Search

Previous research established that male powerlifters have less range of motion (ROM) in several movements about the shoulder and hip compared with sedentary male subjects. It is unclear if these differences in ROM are related to strength, training type, and years of training experience or if individuals with less ROM have a better propensity to gain strength. The purpose of this study was to compare strength and ROM in male powerlifters and recreationally strength-trained male subjects and to determine if ROM would be an effective predictor of strength in these groups. Twelve powerlifters and 12 recreationally strength-trained control subjects completed 1 repetition maximum (1RM) squat and bench press testing. In a subsequent session, active ROM was measured, and velocity data were collected during submaximal squat repetitions. There was no significant difference (p > 0.05) between the groups for age, height, body mass, training experience, and training frequency. Powerlifters had significantly greater (p ≤ 0.05) training duration and absolute squat and bench press 1RM. Powerlifters had significantly less shoulder extension and horizontal abduction, and hip flexion, extension, and adduction than recreationally strength-trained men. Significant negative relationships were found between 2-lift Wilks score (body mass relative strength) and shoulder extension and horizontal abduction, as well as hip flexion and extension. In powerlifters, significant negative relationships were found between competition Wilks score, shoulder extension, and hip flexion. Because these relationships correspond to the bottom position of the squat and bench press, it may be best to ensure that shoulder extension and hip flexion remain sufficient to achieve competition depth. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Some research suggests male powerlifters have less range of motion (ROM) in several directions about the shoulder and hip compared with sedentary men. In addition, those differences may be more pronounced in groups with higher strength levels and more years of experience. However, there is no information on ROM in female powerlifters. The purpose of this study was to evaluate single-joint ROM in competitive female powerlifters and determine whether single-joint ROM would be an effective predictor of strength in this population. Twelve female powerlifters and 12 female recreationally trained age-matched controls attended one testing session. Subjects reported their years of training experience, frequency, and average duration of training sessions. Active ROM measurements were collected at the shoulder, hip, and knee, using goniometry. There was no significant difference (p > 0.05) between groups for age, height, body mass, training experience, and training frequency. Powerlifters reported significantly greater (p ≤ 0.05) training durations than recreationally trained women. Powerlifters had significantly greater shoulder horizontal abduction on the right side (p = 0.022, g = 0.97), but no other ranges were significantly different between groups, and no ranges were significantly related to strength. Powerlifting does not seem to affect shoulder, hip, or knee ROM differently than recreational resistance training in women. Single-joint ROM was not an effective predictor of strength in female powerlifters. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Runners use uphill running as a movement-specific form of resistance training to enhance performance. However, the optimal parameters for prescribing intervals are unknown. The authors adopted a dose-response design to investigate the effects of various uphill interval-training programs on physiological and performance measures. Methods: Twenty well-trained runners performed an incremental treadmill test to determine aerobic and biomechanical measures, a series of jumps on a force plate to determine neuromuscular measures, and a 5-km time trial. Runners were then randomly assigned to 1 of 5 uphill interval-training programs. After 6 wk all tests were repeated. To identify the optimal training program for each measure, each runner's percentage change was modeled as a quadratic function of the rank order of the intensity of training. Uncertainty in the optimal training and in the corresponding effect on the given measure was estimated as 90% confidence limits using bootstrapping. Results: There was no clear optimum for time-trial performance, and the mean improvement over all intensities was 2.0% (confidence limits ±0.6%). The highest intensity was clearly optimal for running economy (improvement of 2.4% ± 1.4%) and for all neuromuscular measures, whereas other aerobic measures were optimal near the middle intensity. There were no consistent optima for biomechanical measures. Conclusions: These findings support anecdotal reports for incorporating uphill interval training in the training programs of distance runners to improve physiological parameters relevant to running performance. Until more data are obtained, runners can assume that any form of high-intensity uphill interval training will benefit 5-km time-trial performance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: There is little literature comparing contrast training programs typically performed by team-sport athletes within a competitive phase. We compared the effects of two contrast training programs on a range of measures in high-level rugby union players during the competition season. Methods: The programs consisted of a higher volume-load (strength-power) or lower volume-load (speed-power) resistance training; each included a tapering of loading (higher force early in the week, higher velocity later in the week) and was performed twice a week for 4 wk. Eighteen players were assessed for peak power during a bodyweight countermovement jump (BWCMJ), bodyweight squat jump (BWSJ), 50 kg countermovement jump (50CMJ), 50 kg squat jump (50SJ), broad jump (BJ), and reactive strength index (RSI; jump height divided by contact time during a depth jump). Players were then randomized to either training group and were reassessed following the intervention. Inferences were based on uncertainty in outcomes relative to thresholds for standardized changes. Results: There were small between-group differences in favor of strength-power training for mean changes in the 50CMJ (8%; 90% confidence limits, ±8%), 50SJ (8%; ±10%), and BJ (2%; ±3%). Differences between groups for BWCMJ, BWSJ, and reactive strength index were unclear. For most measures there were smaller individual differences in changes with strength-power training. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that high-level rugby union athletes should be exposed to higher volume-load contrast training which includes one heavy lifting session each week for larger and more uniform adaptation to occur in explosive power throughout a competitive phase of the season. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses research which investigated correlation between vertical and horizontal jump variables and muscular architecture in athletes. Topics explored include the use of jumping movements such as countermovement jump, squat jump, and drop jump in the evaluation of lower-limb strength, the recruitment and compliance of study participants to muscle power testing sessions, and the observed link between sprint performance and muscular strength.

Purpose: Heavy-resistance training and plyometric training offer distinct physiological and neuromuscular adaptations that could enhance running economy and, consequently, distance-running performance. To date, no studies have examined the effect of combining the two modes of training on running economy or performance., Methods: Fifty collegiate male and female cross-country runners performed a 5-km time trial and a series of laboratory-based tests to determine aerobic, anthropometric, biomechanical, and neuromuscular characteristics. Thereafter, each athlete participated in a season of six to eight collegiate cross-country races for 13 wk. After the first 4 wk, athletes were randomly assigned to either heavy-resistance or plyometric plus heavy-resistance training. Five days after completing their final competition, runners repeated the same set of laboratory tests. We also estimated the effects of the intervention on competition performance throughout the season using athletes of other teams as controls., Results: Heavy-resistance training produced small-moderate improvements in peak speed, running economy, and neuromuscular characteristics relative to plyometric resistance training, whereas changes in biomechanical measures favored plyometric resistance training. Men made less gains than women in most tests. Both treatments had possibly harmful effects on competition times in men (mean = 0.5%; 90% confidence interval = ±1.2%), but there may have been benefit for some individuals. Both treatments were likely beneficial for all women (-1.2%; ±1.3%), but heavy-resistance training was possibly better than plyometric resistance training., Conclusions: The changes in laboratory-based parameters related to distance-running performance were consistent with the changes in competition times for women but only partly for men. Our data indicate that women should include heavy-resistance training in their programs, but men should be cautious about using it in season until more research establishes whether certain men are positive or negative responders.

Knowledge of the relationship between weight room exercises and various rowing performance measures is limited; this information would prove useful for sport-specific assessment of individual needs and exercise prescription. The purpose of this study was to establish strength, power, and muscular endurance exercises for weight room training, which are strong determinants of success in specific performance measures used to assess elite rowers. Nineteen heavyweight elite males determined their repetition maximum (RM) loads for exercises using a Concept 2 DYNO [5, 30, 60 and 120RM leg pressing and seated arm pulling (in Joules)] and free weights [1RM power clean (in kilograms) and 6RM bench pull (in kilograms and watts)]. Rowing performance measures included a 7-stage blood lactate response ergometer test (aerobic condition), time trials (500, 2000, and 5000 m), a peak stroke power test, and a 60-minute distance trial. Pearson correlation moments (r ≥ 0.7) and stepwise multiple linear regression calculations (R ≥ 50%) were used to establish strong common variances between weight room exercises and rowing ergometer performance (p ≤ 0.05). Weight room exercises were strong predictors of 2000-m, 500-m time (in seconds), and peak stroke power performance measures only. Bench pull power (in watts) and 1RM power clean (in kilograms) were the best 2-factor predictors of peak stroke power (R = 73%; standard error of the estimates [SEE] = 59.6 W) and 500 m (R = 70%; SEE = 1.75 seconds); while 5RM leg pressing (in Joules) and either 6RM bench pull (kg) or 60RM seated arm pulling (in Joules) the best predictors of 2000 m (R = 59%; SEE = 6.3 seconds and R = 57%; SEE = 6.4 seconds, respectively). Recommended exercises for weight room training include a 1RM power clean, 6RM bench pull, 5RM leg press, and 60RM seated arm pulling.