Acute Effects of Barbell Bouncing and External Cueing on Power Output in Bench Press Throw in Resistance-Trained Men.

The aims of this study were to compare power output during a bench press throw (BPT) executed with (BPT(bounce)) and without (BPT) the barbell bounce technique, and examine the effect of cueing different barbell descent velocities on BPT power output in resistance-trained males. In total, 27 males (age 23.1 ± 2.1 years; body mass 79.4 ± 7.4 kg; height 178.8 ± 5.5 cm; and 4.6 ± 1.9 years of resistance training experience) were recruited and attended one familiarization session and two experimental sessions (EXP 1 and EXP 2). The force–velocity profile during maximal BPT and BPT(bounce) (randomized order) under different loads (30–60 kg) was established (EXP 1), and the effect of varying external barbell descent velocity cues “slow, medium, and as fast as possible” (i.e., “fast”) on the power output for each technique (BPT and BPT(bounce)) was examined (EXP 2). Comparing two BPT techniques (EXP 1), BPT(bounce) demonstrated 7.9–14.1% greater average power (p ≤ 0.001, ES = 0.48–0.90), 6.5–12.1% greater average velocity (p ≤ 0.001, ES = 0.48–0.91), and 11.9–31.3% shorter time to peak power (p ≤ 0.001–0.05, ES = 0.33–0.83) across the loads 30–60 kg than BPT. The cueing condition “fast” (EXP 2) resulted in greater power outcomes for both BPT and BPT(bounce) than “slow.” No statistically significant differences in any of the power outcomes were observed between “medium” and “slow” cuing conditions for BPT (p = 0.097–1.000), whereas BPT(bounce) demonstrated increased average power and velocity under the “medium” cuing condition, compared to “slow” (p = 0.006–0.007, ES = 0.25–0.28). No statistically significant differences were observed in barbell throw height comparing BPT and BPT(bounce) under each cuing condition (p = 0.225–1.000). Overall, results indicate that both bouncing the barbell and emphasizing barbell descent velocity be considered to improve upper body power in athlete and non-athlete resistance-training programs

The Effects of Trunk Muscle Training on Physical Fitness and Sport-Specific Performance in Young and Adult Athletes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background The role of trunk muscle training (TMT) for physical ftness (e.g., muscle power) and sport-specifc performance measures (e.g., swimming time) in athletic populations has been extensively examined over the last decades. However, a recent systematic review and meta-analysis on the efects of TMT on measures of physical ftness and sport-specifc performance in young and adult athletes is lacking. Objective To aggregate the efects of TMT on measures of physical ftness and sport-specifc performance in young and adult athletes and identify potential subject-related moderator variables (e.g., age, sex, expertise level) and training-related programming parameters (e.g., frequency, study length, session duration, and number of training sessions) for TMT efects. Data Sources A systematic literature search was conducted with PubMed, Web of Science, and SPORTDiscus, with no date restrictions, up to June 2021. Study Eligibility Criteria Only controlled trials with baseline and follow-up measures were included if they examined the efects of TMT on at least one measure of physical ftness (e.g., maximal muscle strength, change-of-direction speed (CODS)/ agility, linear sprint speed) and sport-specifc performance (e.g., throwing velocity, swimming time) in young or adult competitive athletes at a regional, national, or international level. The expertise level was classifed as either elite (competing at national and/or international level) or regional (i.e., recreational and sub-elite). Study Appraisal and Synthesis Methods The methodological quality of TMT studies was assessed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale. A random-efects model was used to calculate weighted standardized mean diferences (SMDs) between intervention and active control groups. Additionally, univariate sub-group analyses were independently computed for subject-related moderator variables and training-related programming parameters. Results Overall, 31 studies with 693 participants aged 11–37 years were eligible for inclusion. The methodological quality of the included studies was 5 on the PEDro scale. In terms of physical ftness, there were signifcant, small-to-large efects of TMT on maximal muscle strength (SMD =0.39), local muscular endurance (SMD =1.29), lower limb muscle power (SMD=0.30), linear sprint speed (SMD =0.66), and CODS/agility (SMD =0.70). Furthermore, a signifcant and moderate TMT efect was found for sport-specifc performance (SMD=0.64). Univariate sub-group analyses for subject-related moderator variables revealed signifcant efects of age on CODS/agility (p=0.04), with signifcantly large efects for children (SMD=1.53, p=0.002). Further, there was a signifcant efect of number of training sessions on muscle power and linear sprint speed (p≤0.03), with signifcant, small-to-large efects of TMT for>18 sessions compared to≤18 sessions (0.45≤SMD≤0.84, p≤0.003). Additionally, session duration signifcantly modulated TMT efects on linear sprint speed, CODS/agility, and sport-specifc performance (p≤0.05). TMT with session durations≤30 min resulted in signifcant, large efects on linear sprint speed and CODS/agility (1.66≤SMD≤2.42, p≤0.002), whereas session durations>30 min resulted in signifcant, large efects on sport-specifc performance (SMD=1.22, p=0.008). Conclusions Our fndings indicate that TMT is an efective means to improve selected measures of physical ftness and sportspecifc performance in young and adult athletes. Independent sub-group analyses suggest that TMT has the potential to improve CODS/agility, but only in children. Additionally, more (>18) and/or shorter duration (≤30 min) TMT sessions appear to be more efective for improving lower limb muscle power, linear sprint speed, and CODS/agility in young or adult competitive athletes.publishedVersio