Search

Purpose: This study explored the effects of 4 bench-press (BP) training programs with different velocity-loss (VL) thresholds (0%, 15%, 25%, and 50%) on strength gains and neuromuscular adaptations. Methods: Forty-six resistance-trained men (22.8 [4.4] y) were randomly assigned into 4 groups that differed in the VL allowed within the set: 0% (VL0), 15% (VL15), 25% (VL25), and 50% (VL50). Training loads (40%–55% 1-repetition maximum), frequency (2 sessions/wk), number of sets (3), and interset recovery (4 min) were identical for all groups. Participants completed the following tests before and after an 8-week (16-session) BP training program: (1) maximal isometric test, (2) progressive loading test, and (3) fatigue test in the BP exercise. During all tests, triceps brachii muscle electromyography was assessed. Results: After completing the resistance-training program, no significant group × time interactions were noticed for isometric and dynamic BP strength variables. The dose–response relationship exhibited an inverted U-shaped relationship pattern, with VL25 showing the greatest effect sizes for almost all strength variables analyzed. The total number of repetitions performed during the training program increased as the VL magnitude increased. Conclusions: The group that trained with high VL threshold (50%), which performed a total of 876 repetitions, did not experience additional strength gains compared with those experienced by the 0%, 15%, and 25% of VL groups, which performed significantly fewer repetitions (48, 357, and 547, respectively). These findings suggest that when light loads (40%–55% 1-repetition maximum) are used, low and moderate VL thresholds (0%–25%) provide a higher training efficiency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To examine the effects of 4 programming models (linear [LP], undulating [UP], reverse [RP], and constant [CP]) on physical performance. Methods: Forty-eight moderately strength-trained men were randomly assigned to LP, UP, RP, and CP groups according to their 1-repetition maximum (1RM) in the full-squat exercise (SQ) and followed an 8-week training intervention using the SQ and monitoring movement velocity for every repetition. All groups trained with similar mean relative intensity (65% 1RM), number of repetitions (240), sets (3), and interset recovery (4 min) throughout the training program. Pretraining and posttraining measurements included, in the SQ, 1RM load, the average velocity attained for all absolute loads common to pretests and posttests (AV), and the average velocity for loads that were moved faster (AV > 1) and slower (AV < 1) than 1 m·s−1 at pretraining tests. Moreover, countermovement jump height and 20-m running sprint time were measured. Results: A significant time effect was found for all variables analyzed (P <.05), except for 20-m running sprint time. Significant group × time interactions were observed for 1RM, AV > 1, and AV (P <.05). After training, all groups attained significant strength gains on 1RM, AV, AV > 1, and AV < 1 (P <.001–.01). LP and RP groups improved their countermovement jump height (P <.01), but no significant changes were observed for UP and CP. No significant improvements were achieved in 20-m running sprint time for any groups. Conclusions: These different programming models are all suitable for improving physical performance. LP and RP induce similar or greater gains in physical performance than UP and CP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this study was to examine the acute metabolic response, neuromuscular activity, and mechanical performance of different set configurations in bench-press (BP). Twenty-two resistance-trained men performed three resistance exercise protocols consisting of 3 x 12 BP repetitions at 60% 1RM, with 4 minutes of rest between sets, but with different set configurations: (a) traditional set (TS), without rest within the set; (b) cluster-6 (CS6), with 30-second intraset rest after the sixth repetition in each set; and (c) cluster-2 (CS2), with 30-second intraset rest every two repetitions. Mean propulsive force (MPF), velocity (MPV), power (MPP), and electromyography (EMG) values were recorded for each repetition. Blood lactate, maximal voluntary isometric BP contraction, and dynamic strength in BP were assessed pre- and post-exercise. The CS2 protocol resulted in greater mechanical performance (i. e. MPF, MPV, and MPP) and lower alterations of EMG parameters (i. e. root mean square and median frequency) during the exercise compared to CS6 and TS (TS

To compare the acute responses to different set configurations (cluster [CLU] vs. traditional [TRA]) under distinct blood flow conditions (free vs. restricted) in full-squat (SQ). Twenty resistance-trained males performed 4 protocols that differed in the set configuration (TRA: continuous repetitions; vs. CLU: 30 seconds of rest every 2 repetitions) and in the blood flow condition (FF: free-flow; vs. blood flow restriction [BFR]: 50% of arterial occlusion pressure). The relative intensity (60% 1RM), volume (3 sets of 8 repetitions), and resting time (2 minutes) were equated. Mean propulsive force (MPF), velocity (MPV) and power (MPP), and electromyography (EMG) parameters were recorded during each repetition. Ten-siomyography (TMG), blood lactate, countermovement jump (CMJ) height, maximal voluntary isometric contraction, in SQ, and movement velocity against the load that elicited a 1 m⋅s-1 velocity at baseline (V1-load) in SQ were assessed at pre- and post-exercise. The CLU protocols allowed a better maintenance of MPF, MPV, MPP, and EMG median frequency during the exercise compared to TRA (clu-time interaction, p < 0.05). The TRA protocols experienced greater impairments post-exercise in TMG- and EMG-derived variables (clu-time interaction, p < 0.05) and SQ and CMJ performance (clu-time interaction, p = 0.08 andp < 0.05, respectively), as well as higher blood lactate concentrations (clu-time interaction, p < 0.001) than CLU. Moreover, BFR displayed decreases in TMG variables (bfr-time interaction, p < 0.01), but BFR-CLU resulted in the greatest reduction in twitch contraction time (p < 0.001). Cluster sets reduced fatigue during and after the training session and BFR exacerbated impairments in muscle mechanical properties; however, the combination of both could improve contraction speed after exercise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To compare the effect of 4 velocity-loss (VL) thresholds—0% (VL0), 15% (VL15), 25% (VL25), and 50% (VL50)—on strength gains, neuromuscular adaptations, and muscle hypertrophy during the bench press (BP) exercise using intensities ranging from 55% to 70% of 1-repetition maximum (1RM). Methods: Fifty resistance-trained men were randomly assigned to 4 groups that followed an 8-week (16 sessions) BP training program at 55% to 70% 1RM but differed in the VL allowed in each set (VL0, VL15, VL25, and VL50). Assessments performed before (pre) and after (post) the training program included (1) cross-sectional area of pectoralis major muscle, (2) maximal isometric test, (3) progressive loading test, and (4) fatigue test in the BP exercise. Results: A significant group × time interaction was found for 1RM (P =.01), where all groups except VL0 showed significant gains in 1RM strength (P <.001). The VL25 group attained the greatest gains in 1RM strength and most load–velocity relationship parameters analyzed. A significant group × time interaction was observed for EMG root mean square in pectoralis major (P =.03) where only the VL25 group showed significant increases (P =.02). VL50 showed decreased EMG root mean square in triceps brachii (P =.006). Only the VL50 group showed significant increases in cross-sectional area (P <.001). Conclusions: These findings indicate that a VL threshold of about 25% with intensities from 55% to 70% 1RM in BP provides an optimal training stimulus to maximize dynamic strength performance and neuromuscular adaptations, while higher VL thresholds promote higher muscle hypertrophy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This study aimed to compare the adaptations provoked by various velocity loss (VL) thresholds used in resistance training on the squat force–velocity (F–V) relationship. Methods: Sixty-four resistance-trained young men were randomly assigned to one of four 8-week resistance training programs (all 70%–85% 1-repetition maximum) using different VL thresholds (VL0 = 0%, VL10 = 10%, VL20 = 20%, and VL40 = 40%) in the squat exercise. The F–V relationship was assessed under unloaded and loaded conditions in squat. Linear and hyperbolic (Hill) F–V equations were used to calculate force at zero velocity (F0), velocity at zero force (V0), maximum muscle power (Pmax), and force produced at mean velocities ranging from 0.0 to 2.0 m·s−1. Changes in parameters derived from the F–V relationship were compared among groups using linear mixed models. Results: Linear equations showed increases in F0 (120.7 N [89.4 to 152.1]) and Pmax (76.2 W [45.3 to 107.2]) and no changes in V0 (−0.02 m·s−1 [−0.11 to 0.06]) regardless of VL. Hyperbolic equations depicted increases in F0 (120.7 N [89.4 to 152.1]), V0 (1.13 m·s−1 [0.78 to 1.48]), and Pmax (198.5 W [160.5 to 236.6]) with changes in V0 being greater in VL0 and VL10 versus VL40 (both P <.001). All groups similarly improved force at 0.0 to 2.0 m·s−1 (all P <.001), although in general, effect sizes were greater in VL10 and VL20 versus VL0 and VL40 at velocities ≤0.5 m·s−1. Conclusions: All groups improved linear and hyperbolic F0 and Pmax and hyperbolic V0 (except VL40). The dose–response relationship exhibited an inverted U-shape pattern at velocities ≤0.5 m·s−1 with VL10 and VL20 showing the greatest standardized changes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This study aimed to compare the effects of four resistance training (RT) programs with different velocity loss (VL) thresholds: 0% (VL0), 10% (VL10), 20% (VL20), and 40% (VL40) on sprint and jump performance, muscle strength, neuromuscular, muscle hypertrophy, and architectural adaptations. Methods: Sixty-four young resistance-trained men were randomly assigned into four groups (VL0, VL10, VL20, and VL40) that differed in the VL allowed in each set. Subjects followed an RT program for 8 wk (two sessions per week) using the full-squat (SQ) exercise, with similar relative intensity (70%–85% 1-repetition maximum), number of sets (3), and interset recovery period (4 min). Before and after the RT program, the following tests were performed: 1) muscle hypertrophy and architecture of the vastus lateralis (VLA), 2) tensiomyography, 3) 20-m running sprint, 4) vertical jump, 5) maximal voluntary isometric contraction in SQ, 6) progressive loading test in SQ, and 7) fatigue test. Results: No between-group differences existed for RT-induced gains in sprint, jump, and strength performance despite the differences in the total volume performed by each group. VL20 and VL40 showed significant increases (P < 0.001) in muscle hypertrophy (group–time interaction, P = 0.06). However, only VL40 exhibited a significant slowing (P < 0.001) of the delay time in the VLA muscle (group–time interaction, P = 0.05). Moreover, VL40 showed a significant decrease in the early rate of force development (P = 0.04). Conclusions: Higher VL thresholds (i.e., VL20 and VL40) maximized hypertrophic adaptations, although an excessive VL during the set (i.e., VL40) may also induce negative neuromuscular adaptations. Therefore, moderate VL thresholds should be chosen to maximize strength adaptations and to prevent negative neuromuscular adaptations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]