Selective Effects of Training Against Weight and Inertia on Muscle Mechanical Properties

Djuric, Sasa; Čuk, Ivan; Sreckovic, Sreten; Mirkov, Dragan M.; Nedeljković, Aleksandar; Jarić, Slobodan

doi:10.1123/ijspp.2015-0527

Cited by 26 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The effects of this type of training, commonly referred to as ballistic, can be observed in studies where protocols with a removed deceleration phase during liftings have been shown more effective (Newton et al, 1996; Cormie et al, 2010). These studies and others (Markovic and Jaric, 2007; Argus et al, 2011; Markovic et al, 2011, 2013; Sheppard et al, 2011) show how employing loads lower than body mass (referred to as negative loads) may result in a training-induced shift in force-time curves and force-velocity relationships toward more velocity-related capabilities (Djuric et al, 2016). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 88%

Effectiveness of an Individualized Training Based on Force-Velocity Profiling during Jumping

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ballistic performances are determined by both the maximal lower limb power output (Pmax) and their individual force-velocity (F-v) mechanical profile, especially the F-v imbalance (FVimb): difference between the athlete's actual and optimal profile. An optimized training should aim to increase Pmax and/or reduce FVimb. The aim of this study was to test whether an individualized training program based on the individual F-v profile would decrease subjects' individual FVimb and in turn improve vertical jump performance. FVimb was used as the reference to assign participants to different training intervention groups. Eighty four subjects were assigned to three groups: an “optimized” group divided into velocity-deficit, force-deficit, and well-balanced sub-groups based on subjects' FVimb, a “non-optimized” group for which the training program was not specifically based on FVimb and a control group. All subjects underwent a 9-week specific resistance training program. The programs were designed to reduce FVimb for the optimized groups (with specific programs for sub-groups based on individual FVimb values), while the non-optimized group followed a classical program exactly similar for all subjects. All subjects in the three optimized training sub-groups (velocity-deficit, force-deficit, and well-balanced) increased their jumping performance (12.7 ± 5.7% ES = 0.93 ± 0.09, 14.2 ± 7.3% ES = 1.00 ± 0.17, and 7.2 ± 4.5% ES = 0.70 ± 0.36, respectively) with jump height improvement for all subjects, whereas the results were much more variable and unclear in the non-optimized group. This greater change in jump height was associated with a markedly reduced FVimb for both force-deficit (57.9 ± 34.7% decrease in FVimb) and velocity-deficit (20.1 ± 4.3%) subjects, and unclear or small changes in Pmax (−0.40 ± 8.4% and +10.5 ± 5.2%, respectively). An individualized training program specifically based on FVimb (gap between the actual and optimal F-v profiles of each individual) was more efficient at improving jumping performance (i.e., unloaded squat jump height) than a traditional resistance training common to all subjects regardless of their FVimb. Although improving both FVimb and Pmax has to be considered to improve ballistic performance, the present results showed that reducing FVimb without even increasing Pmax lead to clearly beneficial jump performance changes. Thus, FVimb could be considered as a potentially useful variable for prescribing optimal resistance training to improve ballistic performance.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 88%

Effectiveness of an Individualized Training Based on Force-Velocity Profiling during Jumping

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One conceivable solution to this issue would be the addition of points to the extremes of the F-V relationship. To increase the F-V spectrum of measured values, the mechanical constraints opposed to the movement have to be modulated (increased or decreased) to reach the targeted movement velocities [10,25]. On the force side of the F-V relationship, the highest force-lowest velocity combination points could theoretically be obtained by maximizing resistive forces (i. e., maximum load able to be moved during a squat).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Where does the One-Repetition Maximum Exist on the Force-Velocity Relationship in Squat?

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim was to determine the position of the one-repetition maximum (1RM) squat point on the force-velocity (F-V) relationship obtained during squat jump (SJ). Ten healthy athletes performed a 1RM squat during which ground reaction force and lower-limb extension velocity were measured, and six loaded SJs to determine individual F-V relationship. The goodness of fit of the linear F-V relationship with or without the 1RM point was tested. The vertical and horizontal coordinates were determined relative to the theoretical maximal force (F0) and the highest loaded SJ (load of 44.5±4.6% 1RM). The goodness of fit of the individual F-V relationship did not differ with or without the 1RM condition, even if the 1RM point was slightly below the curve (−5±5%, P=0.018). The 1RM point can be considered as a point of the F-V relationship. The velocity (0.22±0.05 m.s−1) of the 1RM point corresponded to ~30% of the velocity reached during the highest loaded SJ. The force developed in the 1RM condition was ~16% higher than during the highest loaded SJ and ~11% lower than F0. This finding underlines the difference between F0 and the 1RM condition.

show abstract

“…Discrepancies with these studies can be caused by the difference in the exercise performed (Iglesias-Soler et al, 2017) or by differences in the training intervention design (Morales-Artacho, Padial, García-Ramos, Pérez-Castilla, Argüelles-Cienfuegos, et al, 2018). Furthermore, higher V 0 values were reported after an intervention using attached rubber bands on the barbell (i.e., 'inertia' condition) (Djuric et al, 2016). The authors reported higher values of V 0 in the group 'inertia' compared with the other conditions (i.e., 'weight' and 'weigh plus inertia').…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…This linear approach has been previously used to describe mechanical profiles in multi-joint exercises like jumping, cycling, running or lifting in many populations (Allison, Brooke-Wavell, & Folland, 2013;Zivkovic, Djuric, Cuk, Suzovic, & Jaric, 2017). However, research about the changes in the linear F-V relationship in response to different resistance training protocols is scarce (Djuric et al, 2016;Iglesias-Soler et al, 2017;Jiménez-Reyes, Samozino, & Morin, 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cluster vs. traditional training programmes: changes in the force–velocity relationship

Rial-Vázquez

Mayo

Tufano

et al. 2020

Sports Biomechanics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This randomised controlled study examined the force-velocity relationship changes (force and velocity axis intercepts, slope and estimated maximum power) in response to 5-week training programmes differing in the set configuration. For each session, the traditional group performed 4 sets of 8 repetitions with 5 min of rest between sets and exercises, while the cluster group completed 16 sets of 2 repetitions with 1 min of rest between sets and 5 min between exercises. Both programmes were performed with the 10repetition maximum load, including bench press, parallel squat, lat pull-down and leg curl exercises. Individual force-velocity profiles were obtained for bench press and squat using a linear velocity transducer before and after the intervention, along with lactate and mechanical performance during the intervention. Results showed in bench press similar changes of the force-velocity profile after both protocols (no shift of the slope and higher force and velocity axis intercept values). For the squat, significant changes in the slope (P = 0.001) and the velocity intercept (P = 0.002) towards a velocity profile were observed after cluster but not after traditional training. These results suggest that set configuration may modulate changes of force-velocity relationship, especially for squat.

show abstract

Selective Effects of Training Against Weight and Inertia on Muscle Mechanical Properties

Abstract: The inertia training load is more effective than weight in increasing P and weight and inertia may be applied for selective gains in F and V, respectively, whereas the linear F-V model obtained from loaded trials could be used for discerning among muscle F, V, and P.

Cited by 26 publications

References 0 publications

Effectiveness of an Individualized Training Based on Force-Velocity Profiling during Jumping

Effectiveness of an Individualized Training Based on Force-Velocity Profiling during Jumping

Where does the One-Repetition Maximum Exist on the Force-Velocity Relationship in Squat?

Cluster vs. traditional training programmes: changes in the force–velocity relationship

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About