A Comparison of Increases in Volume Load Over 8 Weeks of Low-Versus High-Load Resistance Training

Background: It has been hypothesized that the ability to increase volume load (VL) via a progressive increase in the magnitude of load for a given exercise within a given repetition range could enhance the adaptive response to resistance training. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare changes in volume load (VL) over eight weeks of resistance training (RT) in high-versus low-load protocols. Materials and Methods: Eighteen well-trained men were matched according to baseline strength were randomly assigned to either a low-load RT(LOW,n= 9) where 25 - 35 repetitions were performed per exercise, or a high-load RT (HIGH,n= 9) where 8 - 12 repetitions were performed per exercise. Both groups performed three sets of seven exercises for all major muscles three times per week on nonconsecutive days. Results: After adjusting for the pre-test scores, there was a significant difference between the two intervention groups on post intervention total VL with a very large effect size (F (1, 15) = 16.598, P = .001, p2 = .525). There was a significant relationship between pre-intervention and post-intervention total VL (F (1, 15) = 32.048, P \u3c .0001, p2 = .681) in which the pre-test scores explained 68% of the variance in the post-test scores. Conclusions: This study indicates that low-load RT results in greater accumulations in VL compared to high-load RT over the course of 8 weeks of training

Football equipment design affects face mask removal efficiency

Background: Researchers have investigated the performance of face mask removal tools for spine injury management in football but not the effects of football equipment design. Hypotheses: Various styles or designs of football helmet equipment (helmets, face masks, loop straps) affect face mask removal efficiency. A cordless screwdriver performs more efficiently than do cutting tools. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: Nineteen certified athletic trainers were randomly assigned to group 1 (cordless screwdriver and the FM Extractor) or group 2 (cordless screwdriver and the Trainer\u27s Angel). Subjects randomly performed face mask removal for 6 conditions composed of helmet (3), face mask (3), and loop strap (5) combinations. Time, head movement, perceived difficulty, and success rates were measured. Results: Multiple significant differences were found in time, movement, and perceived difficulty between the 6 helmet equipment conditions. The Shockblocker loop strap was consistently superior in all variables regardless of the tool used or the helmet it was attached to. The cordless screwdriver created less movement (mean range from any one plane, 2.8 degrees-13.3 degrees), was faster (mean range, 42.1-68.8 seconds), and was less difficult (mean rating of perceived exertion range, 1.4-2.9) compared to cutting tools (ranges, 4.4 degrees-18.4 degrees in any one plane, 71-174 seconds, rating of perceived exertion, 2.8-7.7). Trial failure was more common with cutting tools than with the screwdriver. Conclusion: Differences in football helmet equipment affect face mask removal. The cordless screwdriver is more efficient than the FM Extractor and Trainer\u27s Angel. Clinical Relevance: Professionals responsible for the care of football athletes must be knowledgeable in the types of equipment used and the best option available for effective airway access