No abstract

Objectives: To compare the ergogenic effects of back squats, deadlifts, and hip thrusts. Design: Pilot randomized-controlled trial Methods: In order to determine the feasibility of such a large training study, a pilot study was carried out with 26 male and female participants (age = 22.15 ± 2.2 years; height = 180.17 ± 8.37 cm; body mass = 87.27 ± 15.72 kg). Subjects performed squats (n = 8), hip thrusts (n = 8), deadlifts (n = 6), or nothing (control) (n = 4) for three training sessions a week, for six weeks; thereafter , measures of sprinting performance, vertical jump, broad jump, strength, and change of direction were compared to base-line. Results: This pilot study was carried out successfully. Effect-sizes, medians, and interquartile ranges for all possible comparisons have been presented for power analyses. Conclusion: Although all of the studied interventions show promise, larger investigations are necessary in order to draw more definitive, applicable conclusions. (Journal of Trainology 2017;6:13-17)

Plyometric training is an effective form of training to improve VJ performance (e.g. CMJ, SJ and DJ) in female athletes. The benefits of plyometric training on VJ performance are greater for interventions of longer duration (≥10 weeks).

An athletic profile should encompass the physiological, biomechanical, anthropometric and performance measures pertinent to the athlete's sport and discipline. The measurement systems and procedures used to create these profiles are constantly evolving and becoming more precise and practical. This is a review of strength and ballistic assessment methodologies used in sport, a critique of current maximum strength [one-repetition maximum (1RM) and isometric strength] and ballistic performance (bench throw and jump capabilities) assessments for the purpose of informing practitioners and evolving current assessment methodologies. The reliability of the various maximum strength and ballistic assessment methodologies were reported in the form of intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) and coefficient of variation (%CV). Mean percent differences (Mdiff = [/Xmethod1 - Xmethod2/ / (Xmethod1 + Xmethod2)] x 100) and effect size (ES = [Xmethod2 - Xmethod1] ÷ SDmethod1) calculations were used to assess the magnitude and spread of methodological differences for a given performance measure of the included studies. Studies were grouped and compared according to their respective performance measure and movement pattern. The various measurement systems (e.g., force plates, position transducers, accelerometers, jump mats, optical motion sensors and jump-and-reach apparatuses) and assessment procedures (i.e., warm-up strategies, loading schemes and rest periods) currently used to assess maximum isometric squat and mid-thigh pull strength (ICC > 0.95; CV < 2.0%), 1RM bench press, back squat and clean strength (ICC > 0.91; CV < 4.3%), and ballistic (vertical jump and bench throw) capabilities (ICC > 0.82; CV < 6.5%) were deemed highly reliable. The measurement systems and assessment procedures employed to assess maximum isometric strength [M(Diff) = 2-71%; effect size (ES) = 0.13-4.37], 1RM strength (M(Diff) = 1-58%; ES = 0.01-5.43), vertical jump capabilities (M(Diff) = 2-57%; ES = 0.02-4.67) and bench throw capabilities (M(Diff) = 7-27%; ES = 0.49-2.77) varied greatly, producing trivial to very large effects on these respective measures. Recreational to highly trained athletes produced maximum isometric squat and mid-thigh pull forces of 1,000-4,000 N; and 1RM bench press, back squat and power clean values of 80-180 kg, 100-260 kg and 70-140 kg, respectively. Mean and peak power production across the various loads (body mass to 60% 1RM) were between 300 and 1,500 W during the bench throw and between 1,500 and 9,000 W during the vertical jump. The large variations in maximum strength and power can be attributed to the wide range in physical characteristics between different sports and athletic disciplines, training and chronological age as well as the different measurement systems of the included studies. The reliability and validity outcomes suggest that a number of measurement systems and testing procedures can be implemented to accurately assess maximum strength and ballistic performance in recreational and elite athletes, alik...

Cronin, J, Lawton, T, Harris, N, Kilding, A, and McMaster, DT. A brief review of handgrip strength and sport performance. J Strength Cond Res 31(11): 3187-3217, 2017-Tests of handgrip strength (HGS) and handgrip force (HGF) are commonly used across a number of sporting populations. Measures of HGS and HGF have also been used by practitioners and researchers to evaluate links with sports performance. This article first evaluates the validity and reliability of various handgrip dynamometers (HGD) and HGF sensors, providing recommendations for procedures to ensure that precise and reliable data are collected as part of an athlete's testing battery. Second, the differences in HGS between elite and subelite athletes and the relationships between HGS, HGF, and sports performance are discussed.

Based on current findings, training frequencies of two to four resistance training sessions per muscle group/week can be prescribed to develop upper and lower body strength and power. IRVs ranging from 11 to 30 (i.e., 3-6 sets of 4-10 repetitions of 70-88% 1RM) can be prescribed in a periodized manner to retain power and develop strength in the upper and lower body. Strength levels can be maintained for up to 3 weeks of detraining, but decay rates will increase thereafter (i.e. 5-16 weeks). The effect of explosive-ballistic training and detraining on pure power development and decay in elite rugby and American football players remain inconclusive. The long-term effects of periodized resistance training programmes on strength and power seem to follow the law of diminishing returns, as training exposure increases beyond 12-24 months, adaptation rates are reduced.

No abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine the reliability of eccentric (ECC) and concentric (CON) kinematic and kinetic variables thought to be critical to jump performance during bilateral vertical countermovement jump (VCMJ) and horizontal countermovement jump (HCMJ) across children of different maturity status. Forty-two athletic male and female participants between 9 and 16 years of age were divided into 3 maturity groups according to peak height velocity (PHV) offset (Post-PHV, At-PHV, and Pre-PHV) and percent of predicted adult stature. All the participants performed 3 VCMJ and HCMJ trials and the kinematics, and kinetics of these jumps were measured via a force plate over 3 testing sessions. In both jumps, vertical CON mean and peak power and jump height or distance were the most reliable measures across all groups (change in the mean [CM] = -5.4 to 6.2%; coefficient of variation [CV] = 2.1-9.4%; Intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.82-0.98), whereas vertical ECC mean power was the only ECC variable with acceptable reliability for both jumps (CM = -0.7 to 10.1%; CV = 5.2-15.6%; ICC = 0.74-0.97). A less mature state was "likely" to "very likely" to reduce the reliability of the HCMJ ECC kinetics and kinematics. These findings suggested that movement variability is associated with the ECC phase of CMJs, especially in Pre-PHV during the HCMJ. Vertical CON mean and peak power and ECC mean power were deemed reliable and appropriate to be used in children as indicators of jump and stretch-shortening cycle performance.