The present study investigated the effects of different intensities of resistance training (RT) on elbow flexion and leg press one-repetition maximum (1RM) and muscle cross-sectional area (CSA). Thirty men volunteered to participate in an RT programme, performed twice a week for 12 weeks. The study employed a within-subject design, in which one leg and arm trained at 20% 1RM (G20) and the contralateral limb was randomly assigned to one of the three conditions: 40% (G40); 60% (G60), and 80% 1RM (G80). The G20 started RT session with three sets to failure. After G20 training, the number of sets was adjusted for the other contralateral limb conditions with volume-matched. CSA and 1RM were assessed at pre, post-6 weeks, and post-12 weeks. There was time effect for CSA for the vastus lateralis (VL) (8.9%, 20.5%, 20.4%, and 19.5%) and elbow flexors (EF) (11.4%, 25.3%, 25.1%, and 25%) in G20, G40, G60, and G80, respectively (p > .05). G80 showed higher CSA than G20 for VL (19.5% vs. 8.9%) and EF (25% vs. 11.4%) at post-12 weeks (p < .05). There was time effect for elbow flexion and unilateral leg press strength for all groups post-12 weeks (p < .05). However, the magnitude of increase was higher in G60 and G80. In conclusion, when low to high intensities of RT are performed with volume-matched, all intensities were effective for increasing muscle strength and size; however, 20% 1RM was suboptimal in this regard, and only the heavier RT intensity (80% 1RM) was shown superior for increasing strength and CSA compared to low intensities.

Resisted sprint training consists of performing overloaded sprints, which may produce greater effects than traditional sprint training. We compared a resisted sprint training with overload control versus an unresisted sprint training program on performance in soccer players. Eighteen elite athletes were randomly assigned to resisted (RST) or unresisted sprint training protocol (UR). Before and after a 6-week training period, sprinting ability, change of direction speed (COD), vertical jumps (SJ and CMJ), mean power (MP) and mean propulsive power (MPP) at distinct loads were assessed. Both groups improved sprinting ability at all distances evaluated (5m: UR = 8%, RST = 7%; 10m: UR = 5%, RST = 5%; 15m: UR = 4%, RST = 4%; 20m: UR = 3%, RST = 3%; 25m: UR = 2%, RST = 3%;), COD (UR = 6%; RST = 6%), SJ (UR = 15%; RST = 13%) and CMJ (UR = 15%; RST = 15%). Additionally, both groups increased MP and MPP at all loads evaluated. The between-group magnitude-based inference analysis demonstrated comparable improvement ("trivial" effect) in all variables tested. Finally, our findings support the effectiveness of a short-term training program involving squat jump exercise plus sprinting exercises to improve the performance of soccer players.

Introduction: We investigated differences in metabolic stress (lactate) and muscle activation (electromyography; EMG) when high-load resistance exercise (HL) is compared with a condition in which blood flow restriction (BFR) is applied during the exercise or during the rest interval. Methods: Twelve participants performed HL with BFR during the intervals (BFR-I), during the set (BFR-S), and without BFR. Each condition consisted of 3 sets of 8 repetitions with knee extension at 70% of 1-repetition maximum. Lactate and root mean square (RMS) from the surface EMG of the vastus lateralis were calculated. Results: Lactate increased in all protocols but was higher with BFR-I than with BFR-S and HL. RMS decreased under all conditions, with a larger effect size in BFR-I (1.47) than in BFR-S (0.66) and HL (0.59). Discussion: BFR-I increases lactate, possibly as a result of reduced restoration of ATP. Muscle activation seems to be impacted by mechanical stress but may be reduced by metabolic stress. Muscle Nerve 57: 107-111, 2018The American College of Sports Medicine recommends that participants perform resistance exercise with a load of at least 70% of their 1-repetition maximum (1RM) to stimulate substantial gains in muscle mass and strength.1 However, over the past decade, several studies have found that low-load resistance exercise (e.g., 20%-40% of 1RM) in combination with blood flow restriction (BFR) results in muscle mass gain similar to that obtained with traditional high-load resistance exercise (HL; $70% 1RM). 2-7The benefits of low-load resistance exercise combined with BFR are thought to be driven by acute metabolic stress, whereas HL is driven predominantly by mechanical factors.8 It is conceivable that the combination of high levels of both mechanical and metabolic stress could work together to augment muscle growth. Therefore, it seems reasonable to speculate on the importance of keeping both mechanical and metabolic stress elevated.Given that restricting blood flow increases metabolic stress during low-load resistance training 9,10 and that muscle contraction against high loads restricts blood flow while performing the set, [11][12][13] one possible strategy to increase metabolic stress is to restrict blood flow during rest intervals. However, maintenance of BFR after completion of exercise does not offer benefits to muscle growth, 14 suggesting that metabolites, per se, do not appear to have anabolic properties in the absence of mechanical stress.Taken together, these results suggest that maintenance of BFR only during the rest intervals may offer a novel strategy for potentially augmenting the effects of high-load contractions in resistance exercise by increasing both metabolic stress and muscle activation. Therefore, this study compares metabolic stress (by blood lactate) and muscle activation (by electromyography-root mean square [EMG-RMS] amplitude) during HL under 3 conditions: blood flow restricted during the sets (BFR-S), blood flow restricted during the rest intervals (BFR-I), and witho...

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of 2 modes of aerobic exercise (continuous or intermittent) on maximum strength (1 repetition maximum, 1RM) and strength endurance (maximum repetitions at 80% of 1RM) for lower- and upper-body exercises to test the acute hypothesis in concurrent training (CT) interference. Eight physically active men (age: 26.9 +/- 4.2 years; body mass: 82.1 +/- 7.5 kg; height: 178.9 +/- 6.0 cm) were submitted to: (a) a graded exercise test to determine V(.-)O2max (39.26 +/- 6.95 ml x kg(-1) x min(-1)) and anaerobic threshold velocity (3.5 mmol x L(-1)) (9.3 +/- 1.27 km x h(-1)); (b) strength tests in a rested state (control); and (c) 4 experimental sessions, at least 7 days apart. The experimental sessions consisted of a 5-kilometer run on a treadmill continuously (90% of the anaerobic threshold velocity) or intermittently (1:1 minute at V(.-)O2max). Ten minutes after the aerobic exercise, either a maximum strength or a strength endurance test was performed (leg press and bench press exercises). The order of aerobic and strength exercises followed a William's square distribution to avoid carryover effects. Results showed that only the intermittent aerobic exercise produced an acute interference effect on leg strength endurance, decreasing significantly (p < 0.05) the number of repetitions from 10.8 +/- 2.5 to 8.1 +/- 2.2. Maximum strength was not affected by the aerobic exercise mode. In conclusion, the acute interference hypothesis in concurrent training seems to occur when both aerobic and strength exercises produce significant peripheral fatigue in the same muscle group.

Jump performance is considered an important factor in many sports. Thus, strategies such as weightlifting (WL) exercises, traditional resistance training (TRT) and plyometric training (PT) are effective at improving jump performance. However, it is not entirely clear which of these strategies can enable greater improvements on jump height. Thus, the purpose of the meta-analysis was to compare the improvements on countermovement jump (CMJ) performance between training methods which focus on WL exercises, TRT, and PT. Seven studies were included, of which one study performed both comparison. Therefore, four studies comparing WL exercises vs. TRT (total n = 78) and four studies comparing WL exercises vs. PT (total n = 76). The results showed greater improvements on CMJ performance for WL exercises compared to TRT (ES: 0.72 ± 0.23; CI: 0.26, 1.19; P = 0.002; Δ % = 7.5 and 2.1, respectively). The comparison between WL exercises vs. PT revealed no significant difference between protocols (ES: 0.15 ± 0.23; CI: -0.30, 0.60; P = 0.518; Δ % = 8.8 and 8.1, respectively). In conclusion, WL exercises are superior to promote positive changes on CMJ performance compared to TRT; however, WL exercises and PT are equally effective at improving CMJ performance.