Search

Addresses the deficit in data regarding the efficacy of training children for weightlifting. Controversy surrounding strength training and weightlifting for children; Discussion on the issue of safety of children in competitive weightlifting; Sex difference in degree of improvement in lift total.

The assessment of the mechanical power production is of great importance for researchers and practitioners. The purpose of this review was to compare the differences in ground reaction force (GRF), kinematic, and combined (bar velocity x GRF) methods to assess mechanical power production during weightlifting exercises. A search of electronic databases was conducted to identify all publications up to 31 May 2019. The peak power output (PPO) was selected as the key variable. The exercises included in this review were clean variations, which includes the hang power clean (HPC), power clean (PC) and clean. A total of 26 articles met the inclusion criteria with 53.9% using the GRF, 38.5% combined, and 30.8% the kinematic method. Articles were evaluated and descriptively analysed to enable comparison between methods. The three methods have inherent methodological differences in the data analysis and measurement systems, which suggests that these methods should not be used interchangeably to assess PPO in Watts during weightlifting exercises. In addition, this review provides evidence and rationale for the use of the GRF to assess power production applied to the system mass while the kinematic method may be more appropriate when looking to assess only the power applied to the barbell. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Targeted muscle strengthening might improve performance or help overcome training stagnation; therefore, the aim of the present study was to investigate changes in muscle activity patterns before and after six weeks of targeted resistance training. Twenty-seven resistance-trained men were divided into three groups according to their prime mover activity, as measured by surface electromyography during a bench press (BP). Each group underwent a six-week block of targeted exercises for one of the following muscles: anterior deltoid (AD), pectoralis major (PM) or triceps brachii (TB). ANOVA showed that each group increased their 1 repetition maximum (1RM) (p < 0.05) and the activity of the exercised muscle group during an isometric bench press (p < 0.01) and during a dynamic bench press (p < 0.01) at 85% of the 1RM. During the isometric BP, the TB training group had an increase in TB activity in comparison to the other groups. Targeted muscle training is a useful method for muscle activity increase and increasing the maximum strength in complex exercise, when applied in activity-deficient muscle groups. Strengthening the TB elicits changes in all prime movers and results in TB activity domination during a bench press. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study aimed to explore the differences in the load-velocity profile between three upper-body pushing exercises in men and women. The load-velocity profiles (from 20% to 100% of the one-repetition maximum [1RM] in 5% increments) of 24 sport sciences students (12 men) were randomly tested during the horizontal bench press (HBP), inclined bench press (IBP) and seated military press (SMP) exercises. The 1RM was higher for the HBP (men: 94.2 ± 14.6 kg; women: 45.4 ± 10.1 kg), followed by the IBP (men: 87.7 ± 11.6 kg; women: 41.6 ± 6.6 kg), and finally the SMP (men: 67.4 ± 7.8 kg; women: 37.3 ± 6.3 kg). The mean test velocity (i.e., averaged velocity of all loads) and the slope of the load-velocity profile were significantly different between exercises (SMP > IBP > HBP) and sexes (men > women). The correlations between the exercises were very high for the individual 1RM values (r range = 0.714–0.982), but lower correlations were observed for the mean test velocity (r range = 0.237–0.766) slope of the load-velocity profile (r range = 0.018–0.721), and velocity of the 1RM (r range = 0.004–0.446). These results confirm that men present higher velocities at low relative loads (i.e., %1RM) compared to women during upper-body pushing exercises. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Power is a fundamental component for many sporting activities; while the load that elicits peak power during different exercises and differences between sexes remains unclear. This study aims to determine the effect of sex and load on kinematic and kinetic variables during the mid-thigh clean pull. Men (n = 10) and women (n = 10) performed the mid-thigh clean pull at intensities of 40%, 60%, 80%, 100%, 120%, and 140% of one repetition maximum (1RM) power clean in a randomised and counter-balanced order, while assessing bar velocity, bar displacement, power, force, and impulse. Two-way analysis of variance revealed that men demonstrated significantly greater (p < 0.05) values for all variables across loads, excluding bar velocity. Men demonstrated significantly greater (p < 0.05) bar velocities with 40–80% 1RM; in contrast, women demonstrated significantly (p < 0.05) higher velocities with 120–140% 1RM. Irrespective of sex significantly greater (p < 0.05), system peak power, bar velocity, and displacement occurred with 40% 1RM. In contrast, peak force and impulse were significantly (p < 0.05) greater with 140% 1RM. When performing the mid-thigh clean pull, to maximise system power or bar velocity, lower loads (40–60% 1RM) are recommended. When training force production or impulse, higher loads (120–140% 1RM) are recommended, when using the mid-thigh clean pull. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The purposes of the study were to track weightlifters' barbell acceleration with a portable accelerometer over three training sessions to examine test–retest reliability and to compare peak barbell acceleration at different training intensities. Twelve nationally ranked weightlifters volunteered for this study. The portable accelerometer was attached to the right side of the barbell to measure barbell resultant acceleration during the snatch lift at a sampling frequency of 100 Hz. The data were collected over three training sessions at intensity levels of 80%, 85%, and 90% of one repetition maximum. The data were analyzed using intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) for the three training sessions and one-way repeated measure ANOVA to compare the difference in peak barbell acceleration at three intensities. Results showed that the device was highly reliable with an ICC of 0.88 and 95% confidence interval of 0.81–0.93. There were significant differences in peak barbell acceleration at various lifting intensities, indicating a decline of the acceleration as the mass of the barbell became heavier. The portable accelerometer seems useful in measuring barbell acceleration data, which can be analyzed in future studies to monitor a weightlifter's performance in a practical setting instead of testing at a laboratory. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This study determined whether backward grinding performance in America's Cup sailing could be improved using a training intervention to increase power capability in the upper-body pull movement. Fourteen elite male sailors (34.9 ± 5.9 years; 98.1 ± 14.4 kg; 186.6 ± 7.7 cm) were allocated into experimental (speed-focussed) and control groups. Grinding performance was assessed using a grinding ergometer and an instrumented Smith machine measured force, velocity and power during the bench pull exercise. Conventional training produced significant improvements in bench pull 1 RM (5.2 ± 4.0%; p = 0.016) and maximum force production (5.4 ± 4.0%; p = 0.014). Speed-focussed training improved maximum power (7.8 ± 4.9%; p = 0.009), power at 1RM (10.3 ± 8.9%; p = 0.019) and maximum velocity (8.4 ± 2.6%; p = 0.0002). Backward grinding performance showed greater improvements in the experimental group than the control group for moderate (+1.8%) and heavy load (+6.0%) grinding. Changes in maximum power output and power at 1 RM had large correlations (r = 0.56-0.61) with changes in both moderate and heavy load grinding performance. Time to peak force had the strongest relationship, explaining 70% of the change in heavy load grinding performance. Although the performance benefit was not entirely clear the likelihood of a detrimental effect was low ( < 5%) and therefore implementation could be recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]