Resistance training produces an array of health benefits, as well as the potential to promote muscular adaptations of strength, size, power and endurance. The American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) regularly publish a position stand making recommendations for optimal achievement of the desired training goals. However, the most recent position stand (as well as previous ones) has come under heavy criticism for misrepresentation of research, lack of evidence and author bias. Therefore this paper proposes a set of scientifically rigorous resistance training guidelines, reviewing and summarising the relevant research for the purpose of proposing more logical, evidence-based training advice. We recommend that appreciably the same muscular strength and endurance adaptations can be attained by performing a single set of ~8-12 repetitions to momentary muscular failure, at a repetition duration that maintains muscular tension throughout the entire range of motion, for most major muscle groups once or twice each week. All resistance types (e.g. free-weights, resistance machines, bodyweight, etc.) show potential for increases in strength, with no significant difference between them, although resistance machines appear to pose a lower risk of injury. There is a lack of evidence to suggest that balance from free weights or use of unstable surfaces shows any transference to sporting improvement, and explosive movements are also not recommended as they present a high injury risk and no greater benefit than slow, controlled weight training. Finally, we consider genetic factors in relation to body type and growth potential.

ObjectivesWe examined the relation between global positioning system (GPS)-derived workloads and injury in English Premier League football players (n=33) over three seasons.MethodsWorkload and injury data were collected over three consecutive seasons. Cumulative (1-weekly, 2-weekly, 3-weekly and 4-weekly) loads in addition to acute:chronic workload ratios (ACWR) (acute workload (1-week workload)) divided by chronic workload (previous 4-week average acute workload) were classified into discrete ranges by z-scores. Relative risk (RR) for each range was then calculated between injured and non-injured players using specific GPS variables: total distance, low-intensity distance, high-speed running distance, sprint distance, accelerations and decelerations.ResultsThe greatest non-contact injury risk was when the chronic exposure to decelerations was low (<1731) and the ACWR was >2.0 (RR=6.7). Non-contact injury risk was also 5–6 times higher for accelerations and low-intensity distance when the chronic workloads were categorised as low and the ACWR was >2.0 (RR=5.4–6.6), compared with ACWRs below this. When all chronic workloads were included, an ACWR >2.0 was associated with a significant but lesser injury risk for the same metrics, plus total distance (RR=3.7–3.9).ConclusionsWe recommend that practitioners involved in planning training for performance and injury prevention monitor the ACWR, increase chronic exposure to load and avoid spikes that approach or exceed 2.0.

No abstract

The hypothesis of specific lumbar extensor deconditioning as being a causal factor in LBP is presently well supported. It is by no means the only causative factor and further research should more rigorously test this hypothesis addressing the methodological issues highlighted regarding previous studies. However, its role suggests specific exercise may be a worthwhile preventative and rehabilitative approach.

The results suggest that both FullROM and LimROM are equally effective in increasing full ROM lumbar extension strength and producing clinically meaningful improvement in perceived pain and disability.

AimTo describe and characterise anthropometrical and fitness changes following a 12-week walking football programme in individuals over the age of 50 years.MethodsFollowing ethical approval, 10 male participants (mean (SD): age 66 (7) years) with a range of comorbidities completed a 12-week walking football programme, consisting of a single 2 h training session each week. Body mass, fat mass, fat free mass, maximal oxygen consumption, maximal heart rate, exercise time to exhaustion and isometric hand-grip strength, were assessed at baseline and immediately following the intervention. Week-0–12 intervention differences were determined using means (95% CIs) and t tests; effect sizes were calculated using Cohen's d (0.2 small, 0.5 medium, 0.8 large).Results12 weeks walking football significantly reduced body fat mass (week 0, 27.4 (9.0) kg versus week 12, 24.4 (8.9) kg, p=<0.05, d=1.0) and reduced percentage body fat (week 0, 30.3 (8.2) % versus week 12, 27.5 (8.5) %, p=<0.05, d=1.0). A significant increase in time to volitional exhaustion during increamental exercise (week 0, 545 (102) s versus week 12, 603 (102) s, p=<0.05, d=0.7) was observed without any change in peak blood lactate. Non-significant differences with medium effect sizes were seen for a reduction whole body mass, increase in lean body mass and a reduction in body mass index.ConclusionsThis investigation suggests the potential efficacy of walking football as a public health intervention, even in populations presenting a range of comorbidities, with future research investigating its move to scale.

Objective: To consider the efficacy of 10 weeks of Romanian deadlift (DL) training in increasing lumbar extension strength compared to isolated lumbar extension (LUMX) training. Design: Comparison of pre-and post-test data for Romanian deadlift 1RM, and lumbar extension torque between and within groups. Participants: Male trained subjects (n ¼ 36; ðx AE SDÞ 24.9 AE 6.5 years; 178.5 AE 5.2 cm; 81.6 AE 10.0 kg). Main outcome measures: Pre-and post-testing included a Romanian deadlift 1RM and isometric strength tests every 12 through full range of motion on the MedX lumbar extension machine (MedX, Ocala, FL). Results: Repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Bonferroni adjustments revealed that 1RM Romanian deadlift significantly increased from pre-to post-test in the DL group (p < 0.008; 143.3 AE 23.4 kg to 166.3 AE 21.9 kg) and the LUMX group (p < 0.008; 135.8 AE 23.1 kg to 146.0 AE 25.5 kg). In contrast, tested functional torque (TFT) significantly increased at 6 out of 7 joint angles (p < 0.008) for the LUMX group only. The control group showed no significant differences pre-to post-test. Conclusions: These data suggest that the Romanian deadlift does not enhance lumbar extension torque. However, performing specific isolated lumbar extension training appears to improve both lumbar extension torque and Romanian deadlift 1RM.

CLBP is the leading cause of absenteeism from the workplace. The present study using a modified randomised control trial design investigated exercise training frequency for participants with CLBP. One lumbar extension training session per week is sufficient for strength gains and reductions in low back pain in CLBP patients.