The aim of this study was to evaluate the post-activation potentiation (PAP) effects following eccentric overload (EOL) and traditional weightlifting (TW) exercise on standing long jump (SLJ), countermovement jump (CMJ), and 5 m sprint acceleration performance. Ten male athletes were involved in a randomized, crossover study. The subjects performed 3 sets of 6 repetitions of EOL or TW half squat exercise followed by SLJ, CMJ, and 5 m sprint tests at 1 min, 3 min and 7 min, in separate sessions using a randomized order. Bayes factor (BF10) was reported to show the strength of the evidence. Differences were found using EOL for SLJ distance at 3 min (BF10 = 7.24, +8%), and 7 min (BF10 = 19.5, +7%), for CMJ at 3 min (BF10 = 3.25, +9%), and 7 min (BF10 = 4.12, +10.5%). Differences were found using TW exercise for SLJ at 3 min (BF10 = 3.88, +9%), and 7 min (BF10 = 12.4, +9%), CMJ at 3 min (BF10 = 7.42, +9.5%), and 7 min (BF10 = 12.4, +12%). No meaningful differences were found between EOL and TW exercises for SLJ (BF10 = 0.33), CMJ (BF10 = 0.27), and 5 m sprint (BF10 = 0.22). In conclusion, EOL and TW exercises acutely increase SLJ and CMJ, but not 5 m sprint performance. The PAP time window was found between 3 min and 7 min using both protocols. This study did not find differences between EOL and TW exercises, and so both methodologies can be used to stimulate a PAP response.

No abstract

No abstract

Effect of postactivation potentiation after medium vs. high inertia eccentric overload exercise on standing long jump, countermovement jump and change of direction performance.

The aims of the current systematic review were to evaluate the current literature surrounding the chronic effect of flywheel training on the physical capacities of soccer players, and to identify areas for future research to establish guidelines for its use. Studies were identified following a search of electronic databases (PubMed and SPORTDiscus) in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA). Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria and were included. The methodological quality of the included studies ranged between 10 and 18 with an average score of 15 points using the PEDro scale.The training duration ranged from 6 weeks to 27 weeks, with volume ranging from 1 to 6 sets and 6 to 10 repetitions, and frequency from 1 to 2 times a week. This systematic review reported that a diverse range of flywheel training interventions can effectively improve strength, power, jump, and changes of direction in male soccer players of varying levels. Flywheel training interventions improve the physical capacities of soccer players of varying levels. Nonetheless, the current literature suggests contrasting evidence regarding flywheel training induced changes in sprint speed and acceleration capacity of soccer players.

The aim of this umbrella review was to provide a detailed summary of how flywheel training enhances strength and physical capacities in healthy and athletic populations. The eleven reviews included were analyzed for methodological quality according to the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Review 2 (AMSTAR 2) and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. Two were systematic reviews, six were systematic reviews with meta-analyses and three were narrative reviews. Although the included reviews support use of flywheel training with athletic and healthy populations, the umbrella review highlights disparity in methodological quality and over-reporting of studies (38 studies were included overall). Flywheel post-activation performance enhancement protocols can effectively enhance strength and physical capacities acutely with athletes and healthy populations. All relevant reviews support flywheel training as a valid alternative to traditional resistance training for enhancing muscular strength, power, and jump performance with untrained and trained populations alike. Similarly, reviews included report flywheel training enhances change of direction performance—although conclusions are based on a limited number of investigations. However, the reviews investigating the effect of flywheel training on sprint performance highlight some inconsistency in attained improvements with elite athletes (e.g., soccer players). To optimize training outcomes, it is recommended practitioners individualize (i.e., create inertia-power or inertia-velocity profiles) and periodize flywheel training using the latest guidelines. This umbrella review provides an analysis of the literature’s strengths and limitations, creating a clear scope for future investigations.

No abstract

The aim of this study was to assess the sensitivity of accelerometer-derived metrics for monitoring fatigue during an intermittent exercise protocol. Fifteen university students were enrolled in the study (age 20 ± 1 years). A submaximal intermitted recovery test (Sub-IRT) with a duration of 6 min and 30 s (drill 1) was performed. In order to increase the participants’ fatigue, after that, a repeated sprint protocol (1×6 maximal 20 m sprints) was performed. Following that, participants repeated the Sub-IRT (drill 2) to evaluate the external and internal training load (TL) variations related to fatigue. Apex 10 Hz global navigation satellite system (GNSS) units were used to collect the variables total distance (TD), high metabolic distance (HMD), relative velocity (RV), average metabolic power (MP), heart rate maximal (HRmax) and mean (HRmean), muscular (RPEmus) and respiratory rating of perceived exertion (RPEres), dynamic stress load (DSL), and fatigue index (FI). A Bayesian statistical approach was used. A likelihood difference (between drill 1 and drill 2) was found for the following parameters: TD (BF 10 = 0.33, moderate per H 0 ), HMD (BF 10 = 1.3, anecdotal ), RV (BF 10 = 0.29, moderate per H 0 ), MP (BF 10 = 1.3, anecdotal ), accelerations (BF 10 = 1.6, anecdotal ), FI (BF 10 = 4.7, moderate ), HRmax (BF 10 = 2.2, anecdotal ), HRmean (BF 10 = 4.3, moderate ), RPEmus (BF 10 = 11.6, strong ), RPEres (BF 10 = 3.1, moderate ), DSL (BF 10 = 5.7, moderate ), and DSL•m −1 (BF 10 = 4.3, moderate ). In conclusion, this study reports that DSL, DSL•m −1 , and FI can be valid metrics to monitor fatigue related to movement strategy during a standardized submaximal intermittent exercise protocol.