Numerous national associations and multiple reviews have documented the safety and efficacy of strength training for children and adolescents. The literature highlights the significant training-induced increases in strength associated with youth strength training. However, the effectiveness of youth strength training programs to improve power measures is not as clear. This discrepancy may be related to training and testing specificity. Most prior youth strength training programs emphasized lower intensity resistance with relatively slow movements. Since power activities typically involve higher intensity, explosive-like contractions with higher angular velocities (e.g., plyometrics), there is a conflict between the training medium and testing measures. This meta-analysis compared strength (e.g., training with resistance or body mass) and power training programs (e.g., plyometric training) on proxies of muscle strength, power, and speed. A systematic literature search using a Boolean Search Strategy was conducted in the electronic databases PubMed, SPORT Discus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar and revealed 652 hits. After perusal of title, abstract, and full text, 107 studies were eligible for inclusion in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The meta-analysis showed small to moderate magnitude changes for training specificity with jump measures. In other words, power training was more effective than strength training for improving youth jump height. For sprint measures, strength training was more effective than power training with youth. Furthermore, strength training exhibited consistently large magnitude changes to lower body strength measures, which contrasted with the generally trivial, small and moderate magnitude training improvements of power training upon lower body strength, sprint and jump measures, respectively. Maturity related inadequacies in eccentric strength and balance might influence the lack of training specificity with the unilateral landings and propulsions associated with sprinting. Based on this meta-analysis, strength training should be incorporated prior to power training in order to establish an adequate foundation of strength for power training activities.

Data suggest that RM-induced neural inhibition decreased MVIC F200 and nullified the testing-induced increase in evoked pain associated with 70% tetanic stimulation.

Evidence for performance decrements following prolonged static stretching (SS) has led to a paradigm shift in stretching routines within a warm-up. Rather than SS, dynamic stretching (DS) and dynamic activity (DA) have replaced SS within warm-up routines. The objective of the present study was to compare the effect of differing lower limb SS durations (30 [SS30s], 60 [SS60s] or 120 s [SS120s] of SS per muscle group or no-stretch control) within a comprehensive warm-up protocol consisting of aerobic activity, DS and DA. Sixteen male participants completed the four stretching conditions in a randomized order, after a 5-min low-intensity (cycle) warm-up and before a DS/DA component on separate days. Tests included passive hip and knee ranges of motion (ROM), maximum voluntary knee extensor/flexor force, force produced at 100 ms (F100), vertical jump height and evoked knee extensor contractile properties. For hip flexion (hamstrings) ROM, SS120s provided the largest increase (5.6-11.7%) followed by SS60s (4.3-11.4%), control (4.4-10.6%) and SS30s (3.6-11.1%). For knee flexion (quadriceps) ROM, SS30s provided the largest increase (9.3-18.2%) followed by SS120s (6.5-16.3%), SS60s (7.2-15.2%) and control (6.3-15.2%). There were decreases in quadriceps F100 following SS in SS120s (29.6%) only. There were increases in vertical jump performance in the control (6.2%), SS60s (4.6%) and SS30s (3.3%). While 120 s SS per muscle increased ROM, even within a comprehensive warm-up routine, it also elicited notable performance decrements. However, moderate durations of SS were observed to improve ROM whilst either having negligible or beneficial (but not detrimental) effects on specific aspects of athletic performance.

Cavanaugh, MT, Aboodarda, SJ, Hodgson, DD, and Behm, DG. Foam rolling of quadriceps decreases biceps femoris activation. J Strength Cond Res 31(8): 2238-2245, 2017-Foam rolling has been shown to increase range of motion without subsequent performance impairments of the rolled muscle, however, there are no studies examining rolling effects on antagonist muscles. The objective of this study was to determine whether foam rolling the hamstrings and/or quadriceps would affect hamstrings and quadriceps activation in men and women. Recreationally, active men (n = 10, 25 ± 4.6 years, 180.1 ± 4.4 cm, 86.5 ± 15.7 kg) and women (n = 8, 21.75 ± 3.2 years, 166.4 ± 8.8 cm, 58.9 ± 7.9 kg) had surface electromyographic activity analyzed in the dominant vastus lateralis (VL), vastus medialis (VM), and biceps femoris (BF) muscles on a single leg landing from a hurdle jump under 4 conditions. Conditions included rolling of the hamstrings, quadriceps, both muscle groups, and a control session. Biceps femoris activation significantly decreased after quadriceps foam rolling (F(1,16) = 7.45, p = 0.015, -8.9%). There were no significant changes in quadriceps activation after hamstrings foam rolling. This might be attributed to the significantly greater levels of perceived pain with quadriceps rolling applications (F(1,18) = 39.067, p < 0.001, 98.2%). There were no sex-based changes in activation after foam rolling for VL (F(6,30) = 1.31, p = 0.283), VM (F(6,30) = 1.203, p = 0.332), or BF (F(6,36) = 1.703, p = 0.199). Antagonist muscle activation may be altered after agonist foam rolling, however, it can be suggested that any changes in activation are likely a result of reciprocal inhibition due to increased agonist pain perception.

Background: Roller massagers are popular devices that are used to improve range of motion (ROM), enhance recovery from muscle soreness, and reduce pain under acute conditions. However, the effects of roller massage training and training frequency are unknown. Purpose:The objective was to compare two different roller massage training frequencies on muscle performance. Study Design: Randomized controlled intervention studyMethods: Twenty-three recreationally active university students were randomly allocated to three groups: control (n=8;), rolling three (3/W; n=8;) and six (6/W; n=7) times per week for four weeks. The roller massage training consisted of unilateral, dominant limb, quadriceps and hamstrings rolling (4 sets x 30 seconds). Both legs of participants were tested pre-and post-training for active and passive hamstrings and quadriceps range of motion (ROM), electromyography (EMG) activity during a lunge movement, unilateral countermovement jumps (CMJ), as well as quadriceps and hamstrings maximum voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) forces and electromechanical delay. Finally, they were tested for pain pressure threshold at middle and distal segments of their quadriceps and hamstrings.Results: There were no significant training interactions for any measure with the exception that 3/W group exhibited 6.2% (p=0.03; Effect Size: 0.31) higher CMJ height from pre-(38.6 ± 7.1 cm) to post-testing (40.9 ± 8.1 cm) for the non-dominant limb. Conclusions:Whereas the literature has demonstrated acute responses to roller massage, the results of the present study demonstrate no consistent significant training-induced changes. The absence of change may highlight a lack of muscle and myofascial morphological or semi-permanent neurophysiological changes with rolling.