogenic aid. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]