Training Strategies to Improve Muscle Power: Is Olympic-style Weightlifting Relevant?

Introduction: This efficacy study investigated the effects of (1) Olympic-style weightlifting (OWL), (2) motorized strength and power training (MSPT), and (3) free weight strength and power training (FSPT) on muscle power. Methods: Thirty-nine young athletes (20±3 yr.; ice hockey, volleyball and badminton) were randomized into the three training groups. All groups participated in 2-3 sessions/week for 8 weeks. The MSPT and FSPT groups trained using squats (two legs and single leg) with high force and high power, while the OWL group trained using clean and snatch exercises. MSPT was conducted as slow-speed isokinetic strength training and isotonic power training with augmented eccentric load, controlled by a computerized robotic engine system. FSPT used free weights. The training volume (sum of repetitions x kg) was similar between all three groups. Vertical jumping capabilities were assessed by countermovement jump (CMJ), squat jump (SJ), drop jump (DJ), and loaded CMJs (10-80 kg). Sprinting capacity was assessed in a 30 m sprint. Secondary variables were squat 1-repetitionmaximum, body composition and quadriceps thickness and architecture. Results: OWL resulted in trivial improvements, and inferior gains compared to FSPT and MSPT for CMJ, SJ, and DJ. MSPT demonstrated small, but robust effects on SJ, DJ and loaded CMJs (3-12%). MSPT was superior to FSPT in improving 30 m sprint performance. FSPT and MSPT, but not OWL, demonstrated increased thickness in the vastus lateralis and rectus femoris (4-7%). Conclusion: MSPT was time-efficient and equally or more effective than FSPT training in improving vertical jumping and sprinting performance. OWL was generally ineffective and inferior to the two other interventions.Training Strategies to Improve Muscle Power: Is Olympic-style Weightlifting Relevant?acceptedVersio

Eccentric cycling does not improve cycling performance in amateur cyclists

Eccentric cycling training induces muscle hypertrophy and increases joint power output in non-athletes. Moreover, eccentric cycling can be considered a movement-specific type of strength training for cyclists, but it is hitherto unknown if eccentric cycling training can improve cycling performance in trained cyclists. Twenty-three male amateur cyclists were randomized to an eccentric or a concentric cycling training group. The eccentric cycling was performed at a low cadence (~40 revolution per minute) and the intensity was controlled by perceived effort (12–17 on the Borgs scale) during 2 min intervals (repeated 5–8 times). The cadence and perceived effort of the concentric group matched those of the eccentric group. Additionally, after the eccentric or concentric cycling, both groups performed traditionally aerobic intervals with freely chosen cadence in the same session (4–5 x 4–15 min). The participants trained twice a week for 10 weeks. Maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max), maximal aerobic power output (Wmax), lactate threshold, isokinetic strength, muscle thickness, pedaling characteristics and cycling performance (6- and 30-sec sprints and a 20-min time trial test) were assessed before and after the intervention period. Inferences about the true value of the effects were evaluated using probabilistic magnitude-based inferences. Eccentric cycling induced muscle hypertrophy (2.3 ± 2.5% more than concentric) and augmented eccentric strength (8.8 ± 5.9% more than concentric), but these small magnitude effects seemed not to transfer into improvements in the physiological assessments or cycling performance. On the contrary, the eccentric training appeared to have limiting or detrimental effects on cycling performance, measured as Wmax and a 20-min time trial. In conclusion, eccentric cycling training did not improve cycling performance in amateur cyclists. Further research is required to ascertain whether the present findings reflect an actual lack of efficacy, negative effects or a delayed response to eccentric cycling training.publishedVersio

Force-velocity profiling in athletes: Reliability and agreement across methods

publishedVersio

Strength and Power Testing of Athletes: A Multicenter Study of Test-Retest Reliability

Author's accepted manuscriptAccepted author manuscript version reprinted, by permission, from International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance (IJSPP), 2022, 17 (7): 1103-1110, https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2021-0558. © Human Kinetics, Inc.Purpose:This study examined the test–retest reliability of common assessments for measuring strength and power of the lowerbody in high-performing athletes.Methods:A total of 100 participants, including both male (n=83) and female (n=17) athletes(21 [4] y, 182 [9] cm, and 78 [12] kg), were recruited for this study, using a multicenter approach. The participants underwentphysical testing 4 times. Thefirst 2 sessions (1 and 2) were separated by∼1 week, followed by a period of 2 to 6 months, whereasthe last 2 sessions (3 and 4) were again separated by∼1 week. The test protocol consisted of squat jumps, countermovementjumps, jump and reach, 30-m sprint, 1-repetition-maximum squat, sprint cycling, and a leg-press test.Results:The typical error(%) ranged from 1.3% to 8.5% for all assessments. The change in means ranged from−1.5% to 2.5% for all assessments, whereasthe interclass correlation coefficient ranged from .85 to .97. The smallest worthwhile change (0.2 of baseline SD) ranged from1.2% to 5.0%. The ratio between the typical error (%) and the smallest worthwhile change (%) ranged from 0.5 to 1.2. Whenobserving the reliability across testing centers, considerable differences in reliability were observed (typical error [%] ratio: 0.44–1.44).Conclusions:Most of the included assessments can be used with confidence by researchers and coaches to measurestrength and power in athletes. Our results highlight the importance of controlling testing reliability at each testing center and notrelying on data from others, despite having applied the same protocol.acceptedVersio

Physical stress and determinants of shooting performance among Norwegian Special Forces Operators

However, there is a lack of conceptual understanding of the factors influencing performance decrements in prone shooting. The present study examines how one can simulate a combat scenario by inducing acute physical stress, ultimately impacting one’s shooting performance (SP). The relationship between participants’ physical level and SP was measured in several ways. The SP of members of the Norwegian Navy Special Operations Forces (SOF) (N = 30) was measured before and directly after acute exercise-induced stress caused by a 200-m uphill run (90% HRmax). Under acute physical stress, participants took less time to fire five rounds (total 15.5 ± 10.9 s faster), and the probability of hitting the target was unaffected (92%). In terms of more sensitive measures, score was significantly reduced and shot-group dispersion increased (64 ± 90 cm2, p < 0.01, d = 0.72), mainly due to increased vertical dispersion (2.5 ± 4.6 cm, p < 0.01, d = 0.53). Age, trait somatic anxiety and the Big Five Inventory item “openness” explained 45.2% of the variance in shooting score in the pre-physical stress condition. In the post-physical stress condition, pre-test shooting score, the number of months deployed, and shooting time predicted 32.9% of the variance in shooting score. The change in SP (pre—post) showed the concentration disruption scale was the best predictor of the reduction in shot score (20.1%). From a practical point of view, maintaining the probability of hitting the target with reduced shooting time post-physical stress could be viewed as superior performance for SOF

Depressed Physical Performance Outlasts Hormonal Disturbances after Military Training

. Introduction: The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of an arduous 1-wk military course on measures of physical performance, body composition, and blood biomarkers. Methods: Participants were apprentices in an annual selection course for the Norwegian Special Forces. Fifteen soldiers (23 T 4 yr, 1.81 T 0.06 m, 78 T 7 kg) completed a hell week consisting of rigorous activity only interspersed by 2 to 3 h of sleep per day. Testing was conducted before and 0, 1, 3, 7, and 14 d after the hell week. Physical performance was measured as muscle strength and jump performance. Body composition was measured by bioelectrical impedance and blood samples were collected and analyzed for hormones, creatine kinase, and C-reactive protein. Results: Body mass was reduced by 5.3 T 1.9 kg during the hell week and returned to baseline within 1 wk. Fat mass was reduced by 2.1 T 1.7 kg and muscle mass by 1.9 T 0.9 kg. Muscle strength in leg press and bench press was reduced by 20% T 9% and 9% T 7%, respectively, and both were approximately 10% lower than baseline after 1 wk of recovery. Jump-height was reduced by 28% T 13% and was still 14% T 5% below baseline after 2 wk of recovery. Testosterone was reduced by 70% T 12% and recovered gradually within a week. Cortisol was increased by 154% T 74% and did not fully recover during the next week. Insulin-like growth factor 1 was reduced by 51% T 10% and triiodothyronine and thyroxine by 12% to 30%, all recovered within a week. Conclusions: One-week arduous military exercise resulted in reductions in body mass and performance, as well as considerable hormonal disturbances. Our most important observation was that whereas the hormonal systems was normalized within 1 wk of rest and proper nutrition, lower body strength and jump performance were still depressed after 2 wk

Eccentric cycling does not improve cycling performance in amateur cyclists

Eccentric cycling training induces muscle hypertrophy and increases joint power output in non-athletes. Moreover, eccentric cycling can be considered a movement-specific type of strength training for cyclists, but it is hitherto unknown if eccentric cycling training can improve cycling performance in trained cyclists. Twenty-three male amateur cyclists were randomized to an eccentric or a concentric cycling training group. The eccentric cycling was performed at a low cadence (~40 revolution per minute) and the intensity was controlled by perceived effort (12–17 on the Borgs scale) during 2 min intervals (repeated 5–8 times). The cadence and perceived effort of the concentric group matched those of the eccentric group. Additionally, after the eccentric or concentric cycling, both groups performed traditionally aerobic intervals with freely chosen cadence in the same session (4–5 x 4–15 min). The participants trained twice a week for 10 weeks. Maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max), maximal aerobic power output (Wmax), lactate threshold, isokinetic strength, muscle thickness, pedaling characteristics and cycling performance (6- and 30-sec sprints and a 20-min time trial test) were assessed before and after the intervention period. Inferences about the true value of the effects were evaluated using probabilistic magnitude-based inferences. Eccentric cycling induced muscle hypertrophy (2.3 ± 2.5% more than concentric) and augmented eccentric strength (8.8 ± 5.9% more than concentric), but these small magnitude effects seemed not to transfer into improvements in the physiological assessments or cycling performance. On the contrary, the eccentric training appeared to have limiting or detrimental effects on cycling performance, measured as Wmax and a 20-min time trial. In conclusion, eccentric cycling training did not improve cycling performance in amateur cyclists. Further research is required to ascertain whether the present findings reflect an actual lack of efficacy, negative effects or a delayed response to eccentric cycling training

A strength-oriented exercise session required more recovery time than a power-oriented exercise session with equal work

The present randomized cross-over controlled study aimed to compare the rate of recovery from a strength-oriented exercise session vs. a power-oriented session with equal work. Sixteen strength-trained individuals conducted one strength-oriented session (five repetitions maximum (RM)) and one power-oriented session (50% of 5RM) in randomized order. Squat jump (SJ), countermovement jump (CMJ), 20-m sprint, and squat and bench press peak power and estimated 1RMs were combined with measures of rate of perceived exertion (RPE) and perceived recovery status (PRS), before, immediately after and 24 and 48 h after exercise. Both sessions induced trivial to moderate performance decrements in all variables. Small reductions in CMJ height were observed immediately after both the strength-oriented session (7 ± 6%) and power-oriented session (5 ± 5%). Between 24 and 48 h after both sessions CMJ and SJ heights and 20 m sprint were back to baseline. However, in contrast to the power-oriented session, recovery was not complete 48 h after the strength-oriented session, as indicated by greater impairments in CMJ eccentric and concentric peak forces, SJ rate of force development (RFD) and squat peak power. In agreement with the objective performance measurements, RPE and PRS ratings demonstrated that the strength-oriented session was experienced more strenuous than the power-oriented session. However, these subjective measurements agreed poorly with performance measurements at the individual level. In conclusion, we observed a larger degree of neuromuscular impairment and longer recovery times after a strength-oriented session than after a power-oriented session with equal total work, measured by both objective and subjective assessments. Nonetheless, most differences were small or trivial after either session. It appears necessary to combine several tests and within-test analyses (e.g., CMJ height, power and force) to reveal such differences. Objective and subjective assessments of fatigue and recovery cannot be used interchangeably; rather they should be combined to give a meaningful status for an individual in the days after a resistance exercise session

Validity of Force-Velocity Profiling Assessed With a Pneumatic Leg Press Device

Purpose: The aim of this study was to examine the concurrent validity of force–velocity (FV) variables assessed across 5 Keiser leg press devices. Methods: A linear encoder and 2 independent force plates (MuscleLab devices) were mounted on each of the 5 leg press devices. A total of 997 leg press executions, covering a wide range of forces and velocities, were performed by 14 participants (29 [7] y, 181 [5] cm, 82 [8] kg) across the 5 devices. Average and peak force, velocity, and power values were collected simultaneously from the Keiser and MuscleLab devices for each repetition. Individual FV profiles were fitted to each participant from peak and average force and velocity measurements. Theoretical maximal force, velocity, and power were deduced from the FV relationship. Results: Average and peak force and velocity had a coefficient of variation of 1.5% to 8.6%, near-perfect correlations (.994–.999), and a systematic bias of 0.7% to 7.1% when compared with reference measurements. Average and peak power showed larger coefficient of variations (11.6% and 17.2%), despite excellent correlations (.977 and .952), and trivial to small biases (3.9% and 8.4%). Extrapolated FV variables showed near-perfect correlations (.983–.997) with trivial to small biases (1.4%–11.2%) and a coefficient of variation of 1.4% to 5.9%. Conclusions: The Keiser leg press device can obtain valid measurements over a wide range of forces and velocities across different devices. To accurately measure power, theoretical maximal power calculated from the FV profile is recommended over average and peak power values from single repetitions, due to the lower random error observed for theoretical maximal power