Search

Explosive movements requiring high force and power outputs are integral to many sports, posing distinct challenges for the neuromuscular system. Traditional resistance training can improve muscle strength, power, endurance, and range of motion; however, evidence regarding its effects on athletic performance, such as sprint speed, agility, and jump height, remains conflicting. The specificity of resistance training movements, including velocity, contraction type, and joint angles affects performance outcomes, demonstrates advantages when matching training modalities with targeted sports activities. However, independent of movement speed, the intent to contract explosively (ballistic) has also demonstrated high velocity-specific training adaptations. The purpose of this narrative review was to assess the impact of explosive or ballistic contraction intent on velocity-specific training adaptations. Such movement intent may predominantly elicit motor efferent neural adaptations, including motor unit recruitment and rate coding enhancements. Plyometrics, which utilize rapid stretch-shortening cycle movements, may augment high-speed movement efficiency and muscle activation, possibly leading to improved motor control through adaptations like faster eccentric force absorption, reduced amortization periods, and quicker transitions to explosive concentric contractions. An optimal training paradigm for power and performance enhancement might involve a combination of maximal explosive intent training with heavier loads and plyometric exercises with lighter loads at high velocities. This narrative review synthesizes key literature to answer whether contraction intent or movement speed is more critical for athletic performance enhancement, ultimately advocating for an integrative approach to resistance training tailored for sports-specific explosive action. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An extensive number of publications have examined cross-education effects with adults, primarily investigating contralateral homologous (same) muscles. There are far fewer investigations on cross-education effects on contralateral heterologous (different) muscles and age (youth vs adult) and no studies investigating sex differences. Hence, the objective was to compare cross-education in female and male youth and young adults to contralateral homologous (chest press [CP], elbow flexors and extensors, handgrip isometric strength, and shot put) and heterologous (leg press, knee extension isometric strength, and countermovement jump) muscles. Twenty-eight female adults, 28 female youth, 28 male adults, and 28 male youth (total: 112) were examined before and after an 8-week (3 sessions/wk) unilateral, dominant arm, CP training program. Unilateral testing assessed dominant and nondominant leg press and CP 1-repetition maximum, knee extensors, elbow extensors, elbow flexors, and handgrip maximum voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) strength, as well as shot put distance and countermovement jump height. Unilateral CP training induced training specific (CP 1-repetition maximum) and nonspecific (elbow extensors, elbow flexors, handgrip MVIC force, and shot put distance) improvements (P < .04, η2: .45-.85) but no significant lower body improvements. There was evidence for testing limb specificity as the dominant arm provided significantly (P < .021, η2: .17-.75) greater training gains than the nondominant arm. Youth's training adaptations exceeded with unilateral CP 1-repetition maximum, elbow extensors MVIC force, and shot put distance (P < .049, η2: .14-.49). No sex main effect differences were apparent. In conclusion, cross-education was training specific (greatest gains with upper body and dominant limbs) with greater benefits for youth and generally no sex differences with the exception of elbow extensors MVIC.

The occurrence and mechanisms underlying non-local or crossover muscle fatigue is an ongoing issue. This study aimed to investigate crossover fatigue of the plantar flexor muscles. Sixteen recreationally active males (n = 6) and females (n = 10) visited the laboratory for four sessions and performed a single 5-s pre-test maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) with each plantar flexors muscle. Thereafter, the fatigue intervention involved two 100-s MVICs (60-s recovery) with their dominant plantar flexors or rested for 260-s (control). Subsequently, in two separate sessions, Hoffman reflexes (H-reflex) were evoked in the non-dominant, non-exercised, leg before and following the dominant leg fatigue or control intervention (Fatigue-Reflex and Control-Reflex conditions). MVIC forces and volitional (V)-waves were monitored in the non-dominant leg in the other two sessions (Fatigue-MVIC and Control-MVIC) before and after the intervention (fatigue or control) as well as during 12 repeated MVICs and immediately thereafter. Despite the force reduction in the dominant leg (42.4%, p = 0.002), no crossover force deficit with single (F (1,9) = 0.02, p = 0.88, pƞ 2 = 0.003) or repeated (F (1,9) = 0.006, p = 0.93, pƞ 2 = 0.001 ) MVIC testing were observed. The H-reflex did not change after the fatigue (F (1,7) = 0.51; p = 0.49; pƞ 2 = 0.06) or repeated MVICs (F (1,8) = 0.27; p = 0.61; pƞ 2 = 0.03). There were also no crossover effects of fatigue on the V-wave with single (F (1,8) = 3.71, p = 0.09, pƞ 2 = 0.31 ) or repeated MVICs (F (1,6) = 1.45, p = 0.27, pƞ 2 = 0.19 ). Crossover fatigue was not evident with the plantar flexors nor any significant changes in H-reflex and V-waves in the soleus muscle. This finding suggests that crossover fatigue may not necessarily occur in slow-twitch predominant muscle groups., (© Journal of Sports Science and Medicine.)