The purpose of this study was to investigate whether a six-week, twice weekly resistance training (4 sets at 30% 1-RM until failure) with practical blood flow restriction (BFR) using 7cm wide cuffs with a twist lock placed below the patella is superior to training without BFR (NoBFR) concerning muscle mass and strength gains in calf muscles. A two-group (BFR n = 12, mean age 27.33 (7.0) years, training experience 7.3 (7.0) years; NoBFR n = 9, mean age 28.9 (7.4) years, training experience 7.1 (6.6) years) randomized matched pair design based on initial 1-RM was used to assess the effects on structural and functional adaptations in healthy males (Perometer calf volume [CV], gastrocnemius muscle thickness using ultrasound [MT], 7-maximal hopping test for leg stiffness [LS], 1-RM smith machine calf raise [1-RM], and visual analogue scale as a measure of pain intensity [VAS]). The mean number of repetitions completed per training session across the intervention period was higher in the NoBFR group compared to the BFR group (70 (16) vs. 52 (9), p = 0.002). VAS measured during the first session increased similarly in both groups from first to fourth set (p<0.001). No group effects or time×group interactions were found for CV, MT, LS, and 1-RM. However, there were significant time effects for MT (BFR +0.07 cm; NoBFR +0.04; p = 0.008), and 1-RM (BFR +40 kg; NoBFR +34 kg; p<0.001). LS and CV remained unchanged through training. VAS in both groups were similar, and BFR and NoBFR were equally effective for increasing 1-RM and MT in trained males. However, BFR was more time efficient, due to lesser repetition per training session.
Purpose: Muscle mass, strength, and power are important factors for performance. To improve these characteristics, periodized resistance training is used. However, there is no consensus regarding the most effective periodization model. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare the effects of block (BLOCK) vs daily undulating periodization (DUP) on body composition, hypertrophy, strength, performance, and power in adolescent American football players. Methods: A total of 47 subjects participated in this study (mean [SD] age = 17 [0.8] y, strength training experience = 0.93 [0.99] y). Premeasurements and postmeasurements consisted of body mass (BM); fat mass; relative fat mass; fat-free mass (FFM); muscle mass (MM); muscle thickness of the vastus lateralis (VL), rectus femoris (RF), and triceps brachii (TB); 1-repetition-maximum back squat (BS) and bench press (BP); countermovement jump (CMJ); estimated peak power (Wpeak) from vertical jump performance; medicine-ball put (MBP); and 40-yd sprint. Subjects were randomly assigned in either the BLOCK or DUP group prior to the 12-wk intervention period consisting of 3 full-body sessions per week. Results: Both groups displayed significantly higher BM (P < .001), FFM (P < .001), MM (P < .001), RF (P < .001), VL (P < .001), TB (P < .001), BS (P < .001), BP (P < .001), CMJ (P < .001), Wpeak (P < .001), and MBP (P < .001) and significantly lower sprint times (P < .001) after 12 wk of resistance training, with no difference between groups. Conclusions: Resistance training was effective to increase muscle mass, strength, power, and performance in adolescent athletes. BLOCK and DUP affect anthropometric measures and physical performance equally.
The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of an 8‑week powerlifting-type bench press (BP) resistance training (RT) program, either without (RAW) or with using a supportive elastic bench press device (EBD) on one-repetition maximum (1-RM), body weight (BW), mid-upper arm and chest circumference, as well as visual analogue pain scale (VAS) of the shoulder, elbow, and wrist. For this purpose, a matched pair parallel design based on initial 1‑RM was used (BPD n = 16, age 24.4 ± 4 years, RT experience 3.75 ± 1.83 years; RAW n = 16, age 25 ± 2 years, RT experience 5.66 ± 3.00 years). Following two weeks of familiarization with the protocol , BP RT was carried out twice weekly. The EBD group completed more than half of their BP sets with elastic assistance and 10% higher training intensity than the RAW group. There was a significant time × group interaction in BW (p = 0.008). Post hoc analysis showed a significant loss of 0.92 kg in the EBD group (p = 0.049; effect size [ES] = −0.08; 95%CI [−1.80, 0.04]). A significant time effect for 1‑RM was observed (p < 0.001). In both groups there was a significant change in 1‑RM of 5.00 kg (p < 0.001; ES = 0.35; 95%CI [2.98, 7.02]). There was no significant change in any circumference or VAS measure. In conclusion, using an EBD leads to 1‑RM gains similar to conventional RAW BP training. However, more studies are required with highly trained individuals, in particular female athletes. Practitioners may implement EBD training for reasons of variation.
ZusammenfassungDer Abbau der Skelettmuskulatur steigt mit zunehmendem Alter und wird in der heutigen Gesellschaft aufgrund geringerer körperlicher Aktivität zusätzlich beschleunigt. Die Skelettmuskulatur ist vor allem für die Übertragung von Kräften und somit für unsere alltäglichen Bewegungen verantwortlich. Mit der Reduzierung der Muskelmasse wird die Durchführung von Alltagsbewegungen kontinuierlich erschwert, und die Lebensqualität kann dadurch deutlich sinken. Mit Kraft- bzw. Hypertrophietraining kann jedoch einer Muskelatrophie entgegengewirkt werden, indem Abbauprozesse verlangsamt werden und die Skelettmuskulatur wieder aufgebaut wird. Trainingsempfehlungen für ein Hypertrophietraining variieren jedoch erheblich. Dieser Artikel soll vor allem den aktuellen Forschungstand zusammenfassen und praxisrelevante Empfehlungen aussprechen.Der entscheidendste Aspekt beim Hypertrophietraining scheint lediglich das Setzen von regelmäßigen progressiven und erschöpfenden Belastungsreizen zu sein, die mindestens einen Wirkungsmechanismus aktivieren, der für hypertrophe Effekte verantwortlich ist. Vor allem die Variation der mechano-biologischen Deskriptoren (Trainingswiderstand, Anzahl Wiederholungen und Sätze, Pause etc.) könnte helfen, langfristig effektive Reize zu gestalten. Dabei kann nahezu auf unbegrenzte Kombinationsmöglichkeiten zurückgegriffen werden, welche jedoch dem Leistungsniveau und der Belastbarkeit der trainierenden Person sowie der Umsetzbarkeit im Alltag angepasst werden müssen. Nach dem Motto „viele Wege führen nach Rom“ gibt es dabei nicht nur eine konkrete Lösung bei der Planung und Durchführung eines Hypertrophietrainings. Es ist eher von essenzieller Bedeutung, dass kontinuierliche Belastungsreize in unterschiedlichen Variationen durchgeführt werden, um einen Hypertrophieeffekt zu erzeugen und folglich dem Abbau der Skelettmuskulatur entgegenzuwirken.
Gavanda, S, Isenmann, E, Geisler, S, Faigenbaum, A, and Zinner, C. The effects of high-intensity functional training compared with traditional strength or endurance training on physical performance in adolescents: a randomized controlled trial. J Strength Cond Res 36(3): 624-632, 2022-High-intensity functional training (HIFT) integrates different modes of exercise into training sessions performed at a relatively high intensity. Although HIFT is becoming more popular in youth strength and conditioning programs, research comparing the effects of HIFT with traditional forms of training, such as strength training (ST) or endurance training (ET) in younger populations are limited. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the effects of HIFT with those of ST and ET on strength and endurance performance in adolescents. Fifty-two untrained adolescents ( 5 26; 5 26; 17.3 6 1.0 years) were randomly assigned to a HIFT, ST, ET, or control group. The intervention groups trained twice a week for 6 weeks with a training duration of 60-75 minutes per session. Performance was assessed before and after the intervention with the countermovement jump (CMJ), 20-m sprint (20 m), 3-repetition maximum back squat (3RM), and Yo-Yo test.The HIFT group made significant improvements in all performance tests (CMJ, +28.5 6 27.6%; p . 0.001; 20-m time, 23.9 6 5.0%; p 5 0.002; 3RM, +34.3 6 23.3%; p . 0.001; Yo-Yo, +14.5 6 15.2%; p 5 0.003), whereas the ST group improved in CMJ (+38.3 6 27.7%; p . 0.001), 3RM (+22.2 6 11.2%; p . 0.001), and Yo-Yo (+12.2 6 21.4%; p 5 0.013) and the ET group improved in CMJ (+23.4 6 29.9%; p 5 0.001), 20-m time (25.2 6 4.6%; p . 0.001), and Yo-Yo (+30.7 6 37.3%; p . 0.001). No significant differences between the groups were evident when the results were compared for sex. These results indicate that HIFT is an effective training method for eliciting multifaceted improvements in strength, power, and endurance measures as compared with ET or ST alone in untrained adolescents.
ZusammenfassungCrossFit® (CF) bedient sich ständig variierender funktioneller Bewegungen in sogenannten „Workouts of the Day“ (WOD), die oft unter Zeitdruck ausgeführt werden. CF wird daher oft kritisiert, da es möglicherweise ein hohes Verletzungsrisiko birgt. Es existieren Studien zu Verletzungshäufigkeiten beim CF aus den USA, den Niederlanden und Brasilien. Vergleichbare Untersuchungen liegen aus Deutschland bislang nicht vor. Daher war das Ziel der vorliegenden Studie mit Hilfe einer Befragung retrospektiv Verletzungen und Überlastungssyndrome im CF zu analysieren.Anhand eines Online-Fragebogens mit 32 Fragen wurden demografische Merkmale sowie Informationen zum absolvierten Training, der Verletzungshäufigkeit, Körperregion und Verletzungsursache der letzten 12 Monate erfasst. Nur Athletinnen und Athleten, die in einer zertifizierten CF Box trainierten, wurden bei der Auswertung berücksichtigt (n = 577, 32,5 ± 8,2 Jahre; Altersspanne 16-61 Jahre). 53 % der Befragten waren weiblich und 47 % waren männlich. Die meisten Athletinnen und Athleten (90 %) wurden als Fortgeschrittene eingestuft (> 6 Monate CF Trainingserfahrung) und 10 % als Anfänger (≤ 6 Monate CF Trainingserfahrung). Fortgeschrittene trainierten signifikant häufiger als Anfänger (3,7 ± 1,3 vs. 2,8 ± 1,3 Trainingseinheiten / Woche; p < 0,001). Die Hälfte der Befragten erlitt in den letzten 12 Monaten mindestens eine Verletzung, bei 12 % traten zwei und bei 3 % mehr als drei Verletzungen in diesem Zeitraum auf. Es wurden keine signifikanten Unterschiede in der Verletzungshäufigkeit zwischen Männern und Frauen gefunden (p = 0,78), jedoch erlitten Fortgeschrittene signifikant mehr Verletzungen als Anfänger (0,7 ± 0,8 vs. 0,4 ± 0,6, p = 0,002). Die meisten Verletzungen traten während des WOD auf (48 %), gefolgt von Langhanteltraining (21 %). Die am häufigsten betroffenen Stellen waren die Schulter (23 %), der untere Rücken (18 %) und das Knie (10 %).Anhand der vorliegenden Ergebnisse wird vermutet, dass eine höhere Trainingshäufigkeit ein möglicher Faktor darstellt, welcher Verletzungen begünstigt. Daher sollte das Verhältnis der Belastung und der Regeneration in der Praxis individualisiert Berücksichtigung finden. Außerdem sollten auf eine korrekte Übungsausführung auch unter Zeitdruck geachtet und präventive Übungen für die häufig betroffenen Körperregionen (Schulter, Rücken, Knie) in den Trainingsprozess integriert werden, um das Verletzungsrisiko zu reduzieren.
Background Athletes may benefit from isokinetic training (IK) to improve strength and jump performance. However, previous studies comparing IK methods to isotonic resistance training (IT) have utilized high-repetition protocols and a Dynamometer, which are usually reserved for laboratory testing or rehabilitation settings.Methods This study compared the effects of IK and IT using ≤ 6 repetitions on strength and jump performance in 50 male, team-sport athletes (ages 18–35) during COVID-19 lockdown using the commercially-available TechnoGym BioCircuit Dynamometer. With statistical significance set to p < 0.05, this 4-group randomized parallel study assessed the effects of an 8-week isokinetic at 80°/s (IK80; n = 16) and 25°/s (IK25; n = 12) or isotonic training program (IT; n = 15) compared to a control group (CG; n = 7) on anthropometric measurements, peak torque at 80°/s (PT80) and 25°/s (PT25), one-repetition maximum (1-RM) leg extension, and countermovement (CMJ) and squat jump height.Results BM, FFM, FM, and TC were not different between groups post intervention. Strength increased in IT (PT80: p = 0.006; PT25: p = 0.023; 1-RM: p = 0.001), IK80 (PT80: p = 0.004; PT25: p = 0.021; 1-RM: p = 0.009), and IK25 (PT80: p = 0.042; PT25: p = 0.048; 1-RM: p = 0.009) compared to CG, with no difference between intervention groups (p = 1.000). SJ increased in all intervention groups (IT: +1.5cm, p = 0.036; IK80: +2.7cm, p < 0.001; IK25: +1.9cm, p = 0.021) compared to the CG (CG-IT: p = 0.005; CG-IK80: p = 0.009; CG-IK25: p = 0.004), with difference between groups (all p = 1.000). CMJ improved only in IT (+ 1.4cm, p = 0.035) and IK80 (+ 2.7cm, p < 0.001) with no difference between groups (p = 1.000).Conclusions Low-repetition IK and IT can be effectively used to improve strength and jump performance. However, the efficacy of IK on CMJ depends on training velocity and repetition count, with higher velocity training protocols (80°/s) being more effective for jump performance and lower speeds potentially more useful for improving maximal strength (25°/s).
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
334 Leonard St
Brooklyn, NY 11211
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.