Muscular activation, as well as neuromuscular fatigue, varies as a function of relative BFR intensity. Therefore, the individual determination of vascular restriction levels is crucial before engaging in BFR exercise.

Previous studies have reported no changes on muscle architecture (MA) after static stretching interventions; however, authors have argued that stretching duration and intensity may not have been sufficient. A high-intensity stretching intervention targeting the knee flexors with an 8-week duration was conducted to observe the effects on biceps femoris long head (BF) architecture. Participants (n = 5) performed an average of 3.1 assisted-stretching sessions per week, whereas a control group (n = 5) did not perform stretching. The knee extension passive maximal range of motion (ROM), and BF fascicle length (FL), fascicle angle, and muscle thickness were assessed before and after the intervention. A significant increase was observed for FL (+12.3 mm, p = 0.04) and maximal ROM (+14.2°, p = 0.04) for the stretching group after the intervention. No significant changes were observed for the control group in any parameter. An 8-week high-intensity stretching program was observed to efficiently increase the BF FL, as well as the knee extension maximal ROM. Stretching intensity and duration may play an important role on MA adaptation.

These results provide evidence that crucial architectural and mechanical muscle adaptations are dependent on the ROM used in strength training. It seems that muscle FL and specific tension can be increased by pure concentric training if greater ROM is used. Conversely, restricting the ROM to shorter muscle lengths promotes a greater PCSA and angle-specific strength adaptations.

Information regarding the effects of stretching intensity on the joint torque-angle response is scarce. The present study examined the effects of three static stretching protocols with different intensities and durations on the passive knee extension torque-angle response of seventeen male participants (age ± SD: 23.9 ± 3.6 years, height: 177.0 ± 7.2 cm, BMI: 22.47 ± 1.95 kg · m(2)). The stretching intensity was determined according to the maximal tolerable torque of the first repetition: fifty per cent (P50), seventy-five per cent (P75) and the maximum intensity without pain (P100). Five repetitions were performed for each protocol. The stretch duration of each repetition was 90, 135 and 180 s for P100, P75 and P50, respectively. The rest period between repetitions was 30 s. Passive torque at a given angle, angle, stress relaxation, area under the curve, surface electromyography activity and visual analogue scale score were compared. The significant (P < 0.05) results found were as follows: (i) the P50 and P75 did not increase the angle and passive peak torque outcomes, despite more time under stretch; (ii) only the P100 increased the angle and passive peak torque outcomes; (iii) the perception of stretching intensity mainly changed depending on knee angle changes, and not passive torque; (iv) the P50 induced a higher passive torque decrease; (v) when protocols were compared for the same time under stretch, the torque decrease was similar; (vi) the change in torque-angle curve shape was different depending on the stretching protocol. In conclusion, higher stretch duration seems to be a crucial factor for passive torque decrease and higher stretch intensity for maximum angle increase.

Purpose: This study aimed (1) to analyze the interindividual variability in the maximal number of repetitions (MNR) performed against a given relative load (percentage of 1-repetition maximum [%1RM]) and (2) to examine the relationship between the velocity loss (VL) magnitude and the percentage of completed repetitions with regard to the MNR (%Rep), when the %1RM is based on individual load–velocity relationships. Methods: Following an assessment of 1RM strength and individual load–velocity relationships, 14 resistance-trained men completed 5 MNR tests against loads of 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, and 90% 1RM in the Smith machine bench-press exercise. The relative loads were determined from the individual load–velocity relationship. Results: Individual relationships between load and velocity displayed coefficients of determination (R2) ranging from .986 to .998. The MNR showed an interindividual coefficient of variation ranging from 8.6% to 33.1%, increasing as the %1RM increased. The relationship between %Rep and the magnitude of VL showed a general R2 of .92 to .94 between 50% and 80% 1RM, which decreased to .80 for 90% 1RM. The mean individual R2 values were between .97 and .99 for all loading conditions. The %Rep when a given percentage of VL was reached showed interindividual coefficient of variation values ranging from 5% to 20%, decreasing as the %Rep increased in each load condition. Conclusions: Setting a number of repetitions had acceptable interindividual variability, with moderate relative loads being adjusted based on the individual load–velocity relationship. However, to provide a more homogeneous level of effort between athletes, the VL approach should be considered, mainly when using individual VL–%Rep relationships.