Cronin, J, Lawton, T, Harris, N, Kilding, A, and McMaster, DT. A brief review of handgrip strength and sport performance. J Strength Cond Res 31(11): 3187-3217, 2017-Tests of handgrip strength (HGS) and handgrip force (HGF) are commonly used across a number of sporting populations. Measures of HGS and HGF have also been used by practitioners and researchers to evaluate links with sports performance. This article first evaluates the validity and reliability of various handgrip dynamometers (HGD) and HGF sensors, providing recommendations for procedures to ensure that precise and reliable data are collected as part of an athlete's testing battery. Second, the differences in HGS between elite and subelite athletes and the relationships between HGS, HGF, and sports performance are discussed.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the importance of training leading to repetition failure in the performance of 2 different tests: 6 repetition maximum (6RM) bench press strength and 40-kg bench throw power in elite junior athletes. Subjects were 26 elite junior male basketball players (n = 12; age = 18.6 +/- 0.3 years; height = 202.0 +/- 11.6 cm; mass = 97.0 +/- 12.9 kg; mean +/- SD) and soccer players (n = 14; age = 17.4 +/- 0.5 years; height = 179.0 +/- 7.0 cm; mass = 75.0 +/- 7.1 kg) with a history of greater than 6 months' strength training. Subjects were initially tested twice for 6RM bench press mass and 40-kg Smith machine bench throw power output (in watts) to establish retest reliability. Subjects then undertook bench press training with 3 sessions per week for 6 weeks, using equal volume programs (24 repetitions x 80-105% 6RM in 13 minutes 20 seconds). Subjects were assigned to one of two experimental groups designed either to elicit repetition failure with 4 sets of 6 repetitions every 260 seconds (RF(4 x 6)) or allow all repetitions to be completed with 8 sets of 3 repetitions every 113 seconds (NF(8 x 3)). The RF(4 x 6) treatment elicited substantial increases in strength (7.3 +/- 2.4 kg, +9.5%, p < 0.001) and power (40.8 +/- 24.1 W, +10.6%, p < 0.001), while the NF(8 x 3) group elicited 3.6 +/- 3.0 kg (+5.0%, p < 0.005) and 25 +/- 19.0 W increases (+6.8%, p < 0.001). The improvements in the RF(4 x 6) group were greater than those in the repetition rest group for both strength (p < 0.005) and power (p < 0.05). Bench press training that leads to repetition failure induces greater strength gains than nonfailure training in the bench press exercise for elite junior team sport athletes.

In the quest to maximize average propulsive stroke impulses over 2000-m racing, testing and training of various strength parameters have been incorporated into the physical conditioning plans of rowers. Thus, the purpose of this review was 2-fold: to identify strength tests that were reliable and valid correlates (predictors) of rowing performance; and, to establish the benefits gained when strength training was integrated into the physical preparation plans of rowers. The reliability of maximal strength and power tests involving leg extension (e.g. leg pressing) and arm pulling (e.g. prone bench pull) was high (intra-class correlations 0.82-0.99), revealing that elite rowers were significantly stronger than their less competitive peers. The greater strength of elite rowers was in part attributed to the correlation between strength and greater lean body mass (r = 0.57-0.63). Dynamic lower body strength tests that determined the maximal external load for a one-repetition maximum (1RM) leg press (kg), isokinetic leg extension peak force (N) or leg press peak power (W) proved to be moderately to strongly associated with 2000-m ergometer times (r = -0.54 to -0.68; p < 0.05). Repetition tests that assess muscular or strength endurance by quantifying the number of repetitions accrued at a fixed percentage of the strength maximum (e.g. 50-70% 1RM leg press) or set absolute load (e.g. 40 kg prone bench pulls) were less reliable and more time consuming when compared with briefer maximal strength tests. Only leg press repetition tests were correlated with 2000-m ergometer times (e.g. r = -0.67; p < 0.05). However, these tests differentiate training experience and muscle morphology, in that those individuals with greater training experience and/or proportions of slow twitch fibres performed more repetitions. Muscle balance ratios derived from strength data (e.g. hamstring-quadriceps ratio <45% or knee extensor-elbow flexor ratio around 4.2 ± 0.22 to 1) appeared useful in the pathological assessment of low back pain or rib injury history associated with rowing. While strength partially explained variances in 2000-m ergometer performance, concurrent endurance training may be counterproductive to strength development over the shorter term (i.e. <12 weeks). Therefore, prioritization of strength training within the sequence of training units should be considered, particularly over the non-competition phase (e.g. 2-6 sets × 4-12 repetitions, three sessions a week). Maximal strength was sustained when infrequent (e.g. one or two sessions a week) but intense (e.g. 73-79% of maximum) strength training units were scheduled; however, it was unclear whether training adaptations should emphasize maximal strength, endurance or power in order to enhance performance during the competition phase. Additionally, specific on-water strength training practices such as towing ropes had not been reported. Further research should examine the on-water benefits associated with various strength training protocols, in the context of the training phase,...

No abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine the change in weight training repetition power output as a consequence of interrepetition rest intervals. Twenty-six elite junior male basketball and soccer players performed bench presses using a 6 repetition maximum (6RM) load. The power output for each repetition was recorded using a linear encoder sampling each 10 ms (100 Hz). Subjects were assigned to 1 of 3 intervention groups, differentiated by the arrangement of rest intervals within the 6 repetitions: 6 x 1 repetition with 20-second rest periods between each repetition (Singles); 3 x 2 repetitions with 50 seconds between each pair of repetitions (Doubles); or 2 x 3 repetitions with 100 seconds of rest between each 3 repetitions (Triples). A timer was used to ensure that the rest interval and duration to complete all interrepetition interventions was equated across groups (118 seconds). Significantly (p < 0.05) greater repetition power outputs (25-49%) were observed in the later repetitions (4-6) of the Singles, Doubles, and Triples loading schemes. Significantly greater total power output (21.6-25.1%) was observed for all interrepetition rest interventions when compared to traditional continuous 6RM total power output. No significant between-group differences were found (p = 0.96). We conclude that utilizing interrepetition rest intervals enables greater repetition and total power output in comparison to traditional loading parameters.

No abstract

Knowledge of the relationship between weight room exercises and various rowing performance measures is limited; this information would prove useful for sport-specific assessment of individual needs and exercise prescription. The purpose of this study was to establish strength, power, and muscular endurance exercises for weight room training, which are strong determinants of success in specific performance measures used to assess elite rowers. Nineteen heavyweight elite males determined their repetition maximum (RM) loads for exercises using a Concept 2 DYNO [5, 30, 60 and 120RM leg pressing and seated arm pulling (in Joules)] and free weights [1RM power clean (in kilograms) and 6RM bench pull (in kilograms and watts)]. Rowing performance measures included a 7-stage blood lactate response ergometer test (aerobic condition), time trials (500, 2000, and 5000 m), a peak stroke power test, and a 60-minute distance trial. Pearson correlation moments (r ≥ 0.7) and stepwise multiple linear regression calculations (R ≥ 50%) were used to establish strong common variances between weight room exercises and rowing ergometer performance (p ≤ 0.05). Weight room exercises were strong predictors of 2000-m, 500-m time (in seconds), and peak stroke power performance measures only. Bench pull power (in watts) and 1RM power clean (in kilograms) were the best 2-factor predictors of peak stroke power (R = 73%; standard error of the estimates [SEE] = 59.6 W) and 500 m (R = 70%; SEE = 1.75 seconds); while 5RM leg pressing (in Joules) and either 6RM bench pull (kg) or 60RM seated arm pulling (in Joules) the best predictors of 2000 m (R = 59%; SEE = 6.3 seconds and R = 57%; SEE = 6.4 seconds, respectively). Recommended exercises for weight room training include a 1RM power clean, 6RM bench pull, 5RM leg press, and 60RM seated arm pulling.

Some research suggests that strength improvements are greater when resistance training continues to the point at which the individual cannot perform additional repetitions (i.e., repetition failure). Performing additional forced repetitions after the point of repetition failure and thus further increasing the set volume is a common resistance training practice. However, whether short-term use of this practice increases the magnitude of strength development with resistance training is unknown and was investigated here. Twelve basketball and 10 volleyball players trained 3 sessions per week for 6 weeks, completing either 4 x 6, 8 x 3, or 12 x 3 (sets x repetitions) of bench press per training session. Compared with the 8 x 3 group, the 4 x 6 protocol involved a longer work interval and the 12 x 3 protocol involved higher training volume, so each group was purposefully designed to elicit a different number of forced repetitions per training session. Subjects were tested on 3- and 6-repetition maximum (RM) bench press (81.5 +/- 9.8 and 75.9 +/- 9.0 kg, respectively, mean +/- SD), and 40-kg Smith Machine bench press throw power (589 +/- 100 W). The 4 x 6 and 12 x 3 groups had more forced repetitions per session (p < 0.01) than did the 8 x 3 group (4.1 +/- 2.6, 3.1 +/- 3.5, and 1.2 +/- 1.8 repetitions, respectively), whereas the 12 x 3 group performed approximately 40% greater work and had 30% greater concentric time. As expected, all groups improved 3RM (4.5 kg, 95% confidence limits, 3.1- 6.0), 6RM (4.7 kg, 3.1-6.3), bench press throw peak power (57 W, 22-92), and mean power (23 W, 4-42) (all p < or = 0.02). There were no significant differences in strength or power gains between groups. In conclusion, when repetition failure was reached, neither additional forced repetitions nor additional set volume further improved the magnitude of strength gains. This finding questions the efficacy of adding additional volume by use of forced repetitions in young athletes with moderate strength training experience.