Influence of strength level on the acute post-activation performance enhancement following flywheel and free weight resistance training

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This study aimed to compare the post-activation potentiation performance enhancement (PAPE) response to the acute inertial flywheel (FW) and free weight resistance training (TRA) on subsequent countermovement jump (CMJ) and sprint performance (10 m sprint). This study used a randomized crossover design including twenty-eight healthy males that were divided into strong (relative one-repetition maximum (1RM) back squat \u3e 2.0 × body mass) and weak (relative 1RM back squat \u3c 2.0 × body mass) groups. All participants performed the following: (a) three reps at 90% of their 1RM back squat (TRA) and (b) three reps on an inertial FW (plus one repetition to initiate flywheel movement) with an intensity that generated a mean propulsive velocity equal to that achieved with 90% of the 1RM back squat. Before and after the conditioning activity, participants performed two CMJs and two 10 m sprints. Within-group analyses showed significantly greater CMJ (d \u3e 0.9, p \u3c 0.001) and sprint performance (d \u3e 0.5, p \u3c 0.05) in the FW and the TRA group. Between-group analysis showed that sprint changes were significantly greater in the FW-strong group when compared with the TRA (F1,18 = 5.11, p = 0.036, η2p = 0.221—large) group. These results suggest that using a squat activation protocol on a FW may lead to an acute positive effect on jump and sprint performance, especially in stronger individuals

Addressing the Confusion Within Periodization Research

In this editorial, we focus on recent problematic developments in sport science, and more specifically, problems related to periodization research. Primary areas discussed are (1) appreciation of history, (2) considerations for training studies, (3) the development of concepts, and (4) programming-driven training models

Addressing the confusion within periodization research

© 2020 by the authors. In this editorial, we focus on recent problematic developments in sport science, and more specifically, problems related to periodization research. Primary areas discussed are (1) appreciation of history, (2) considerations for training studies, (3) the development of concepts, and (4) programming-driven training models

Addressing the Confusion within Periodization Research

In this editorial, we focus on recent problematic developments in sport science, and more specifically, problems related to periodization research. Primary areas discussed are (1) appreciation of history, (2) considerations for training studies, (3) the development of concepts, and (4) programming-driven training models

The Effect of Altering Body Posture and Barbell Position on the Between-Session Reliability of Force-Time Curve Characteristics in the Isometric Mid-Thigh Pull

Seventeen strength and power athletes (n = 11 males, 6 females; height: 177.5 ± 7.0 cm, 165.8 ± 11.4 cm; body mass: 90.0 ± 14.1 kg, 66.4 ± 13.9 kg; age: 30.6 ± 10.4 years, 30.8 ± 8.7 years), who regularly performed weightlifting movements during their resistance training programs, were recruited to examine the effect of altering body posture and barbell position on the between-session reliability of force-time characteristics generated in the isometric mid-thigh pull (IMTP). After participants were familiarised with the testing protocol, they undertook two testing sessions which were separated by seven days. In each session, the participants performed three maximal IMTP trials in each of the four testing positions examined, with the order of testing randomized. In each position, no significant differences were found between sessions for all force-time characteristics (p = \u3e0.05). Peak force (PF), time-specific force (F50, F90, F150, F200, F250) and IMP time-bands (0–50, 0–90, 0–150, 0–200, 0–250 ms) were reliable across each of the four testing positions (ICC ≥ 0.7, CV ≤ 15%). Time to peak force, peak RFD, RFD time-bands (0–50, 0–90, 0–150, 0–200, 0–250 ms) and peak IMP were unreliable regardless of the testing position used (ICC =15%). Overall, the use of body postures and barbell positions during the IMTP that do not correspond to the second pull of the clean have no adverse effect on the reliability of the force-time characteristics generated

The acute effects of whole body vibration on isometric mid-thigh pull performance

The purpose of the present investigation was to examine the acute effects of whole body vibration (WBV) on isometric mid-thigh pull force–time curve (FTC) characteristics. Eleven recreationally trained subjects were randomly assigned to three treatment conditions: sham no vibration protocol (T1), vibration protocol 30 Hz 2–4 mm amplitude (T2), and vibration protocol 30 Hz 2–4 mm (T3). After completing a standardized warm-up, the subject stood on a vibration platform with the knee at a 120° angle and performed one of the three interventions. Each treatment condition required the subject to stand on the platform for thirty-second treatments, each separated by thirty seconds of recovery. Five minutes after the completion of the treatment conditions, the subjects performed the isometric mid-thigh pull. All FTCs were analyzed with standardized procedures for peak force (PF) and peak rate of force development (PRFD). A 1 × 3 repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the three treatments. Additionally, coefficients of variance (CV), as well as intraclass and interclass correlations, were performed. There were no significant differences (p \u3e 0.05) for any of the FTC analyses performed in this investigation. The CV and the 95% confidence interval (CI) indicate that the WBV protocol resulted in trivial changes in PF and beneficial changes in PRFD. A 30 Hz 2–4 mm amplitude WBV does not result in a significant increase in isometric mid-thigh pull performance

Hormone and Adpokine Alterations across Eleven Weeks of Training in Division I Collegiate Throwers: an Exploratory Study

Conceptually, it is important to understand the underlying physiological mechanisms of any training program model. This understanding aids the coach/sport scientist in making better choices in manipulating variables in formulating the training model. These underlying mechanisms can be associated with training variable manipulation and fatigue management aspects as well as the overall health of the athlete. Hormone and cytokine concentrations can be linked to alterations resulting from the manipulation of training variables and to subsequent alterations in performance (Haff et al., 2008; Ishigaki et al., 2005; Jurimae et al., 2010; Stone et al., 2007). For example, alterations in the testosterone: cortisol ratio (T:C) has been associated with alterations in training volume as well as physiological aspects such as lean body mass (LBM), fat content and strength/power performance (Haff et al., 2008; Häkkinen, 1989; Stone et al., 2007). Although cytokine production is part of the adaptive process, markedly increased/excessive cytokine production has been related poor fatigue management and over training (Angeli et al., 2004; Jurimae et al., 2010; Smith, 2000). The present study followed NCAA division 1 (D-1) collegiate throwers over a period of an 11 week fall semester preparation-phase block form of periodized training. Volume and intensity alterations and their effects on physiological variables (e.g. neuromuscular, hormonal, cytokine) are a key component in understanding the effects of a training process. Alterations in these physiological variables were tracked over time in Division-1 collegiate throwers

Resting Hormone Alterations and Injuries: Block vs. DUP Weight-Training among D-1 Track and Field Athletes

Daily undulating periodization (DUP), using daily alterations in repetitions, has been advocated as a superior method of resistance training, while traditional forms of programming for periodization (Block) have been questioned. Nineteen Division I track and field athletes were assigned to either a 10-week Block or DUP training group. Year and event were controlled. Over the course of the study, there were four testing sessions, which were used to evaluate a variety of strength characteristics, including maximum isometric strength, rate of force development, and one repetition maximum (1RM). Although, performance trends favored the Block group for strength and rate of force development, no statistical differences were found between the two groups. However, different (p ≤ 0.05) estimated volumes of work (VL) and amounts of improvement per VL were found between groups. Based upon calculated training efficiency scores, these data indicate that a Block training model is more efficient in producing strength gains than a DUP model. Additionally, alterations in testosterone (T), cortisol (C) and the T:C ratio were measured. Although there were no statistically (p ≤ 0.05) different hormone alterations between groups, relationships between training variables and hormone concentrations including the T:C ratio, indicate that Block may be more efficacious in terms of fatigue management