Background: Effective hypertrophy-oriented resistance training (RT) should comprise a combination of mechanical tension and metabolic stress. Regarding training variables, the most effective values are widely described in the literature. However, there is still a lack of consensus regarding the efficiency of advanced RT techniques and methods in comparison to traditional approaches. Methods: MEDLINE and SPORTDiscus databases were searched from 1996 to September 2019 for all studies investigating the effects of advanced RT techniques and methods on muscle hypertrophy and training variables. Thirty articles met the inclusion criteria and were consequently included for the quality assessment and data extraction. Results: Concerning the time-efficiency of training, the use of agonist–antagonist, upper–lower body supersets, drop and cluster sets, sarcoplasma stimulating training, employment of fast, but controlled duration of eccentric contractions (~2s), and high-load RT supplemented with low-load RT under blood flow restriction may provide an additional stimulus and an advantage to traditional training protocols. With regard to the higher degree of mechanical tension, the use of accentuated eccentric loading in RT should be considered. Implementation of drop sets, sarcoplasma stimulating training, low-load RT in conjunction with low-load RT under blood flow restriction could provide time-efficient solutions to increased metabolic stress. Conclusions: Due to insufficient evidence, it is difficult to provide specific guidelines for volume, intensity of effort, and frequency of previously mentioned RT techniques and methods. However, well-trained athletes may integrate advanced RT techniques and methods into their routines as an additional stimulus to break through plateaus and to prevent training monotony.

Volume and intensity of exercise are the basic components of training loads, having a direct impact on adaptive patterns. Exercise volume during resistance training has been conventionally evaluated as a total number of repetitions performed in each set, regardless of the time and speed of performing individual exercises. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of varied tempos i.e. regular (REG) 2/0/2/0, medium (MED) 5/0/3/0 and slow (SLO) 6/0/4/0 during resistance exercise on training volume, based on the total number of performed repetitions (REPsum1-5) and time under tension (TUTsum1-5). Significant differences in TUT (s) were found in particular sets for each tempo of 2/0/2/0, 5/0/3/0 and 6/0/4/0 (p < 0.001). The ANOVA also revealed substantial differences in the REP for individual sets (p < 0.001). Post-hoc analyses showed that TUT for each set and total TUTsum1-5 were significantly higher in the 5/0/3/0 and 6/0/4/0 tempos compared to 2/0/2/0 (p < 0.001). REP was significantly higher for the 2/0/2/0 tempo compared to 5/0/3/0 and 6/0/4/0 tempo in each set. Total REPsum1-5, TUTsum1-5 between 5/0/3/0 and 6/0/4/0 tempos were not significantly different. The main finding of this study is that the movement tempo in strength training impacts training volume, both in terms of repetitions and total time under tension.

Background: The main goal of this study was to assess the acute effects of the intake of 9 and 11 mg/kg/ body mass (b.m.) of caffeine (CAF) on maximal strength and muscle endurance in athletes habituated to caffeine. Methods: The study included 16 healthy strength-trained male athletes (age = 24.2 ± 4.2 years, body mass = 79.5 ± 8.5 kg, body mass index (BMI) = 24.5 ± 1.9, bench press 1RM = 118.3 ± 14.5 kg). All participants were habitual caffeine consumers (4.9 ± 1.1 mg/kg/b.m., 411 ± 136 mg of caffeine per day). This study had a randomized, crossover, double-blind design, where each participant performed three experimental sessions after ingesting either a placebo (PLAC) or 9 mg/kg/b.m. (CAF-9) and 11 mg/kg/b.m. (CAF-11) of caffeine. In each experimental session, participants underwent a 1RM strength test and a muscle endurance test in the bench press exercise at 50% 1RM while power output and bar velocity were measured in each test. Results: A one-way repeated measures ANOVA revealed a significant difference between PLAC, CAF-9, and CAF-11 groups in peak velocity (PV) (p = 0.04). Post-hoc tests showed a significant decrease for PV (p = 0.04) in the CAF-11 compared to the PLAC group. No other changes were found in the 1RM or muscle endurance tests with the ingestion of caffeine. Conclusion: The results of the present study indicate that high acute doses of CAF (9 and 11 mg/kg/b.m.) did not improve muscle strength nor muscle endurance in athletes habituated to this substance.

Wilk, M, Krzysztofik, M, Filip, A, Zajac, A, Bogdanis, GC, and Lockie, RG. Short-term blood flow restriction increases power output and bar velocity during the bench press. J Strength Cond Res 36(8): 2082–2088, 2022—This study examined the effect of blood flow restriction (BFR) with 2 different types of cuffs on peak power output (PP), mean power output (MP), peak bar velocity (PV), and mean bar velocity (MV) in the bench press exercise (BP). Fourteen healthy strength-trained male athletes (age = 27.6 ± 3.5 years; body mass = 84.1 ± 8.0 kg; height = 175.8 ± 6.7 cm; BP 1 repetition maximum [RM] = 138.6 ± 17.8 kg) performed 3 different testing protocols as follows: without BFR (NO-BFR), BFR with a narrow cuff (BFRNARROW), and BFR with a wide cuff (BFRWIDE) in a randomized crossover design. During all sessions, subjects performed one set of 3 repetitions of the BP exercise using 70% 1RM. Cuff pressure was set to approximately 90% full arterial occlusion pressure of the upper limb at rest. Analyses of variance showed an increase in PP (by 21%, p < 0.01; effect size [ES] = 1.67), MP (by 16%, p < 0.01; ES = 0.93), PV (by 22%, p < 0.01; ES = 1.79), and MV (by 21%, p < 0.01; ES = 1.36) during BFRWIDE compared with NO-BFR and a significant increase in PP (by 15%, p < 0.01; ES = 1.07), MP (by 17%, p < 0.01; ES = 0.78), PV (by 18%, p < 0.01; ES = 1.65), and MV (by 13% p < 0.01; ES = 1.00) during BFRWIDE compared with BFRNARROW. There were no significant differences in any of the variable between NO-BFR and BFRNARROW. The results of the study indicate that short-term BFR training increases power output and bar velocity during the BP exercise. However, only BFRWIDE significantly influenced bar velocity and power output, which indicates that the width of the cuff is a critical factor determining acute exercise adaptation during BFR resistance training.

Background: The main objective of the current investigation was to evaluate the effects of caffeine on power output and bar velocity during an explosive bench press throw in athletes habituated to caffeine. Methods: Twelve resistance trained individuals habituated to caffeine ingestion participated in a randomized double-blind experimental design. Each participant performed three identical experimental sessions 60 min after the intake of a placebo, 3, and 6 mg/kg/b.m. of caffeine. In each experimental session, the participants performed 5 sets of 2 repetitions of the bench press throw (with a load equivalent to 30% repetition maximum (RM), measured in a familiarization trial) on a Smith machine, while bar velocity and power output were registered with a rotatory encoder. Results: In comparison to the placebo, the intake of caffeine increased mean bar velocity during 5 sets of the bench press throw (1.37 ± 0.05 vs. 1.41 ± 0.05 and 1.41 ± 0.06 m/s for placebo, 3, and 6 mg/kg/b.m., respectively; p < 0.01), as well as mean power output (545 ± 117 vs. 562 ± 118 and 560 ± 107 W; p < 0.01). However, caffeine was not effective at increasing peak velocity (p = 0.09) nor peak power output (p = 0.07) during the explosive exercise. Conclusion: The acute doses of caffeine before resistance exercise may increase mean power output and mean bar velocity during the bench press throw training session in a group of habitual caffeine users. Thus, caffeine prior to ballistic exercises enhances performance during a power-specific resistance training session.

Different tempos of movement can be used during resistance training, but programming them is often a trial-and-error practice, as changing the speed at which the exercise is performed does not always correspond with the tempo at which the 1-repetition-maximum occurred. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine the effect of different movement tempos during the bench press (BP) exercise on the one-repetition maximum (1RM) load. Ninety men (age = 25.8 ± 5.3 years, body mass = 80.2 ± 14.9 kg), with a minimum one year of resistance training experience took part in the study. Using a randomized crossover design, each participant completed the BP 1RM test with five different movement tempos: V/0/V/0, 2/0/V/0, 5/0/V/0, 8/0/V/0 and 10/0/V/0. Repeated measures ANOVA compared the differences between the 1RM at each tempo. The 1RM load was significantly greater during V/0/V/0 and 2/0/V/0 compared to 5/0/V/0, 8/0/V/0, and 10/0/V/0 (p < 0.01). Furthermore, the 1RM load was significantly greater during 5/0/V/0 compared to 8/0/V/0 and 10/0/V/0 (p < 0.01), but there were no differences between either V/0/V/0 and 2/0/V/0 (p = 0.92) or between 8/0/V/0 and 10/0/V/0 (p = 0.08). Therefore, different movement tempos used during training should be accompanied by their own tempo-specific 1RM testing, as slower eccentric phases significantly decrease maximal concentric performance. Furthermore, 1RM test procedures should include information about the movement tempo used during the test protocol. In addition, the standardization of the tempo should be taken into account in investigations that use the 1 RM test to assess the effects of any treatment on maximal muscle strength.

The aim of the study was to determine the effect of the wide-grip bench press (WGBP) and the close-grip bench press (CGBP) on the number of performed repetitions (REPs) and time under tension (TUT) using a variable tempo of movement. Twenty (20) women experienced in resistance training were enrolled in the study (1RM-CGBP = 55.2 ± 9.5 kg; 1RM-WGBP = 52.7 ± 8.5 kg). Participants performed 5 sets of the BP with a maximal number of REPs at 70%1RM. Different tempos of movement, i.e., slow (6/0/X/0) and fast (2/0/X/0), and grip widths, i.e., the CGBP and the WGBP, were employed. The following variables were registered: maximal number of repetitions in every set (REPSet1-5), total number of repetitions performed in 5 sets (TREP), maximal time under tension in every set (TUTSet1-5) and total time under tension in 5 sets (TTUT). The two-way ANOVA revealed statistically significant differences between the WGBPFAST and the WGBPSLOW in TUTSet1-5 (p < 0.05) and TTUT (p < 0.01), as well as between the CGBPFAST and the CGBPSLOW in TUTSet1-5 (p < 0.01) and TTUT (p < 0.01). Significant differences between the WGBPFAST and the WGBPSLOW were also observed in REPSet1-5 (p < 0.01) and TREP (p < 0.01) as well as between the CGBPFAST and the CGBPSLOW in REPSet1-5 (p < 0.01) and TREP (p < 0.01). No significant differences between the WGBPSLOW and the CGBPSLOW nor the WGBPFAST and the CGBPFAST were found. The study demonstrates that the tempo of movement, regardless of the width grip, has a significant effect on the volume of effort in resistance training.

The main goal of the present study was to evaluate the acute effects external compression with blood flow restriction (BFR) at 100 and 150% of full arterial occlusion pressure (AOP) on maximal strength and strength-endurance performance during the bench press (BP) exercise. The study included 12 strength-trained male subjects (age = 23.2 ± 2.66 years; body mass = 75.3 ± 6.33 kg; height = 179.1 ± 3.82 cm), experienced in resistance training (5.7 ± 2.93 years). During the experimental sessions in a randomized crossover design, the subjects performed a 1 repetition maximum (1RM) test and three sets of the BP using 60% 1RM to failure with three different conditions: without BFR (NO-BFR); BFR with a pressure of 100% AOP (BFR 100 ); and BFR with a pressure of 150% AOP (BFR 150 ). The differences between the NO-BFR, BFR 100 , and BFR 150 conditions were examined using repeated measures ANOVA. The ANOVA indicated significant main effect for condition in 1RM, number of performed repetitions (REP), and time under tension (TUT) (p < 0.01). Post hoc analyses for the main effect indicated significant increases in 1RM (p < 0.01; 95.00 ± 15.37 vs 91.87 ± 15.99), REP (p < 0.01; 17.56 ± 3.36 vs 15.67 ± 5.24), and TUT (p < 0.01; 32.89 ± 6.40 vs 28.72 ± 6.18) for the BFR 150 condition compared to NO-BFR. Furthermore, significant increases in REP (p = 0.03; 17.56 ± 3.36 vs 16.47 ± 4.01) and TUT (p = 0.03; 32.89 ± 6.40 vs 30.00 ± 6.45) were observed for the BFR 150 condition compared to the BFR 100 . The results of the present study indicate that high external compression increases maximal strength evaluated by the 1RM test, as well as endurance performance during three sets of the BP exercise.