Cluster sets (CS) are effective in maintaining performance and reducing perceived effort compared to traditional sets (TRD). However, little is known about these effects on adolescent athletes. The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of CS on the performance of mechanical and perceptual variables in young athletes. Eleven subjects [4 boys (age = 15.5 ± 0.8 years; body mass = 54.3 ± 7.0 kg; body height = 1.67 ± 0.04 m; Back Squat 1RM/body mass: 1.62 ± 0.19 kg; years from peak height velocity [PHV]: 0.94 ± 0.50) and 7 girls (age = 17.2 ± 1.4 years; body mass = 54.7 ± 6.3 kg; body height = 1.63 ± 0.08 m; Back Squat 1RM/body mass: 1.22 ± 0.16 kg; years from PHV: 3.33 ± 1.00)] participated in a randomized crossover design with one traditional (TRD: 3 × 8, no intra-set and 225 s interest rest) and two clusters (CS1: 3 × 2 × 4, one 30 s intra-set and 180 s inter-set rest; and CS2: 3 × 4 × 2, three 30 s intra-set and 90 s inter-set rest) protocols. The subjects were assessed for a Back Squat 1RM for the first meet, then performed the three protocols on three different days, with at least 48 h between them. During experimental sessions, a back squat exercise was performed, and mean propulsive velocity (MPV), power (MPP), and force (MPF) were collected to analyze performance between protocols, together with measures of countermovement jump (CMJ) and perceptual responses through Rating of Perceived Exertion for each set (RPE-Set) and the overall session (S-RPE), and Muscle Soreness (DOMS). The results showed that velocity and power decline (MVD and MPD) were favorable for CS2 (MVD: −5.61 ± 14.84%; MPD: −5.63 ± 14.91%) against TRD (MVD: −21.10 ± 11.88%; MPD: −20.98 ± 11.85%) (p < 0.01) and CS1 (MVD: −21.44 ± 12.13%; MPD: −21.50 ± 12.20%) (p < 0.05). For RPE-Set, the scores were smaller for CS2 (RPE8: 3.23 ± 0.61; RPE16: 4.32 ± 1.42; RPE24: 4.46 ± 1.51) compared to TRD (RPE8: 4.73 ± 1.33; RPE16: 5.46 ± 1.62; RPE24: 6.23 ± 1.97) (p = 0.008), as well as for Session RPE (CS2: 4.32 ± 1.59; TRD: 5.68 ± 1.75) (p = 0.015). There were no changes for jump height (CMJ: p = 0.985), and the difference between time points in CMJ (ΔCMJ: p = 0.213) and muscle soreness (DOMS: p = 0.437) were identified. Our findings suggest that using CS with a greater number of intra-set rests is more efficient even with the total rest interval equalized, presenting lower decreases in mechanical performance and lower perceptual effort responses.

OBJETIVO: Identificar a taxa de lesão de LCA em jovens atletas de futebol.MÉTODOS: A metodologia contou com a busca sistemática dos artigos em 4 bases de dados: “Pubmed/Medline”, “Science Direct”, “Web of Science” e “Lilacs” através dos seguintes descritores combinados: “Anterior Cruciate Ligament”, “Injury”, “Adolescents”, “Soccer Players” e “Athletes”. Foram selecionados para a revisão os estudos de 2016 a 2021 com dados referentes a lesões de LCA em atletas com idades dos 13 aos 18 anos de ambos os sexos. A revisão seguiu as diretrizes PRISMA, e avaliação da qualidade metodológica foi realizada através da lista de verificação STROBE.RESULTADOS: Foram encontrados 544 estudos, sendo selecionados os publicados no período de 2016 a 2021 (144). Através das etapas de leitura dos títulos (89), dos resumos (66), e dos artigos na íntegra (13), foram selecionados 4 estudos que atenderam o critério de inclusão apresentando desfecho sobre a taxa de lesões, onde se constatou maior incidência de lesões do LCA para meninas. Apesar disso, apenas dois dos estudos averiguou a incidência em relação a outras características (atividade, mecanismo, evento) de forma específica.CONCLUSÃO: Concluiu-se que a taxa de lesões de LCA é significativamente maior em meninas do que em meninos durante adolescência, tendo características de lesões sem contato e ocorrendo principalmente em competições, porém ainda são escassos os dados a respeito da natureza destas lesões.

Periodization has been used for years in the sports domain as a method of controlling and planning training to reach the highest performance and decrease injury risk. Several periodization models have been developed, such as traditional, block, and undulating. Those models are theoretical training structures designed to facilitate understanding, study, and organization of training. Based on studies, certain models have shown to be superior to others. For instance, block periodization seemed to be more efficient for advanced athletes than traditional and undulating models. While for novice athletes, the chosen model has not seemed to affect their development. Although periodization has been largely studied, the experiments have several limitations, such as considering only training variation as periodization, using short-term investigations, and disregarding the technical and tactical components. Therefore, this critical review aimed to describe and discuss the contents related to traditional, block, and undulating periodization models and to provide coaches with a practical application of each of those models to develop strength, power, and endurance for novice and advanced athletes.