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.

Background The fatigue of a muscle or muscle group can produce global responses to a variety of systems (i.e., cardiovascular, endocrine, and others). There are also reported strength and endurance impairments of non-exercised muscles following the fatigue of another muscle; however, the literature is inconsistent. Objective To examine whether non-local muscle fatigue (NLMF) occurs following the performance of a fatiguing bout of exercise of a different muscle(s). Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Search and Inclusion A systematic literature search using a Boolean search strategy was conducted with PubMed, SPORT-Discus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar in April 2020, and was supplemented with additional 'snowballing' searches up to September 2020. To be included in our analysis, studies had to include at least one intentional performance measure (i.e., strength, endurance, or power), which if reduced could be considered evidence of muscle fatigue, and also had to include the implementation of a fatiguing protocol to a location (i.e., limb or limbs) that differed to those for which performance was measured. We excluded studies that measured only mechanistic variables such as electromyographic activity, or spinal/ supraspinal excitability. After search and screening, 52 studies were eligible for inclusion including 57 groups of participants (median sample = 11) and a total of 303 participants. ResultsThe main multilevel meta-analysis model including all effects sizes (278 across 50 clusters [median = 4, range = 1 to 18 effects per cluster) revealed a trivial point estimate with high precision for the interval estimate [− 0.02 (95% CIs = − 0.14 to 0.09)], yet with substantial heterogeneity (Q (277) = 642.3, p < 0.01), I 2 = 67.4%). Subgroup and meta-regression analyses showed that NLMF effects were not moderated by study design (between vs. within-participant), homologous vs. heterologous effects, upper or lower body effects, participant training status, sex, age, the time of post-fatigue protocol measurement, or the severity of the fatigue protocol. However, there did appear to be an effect of type of outcome measure where both strength [0.11 (95% CIs = 0.01-0.21)] and power outcomes had trivial effects [− 0.01 (95% CIs = − 0.24 to 0.22)], whereas endurance outcomes showed moderate albeit imprecise effects [− 0.54 (95% CIs = − 0.95 to − 0.14)]. Conclusions Overall, the findings do not support the existence of a general NLMF effect; however, when examining specific types of performance outcomes, there may be an effect specifically upon endurance-based outcomes (i.e., time to task failure). However, there are relatively fewer studies that have examined endurance effects or mechanisms explaining this possible effect, in addition to fewer studies including women or younger and older participants, and considering causal effects of prior training history through the use of longitudinal intervention study designs. Thus, it seems pertinent that future research on NLMF effects should be redirected towards these ...

Hodgson, DD, Quigley, PJ, Whitten, JHD, Reid, JC, and Behm, DG. Impact of 10-minute interval roller massage on performance and active range of motion. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2017-Roller massage (RM) has been shown to increase range of motion (ROM) without subsequent performance deficits. However, prolonged static stretching (SS) can induce performance impairments. The objective of this study was to examine the effects of combining SS and RM with and without subsequent RM on ROM and neuromuscular performance. Subjects (n = 12) participated in 5 sessions: (a) SS only (SS_rest), (b) SS + RM (SS + RM_rest), (c) SS with RM at 10 and 20 minutes after stretch (SS_RM), (d) SS + RM with RM at 10 and 20 minutes after stretch (SS + RM_RM), and (e) control. For the SS conditions, the quadriceps and hamstrings received passive SS for 2 × 30 seconds each. For the SS + RM conditions, SS was applied to the quadriceps and hamstrings for 30 seconds each, and RM was performed for 30 seconds per muscle. SS_RM and SS + RM_RM conditions received an additional 30-second RM at 10 and 20 minutes after warm-up, whereas sessions without additional RM rested for the same duration. Testing measures included hip flexion (HF) and knee flexion (KF) active and passive ROM, hurdle jump height and contact time, countermovement jump height, and maximal voluntary isometric contraction force. Initial KF and HF ROM improvements provided by SS_RM and SS + RM_RM were sustained up to 30 minutes after intervention. Furthermore, SS_RM exhibited greater ROM compared with sessions lacking additional RM in active and passive HF as well as active and passive KF. Similarly, SS + RM_RM elicited greater KF and HF ROM improvements than SS_rest. In conclusion, active KF and HF ROM improvements were prolonged by additional RM, whereas neuromuscular performance remained relatively unaffected.

Objective: To examine whether non-local muscle fatigue occurs following performance of a fatiguing bout of exercise of a different muscle(s).Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.Search and Inclusion: A systematic literature search using a Boolean search strategy was conducted with PubMed, SPORTDiscus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar in April 2020 and was supplemented with additional ‘snowballing’ searches up to September 2020. To be included in our analysis, studies had to include at least one intentional performance measure (i.e., strength, endurance, or power), which if reduced could be considered evidence of muscle fatigue, and also had to include the implementation of a fatiguing protocol to a location (i.e., limb or limbs) that differed to those for which performance was measured. We excluded studies that measured only mechanistic variables such as electromyographic, or spinal/supraspinal excitability. After search and screening, 52 studies were eligible for inclusion including 57 groups of participants (median sample = 11) and a total of 303 participants.Results: The main multilevel meta-analysis model including all effects sizes (278 across 50 clusters [median = 4, range = 1 to 18 effects per cluster) revealed a trivial point estimate with high precision for the interval estimate (-0.02 [95%CIs = -0.14 to 0.09]), yet with substantial heterogeneity (Q(277) = 642.3, p &lt; 0.01), I2 = 67.4%). Subgroup and meta-regression analyses showed that NLMF effects were not moderated by study design (between vs. within-participant), homologous vs. heterologous effects, upper or lower body effects, participant training status, sex, age, the time of post-fatigue protocol measurement, or the severity of the fatigue protocol. However, there did appear to be an effect of type of outcome measure where both strength (0.11 [95%CIs = 0.01 to 0.21]) and power outcomes had trivial effects (-0.01 [95%CIs = -0.24 to 0.22]), whereas endurance outcomes showed moderate albeit imprecise effects (-0.54 [95%CIs = -0.95 to -0.14]).Conclusions: Overall, the findings do not support the existence of a general NLMF effect; however, when examining specific types of performance outcomes there may be an effect specifically upon endurance-based outcomes (i.e., time to task failure). However, there are relatively fewer studies that have examined endurance effects or mechanisms explaining this possible effect, in addition to fewer studies including women or younger and older participants, and considering causal effects of prior training history through the use of longitudinal intervention study designs. Thus, it seems pertinent that future research on NLMF effects should be redirected towards these still relatively unexplored areas.