The present study examined the effects of a functional high-intensity suspension training (FunctionalHIIT) on resting blood pressure, psychological well-being as well as on upper body and core strength and cardiorespiratory fitness in moderately trained participants. Twenty healthy, moderately trained adults (10 males and 10 females; age: 36.2 ± 11.1 years, BMI: 23.9 ± 3.7) were randomly assigned to a FunctionalHIIT training group or passive control group (CON). FunctionalHIIT performed 16 sessions (2× week for eight weeks, 30 min per session), whereas CON maintained their habitual lifestyle using a physical activity log. Before and after FunctionalHIIT intervention, resting blood pressure and quality of life (short version of the WHO Quality of Life questionnaire (WHOQOL-BREF)) were assessed. Furthermore, maximum-repetition (leg press, chest press, pulldown, back extension) and trunk muscle strength (Bourban test) as well as cardiorespiratory fitness (Vameval test), were measured before and after the intervention. Both systolic and diastolic blood pressure and WHOQOL-BREF did not change significantly but both showed moderate training-induced effects (0.62 < standardized mean difference (SMD) < 0.82). Significant improvements in the FunctionalHIIT group were evident on leg press (p < 0.01), chest press (p < 0.05), and left side Bourban test (p < 0.05). Cardiorespiratory fitness did not reveal any time effects or time × group interactions. The present study revealed that eight weeks of FunctionalHIIT represents a potent stimulus to improve health-related parameters in young adults, whereas FunctionalHIIT was not sufficient to improve cardiorespiratory fitness.

The accurate assessment of the mean concentric barbell velocity (MCV) and its displacement are crucial aspects of resistance training. Therefore, the validity and reliability indicators of an easy-to-use inertial measurement unit (VmaxPro®) were examined. Nineteen trained males (23.1 ± 3.2 years, 1.78 ± 0.08 m, 75.8 ± 9.8 kg; Squat 1-Repetition maximum (1RM): 114.8 ± 24.5 kg) performed squats and hip thrusts (3–5 sets, 30 repetitions total, 75% 1RM) on two separate days. The MCV and displacement were simultaneously measured using VmaxPro® and a linear position transducer (Speed4Lift®). Good to excellent intraclass correlation coefficients (0.91 < ICC < 0.96) with a small systematic bias (p < 0.001; ηp2 < 0.50) for squats (0.01 ± 0.04 m·s−1) and hip thrusts (0.01 ± 0.05 m·s−1) and a low limit of agreement (LoA < 0.12 m·s−1) indicated an acceptable validity. The within- and between-day reliability of the MCV revealed good ICCs (0.55 < ICC < 0.91) and a low LoA (<0.16 m·s−1). Although the displacement revealed a systematic bias during squats (p < 0.001; ηp2 < 0.10; 3.4 ± 3.4 cm), no bias was detectable during hip thrusts (p = 0.784; ηp2 < 0.001; 0.3 ± 3.3 cm). The displacement showed moderate to good ICCs (0.43 to 0.95) but a high LoA (7.8 to 10.7 cm) for the validity and (within- and between-day) reliability of squats and hip thrusts. The VmaxPro® is considered to be a valid and reliable tool for the MCV assessment.

This network meta-analysis aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of different velocity-based (VBT) and traditional 1RM-based resistance training (TRT) interventions on strength and power indices in healthy participants. The research was conducted until December 2021 using the online electronic databases PubMed, Web of Science, PsycNet, and SPORTDiscus for studies with the following inclusion criteria: 1) controlled VBT trials, 2) strength and/or jump and/or sprint parameters as outcomes (c), participants aged between 18 and 40 years, and 4) peer-reviewed and published in English. Standardized mean differences (SMD) using a random effects models were calculated. Fourteen studies with 311 healthy participants were selected and 3 networks (strength, jump, and sprint) were achieved. VBT, TRT, repetitions in reserve (RIR), low velocity loss (lowVL), and high velocity loss (highVL) were ranked for each network. Based on P-score rankings, lowVL (P-score ≥ 0.59; SMD ≥ 0.33) and highVL (P-score ≥ 0.50; SMD ≥ 0.12) revealed favorable effects on strength, jump, and sprint performance compared to VBT (P-score ≤ 0.47; SMD ≤0.01), TRT (P-score ≤0.46; SMD ≤ 0.00), and RIR (P-score ≤ 0.46; SMD ≤ 0.12). In conclusion, lowVL and highVL showed notable effects on strength, jump, and sprint performance. In particular for jump performance, lowVL induced favorable improvements compared to all other resistance training approaches.

A long rowing stroke length is crucial for adequate rowing performance. Therefore, the relocation of the oar from traditional “in front” (NORM) to “behind the rotation axis” (GATE) may increase (para) rowing performance. Thus, 15 able-bodied rowers (21.4 ± 3.6 years; 187 ± 8 cm; 85.4 ± 8.2 kg) completed indoor TANK rowing 2 min TimeTrials (2 min-TT) of GATE and NORM in a randomized order. Additionally, one elite Paralympic oarsman (37 years, 185 cm, 67 kg) performed a multiple single case in-field BOAT testing (24x2min-TT of GATE and NORM in a randomized order). GATE revealed significantly larger catch angles during TANK (+97.1 ± 120.4%; p = 0.001, SMD = 0.84) and BOAT (+11.9 ± 3.2%; p &lt; 0.021; SMD = 2.69; Tau-U = 0.70) compared to NORM. While total stroke length, rowing power, and work per stroke increased in GATE during TANK (p &lt; 0.010, SMD &gt; 0.634), no such significant changes of these performance parameters between GATE and NORM were observed during BOAT (p &gt; 0.021; SMD &lt; 0.58; Tau-U &lt; 0.29). Rowing economy-related parameters (power or speed per oxygen uptake) and boat speed also showed no significant differences between GATE und NORM during BOAT (p &gt; 0.61; SMD &lt; 0.31; Tau-U &lt; 0.19). The shape of the force–angle curve (position of peak force and ratio between average and maximal force) remained unaffected from GATE during both TANK (p &gt; 0.73, SMD &lt; 0.1) and BOAT (p &gt; 0.63; SMD &lt; 0.60; Tau-U &lt; 0.27). In conclusion, GATE shifted the entire rowing stroke towards the catch (+6.6 ± 1.8°) without notably affecting relevant performance parameters during BOAT. Particularly during crew rowing, the minimization of detrimental boat movements for perfect synchrony should be aimed for. Accordingly, the combined application of GATE and NORM (for different athletes in crew boats) may be beneficial for rowing synchronization.

Peak oxygen uptake (VO 2 peak) and speed at first (LT1, minimal lactate equivalent) and second lactate threshold (LT2 = LT1 +1.5 mmol•L −1 ) are crucial swimming performance surrogates. The present randomized controlled study investigated the effects of blood flow restriction (BFR) during low-intensity swimming (LiT) on VO 2 peak, LT1, and LT2. Eighteen male swimmers (22.7 ±3.0 yrs; 69.9 ±8.5 kg; 1.8 ±0.1 m) were either assigned to the BFR or control (noBFR) group. While BFR was applied during LiT, noBFR completed the identical LIT without BFR application. BFR of the upper limb was applied via customized pneumatic cuffs (75% of occlusion pressure: 135 ±10 mmHg; 8 cm cuff width). BFR training took place three times a week over 5 weeks (accumulated weekly net BFR training: 60 min•week −1 ; occlusion per session: 2-times 10 min•session −1 ) and was used exclusively at low intensities. VO 2 peak, LT1, and LT2 diagnostics were employed. Bayesian credible intervals revealed notable VO 2 peak improvements by +0.29 L•min −1 kg −1 (95% credible interval: −0.26 to +0.85 L•min −1 kg −1 ) when comparing BFR vs. noBFR. Speed at LT1 −0.01 m•s −1 (−0.04 to +0.02 m•s −1 ) and LT2 −0.01 m•s −1 (−0.03 to +0.02 m•s −1 ) did not change meaningfully when BFR was employed. Fifteen sessions of LIT swimming (macrocycle of 5 h over 5 weeks) with a weekly volume of 60 min with BFR application adds additional impact on VO 2 peak improvement compared to noBFR LIT swimming. Occasional BFR applications should be considered as a promising means to improve relevant performance surrogates in trained swimmers. Highlights. Low-intensity swimming with blood flow restricted (BFR) induced superior peak oxygen consumption adaptations compared to non-restricted swimming training over a 5-week lasting training period . BFR and non-BFR swimming training-induced similar adaptations regarding swimming speed at first and second lactate threshold . In conclusion, BFR served as a feasible, promising and beneficial complementary training stimuli to traditional swimming training regarding oxygen consumption adaptations.