Santos, WDNd, Vieira, CA, Bottaro, M, Nunes, VA, Ramirez-Campillo, R, Steele, J, Fisher, JP, and Gentil, P. Resistance training performed to failure or not to failure results in similar total volume, but with different fatigue and discomfort levels. J Strength Cond Res 35(5): 1372–1379, 2021—The purpose of this study was to compare the acute response to 4 sets of high velocity parallel squats performed to momentary failure (MF) or not to momentary failure (NF). Twelve women (24.93 ± 5.04 years) performed MF and NF protocols, in a randomized order with 2–3 interday rest. The protocol involved 4 sets of parallel squats executed at high velocity at 10RM load, with 2 minutes of rest interval between sets. During the NF protocol, the sets were interrupted when the subject lost more than 20% of mean propulsive velocity. The analysis involved the number of repetitions performed per set, total number of repetitions, movement velocity loss, power output loss, rating of perceived exertion (RPE), rating of perceived discomfort (RPD), and session rating of perceived exertion (sRPE). Compared with NF, MF resulted in a higher number of repetitions in the first set (11.58 ± 1.83 vs. 7.58 ± 1.72, p < 0.05), but a lower in the last set (3.58 ± 1.08 vs. 5.41 ± 1.08, p < 0.05). Total number of repetitions was similar between the protocols (MF 26.25 ± 3.47 vs. NF 24.5 ± 3.65, p > 0.05). In both protocols, there were significant decreases in maximum and mean movement velocity loss and power output loss, but higher decreases were observed in MF than NF (p < 0.05). Values for RPE, sRPE, and RPD were higher during MF than NF (p < 0.05). Controlling the movement velocity in NF protocol enabled performance of a similar total volume of repetitions with lower movement velocity and power output losses, RPE, sRPE, and RPD than during an MF protocol.

Objective. To analyse effects of resistance training (RT) in breast cancer survivors (BCS) and how protocols and acute variables were manipulated. Methods. Search was made at PubMed, Science Direct, and LILACS. All articles published between 2000 and 2016 were considered. Studies that met the following criteria were included: written in English, Spanish, or Portuguese; BCS who have undergone surgery, chemotherapy, and/or radiotherapy; additional RT only; analysis of muscle performance, body mass composition (BMC), psychosocial parameters, or blood biomarkers. Results. Ten studies were included. PEDro score ranged from 5 to 9. Rest interval and cadence were not reported. Two studies reported continuous training supervision. All reported improvements in muscle strength, most with low or moderate effect size (ES), but studies performed with high loads presented large ES. Five described no increased risk or exacerbation of lymphedema. Most studies that analysed BMC showed no relevant changes. Conclusions. RT has been shown to be safe for BCS, with no increased risk of lymphedema. The findings indicated that RT is efficient in increasing muscle strength; however, only one study observed significant changes in BMC. An exercise program should therefore consider the manipulation of acute and chronic variables of RT to obtain optimal results.

Background: Exercise has been shown to reduce adverse outcomes related to breast cancer. However, the rate of adherence to physical exercise is very low among breast cancer survivors (BCS). This study investigated the effects of high supervision ratio resistance training (RT), once a week for 8 weeks, on changes in body composition and muscular strength in BCS. Methods: Twenty-five female BCS undergoing hormone therapy were randomized into resistance training group (TG, n = 12) or control (CG, n = 13) group. The TG performed 8 weeks of supervised RT, with 1 trainer per volunteer, once a week. Body composition was evaluated by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, and muscle strength was evaluated by 10 repetition maximum (10 RM) for leg press (45°) and bench press exercises. A 1-way analysis of variance was used to compare within-group effects at pre- and post-intervention. An analysis of covariance test was used to compare post-intervention values, using pre-intervention measures as covariates. The effect size (ES) was calculated by Cohen’s d. Results: The TG improved muscle strength in 10 RM leg press (45°; Δ 33.75 ± 11.51 kg, P = .02; ES = 0.96) and bench press (Δ 4.08 ± 1.83 kg, P = .01; ES = 1.15). Adherence to training was more than 99%. Changes in body composition were not detected. There were no changes in the CG for any assessment. Conclusion: Once-weekly supervised RT could be an alternative to increase the adherence to exercise and improve muscular strength in BCS.

No abstract

In classical ballet, the execution of extreme movements on small bases of support causes the dancers constantly to seek balance. The objective of this systematic literature review was to evaluate the effects of classical ballet training on static and dynamic balance in order to emphasize the differences between dancers and non-dancers and between dancers with different levels of experience. Searches for scientific papers were conducted by two independent researchers in the PubMed, Science Direct, and LILACS databases. A secondary search was carried out by "snowballing" references in the selected studies. A modified Downs and Black checklist and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) scale were used to evaluate the methodological quality and evidence strength of the included studies, respectively. From 364 initial studies, nine were found to be eligible (five did analyses in static situations, two in dyna- mic situations, and two in both). With a maximum potential of 10 points, the methodological quality ranged from 6 to 8 on the Downs and Black checklist. It was found that the level of experience in ballet makes for better balance. However, there are indications that classical ballet dancers become more dependent on vision to control balance compared to non-dancers.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the reliability and agreement between the test and retest of the 10-repetition maximum (10-RM) test for leg press and bench press in breast cancer survivors (BCS). Thirty-one BCS participated in this study, age 54.87 ± 5.7 years. All performed 10-RM tests and retests for the leg press 45° and the bench press. For reliability analyses, an intraclass coefficient correlation (ICC) and coefficient of variation (CV) were performed. The limits of agreement were calculated using a Bland-Altman plot with 95% CIs. For absolute and relative error of measurement, we used standard error of measurement and minimally detectable change. The result showed a high reliability for the bench press and leg press; ICC of 0.94 and 0.98, respectively. CV was <10% for both exercises. The systematic error were 1.5 kg (10%) and 6.1 (8%) for the bench press and leg press, respectively. The standard errors of measurements were 0.96 kg (6.08%) and 4.11 kg (5.27%) for the bench press and leg press, respectively. The minimally detectable changes were 2.72 kg (17.20%) and 5.62 kg (7.21%) for the bench press and leg press, respectively. In breast cancer survivors, the muscular strength measurement for the 10-RM test showed a high to very high rate of reliability and agreement, with acceptable error of measurement.

Objective: The aim of this study is to compare the effects of resistance training (RT) on muscle strength (MS), body composition (BC), and anxiety indicators in eutrophic, overweight, and obese breast cancer survivors (BCS). Methodology: Twentysix BCS women (56.07±6.94 years old; body mass index [BMI]: 68.29±11.18 kg), who were undergoing hormone therapy, performed 8 weeks of RT once a week. The BCS were divided into three groups as follows: eutrophic (BMI ≤ 24.4 [23.72±1.41], n=9), overweight (BMI 25–29.9 [27.21±1.26], n=9), and obese (BMI ≥ 30 [33.37±2.06], n=8). For the MS, the 10-repetition maximum test (normalized 10-RM/BM) on the bench press (BP) and the leg press (LP); for BC, the dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry; and for anxiety, the state-trait anxiety inventory were performed. For overtime analysis, the paired t-test for MS and BC and the Wilcoxon test for anxiety indicators were conducted. For analyses between groups, the mean difference (∆ [post-baseline]) was calculated using the one-way analysis of variance for MS and BC and the Kruskal– Wallis test for anxiety indicators. Results: There were no differences between the groups. All groups improved on the BP (p≤0.001) and the LP (p<0.001) overtime (eutrophic [BP, ∆=0.050±0.03; LP, ∆=0.401±0.10], overweight [BP, ∆=0.069±0.03; LP, ∆=0.406±0.15], and obese [BP, ∆=0.037±0.02; LP, ∆=0.375±0.11]). In the BC analyses, it was verified and improved only for the eutrophic BCS in the fat percentage (∆=-1.122±1.11, p=0.016) and lean mass (∆=0.650±0.78, p=0.036). There was a significant reduction in the state-trait anxiety in the eutrophic (∆=-7.444±8.13, p=0.030) and obese (∆=-9.125±9.70, p=0.042) groups. Conclusions: All BCS groups improved their MS. The eutrophic BCS may have a better response in BC compared with overweight and obese BCS. With regard to state-trait anxiety, the eutrophic and obese BCS groups showed better response than the overweight BCS group. The results suggest that the eutrophic BCS can present improvements in more components with a weekly session of RT; however, further studies should be performed.

No abstract