Search

IntroductionBased on the assumption of maximal strength as a basic ability, several studies show a high influence of maximum strength on jumping performance in several sport athletes. However, there is a wide range of correlations from r = 0.17–0.9 between squat 1RM and jumping performance in different sports. Additionally, there are only a few studies investigating the influence of deadlift one repetition maximum (1RM) on jumping performance. Thus, this study aimed to investigate the correlations between 1RM in the deadlift on jumping performance using the countermovement jump height (CMJ) and squat jump height (SJ) considering different sports.Methods103 athletes with experience in the deadlift from soccer, basketball, American football, powerlifting as well as participants from different sports without any deadlift experience (control group) were included to this study.ResultsOverall statistics showed a significant moderate influence of deadlift 1RM (r = 0.301–0.472) on jumping performance. However, subgroup analysis showed no significant correlation between deadlift 1RM and jumping performance in control participants, while moderate correlations could be detected in powerlifters (r = 0.34–0.39), soccer players (r = 0.437–0.46), American football players (0.584–0.62) and high correlations in basketball players (r = 0.809–0.848) showing significant influence of type of sport on correlations between deadlift maximum strength and jumping performance.DiscussionPresented results underline movement velocity- and task specificity of strength training routines which is discussed in the light of the respective sports.

This network meta-analysis aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of different velocity-based (VBT) and traditional 1RM-based resistance training (TRT) interventions on strength and power indices in healthy participants. The research was conducted until December 2021 using the online electronic databases PubMed, Web of Science, PsycNet, and SPORTDiscus for studies with the following inclusion criteria: 1) controlled VBT trials, 2) strength and/or jump and/or sprint parameters as outcomes (c), participants aged between 18 and 40 years, and 4) peer-reviewed and published in English. Standardized mean differences (SMD) using a random effects models were calculated. Fourteen studies with 311 healthy participants were selected and 3 networks (strength, jump, and sprint) were achieved. VBT, TRT, repetitions in reserve (RIR), low velocity loss (lowVL), and high velocity loss (highVL) were ranked for each network. Based on P-score rankings, lowVL (P-score ≥ 0.59; SMD ≥ 0.33) and highVL (P-score ≥ 0.50; SMD ≥ 0.12) revealed favorable effects on strength, jump, and sprint performance compared to VBT (P-score ≤ 0.47; SMD ≤0.01), TRT (P-score ≤0.46; SMD ≤ 0.00), and RIR (P-score ≤ 0.46; SMD ≤ 0.12). In conclusion, lowVL and highVL showed notable effects on strength, jump, and sprint performance. In particular for jump performance, lowVL induced favorable improvements compared to all other resistance training approaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This network meta-analysis aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of different velocity-based (VBT) and traditional 1RM-based resistance training (TRT) interventions on strength and power indices in healthy participants. The research was conducted until December 2021 using the online electronic databases PubMed, Web of Science, PsycNet, and SPORTDiscus for studies with the following inclusion criteria: 1) controlled VBT trials, 2) strength and/or jump and/or sprint parameters as outcomes (c), participants aged between 18 and 40 years, and 4) peer-reviewed and published in English. Standardized mean differences (SMD) using a random effects models were calculated. Fourteen studies with 311 healthy participants were selected and 3 networks (strength, jump, and sprint) were achieved. VBT, TRT, repetitions in reserve (RIR), low velocity loss (lowVL), and high velocity loss (highVL) were ranked for each network. Based on P-score rankings, lowVL (P-score ≥ 0.59; SMD ≥ 0.33) and highVL (P-score ≥ 0.50; SMD ≥ 0.12) revealed favorable effects on strength, jump, and sprint performance compared to VBT (P-score ≤ 0.47; SMD ≤0.01), TRT (P-score ≤0.46; SMD ≤ 0.00), and RIR (P-score ≤ 0.46; SMD ≤ 0.12). In conclusion, lowVL and highVL showed notable effects on strength, jump, and sprint performance. In particular for jump performance, lowVL induced favorable improvements compared to all other resistance training approaches.

The auto-regulation method is a rising training strategy to improve strength and motor performance, and the Autoregulatory Progressive Resistance Exercise (APRE), Rating of Perceived Exertion program (RPE), and Velocity-Based Training (VBT) are the three common auto-regulation programs. However, whether the auto-regulation method is more effective than the traditional strength training (the fixed-loading method) in maximum strength training is still unclear. The present study searched the Pubmed, SPORTDiscus, Web of Science, Embase, EBSCO, Cochrane, CNKI, and CQVIP databases, and included eight related studies published between 2010 and 2020, with a total of 166 subjects including division 1 college players and athletes with at least 1-year training history, and interventions ranging from 5 to 10 weeks. A meta-analysis was performed to check the difference between the two training methods, and analyzed the differences in the existing auto-regulation programs' effectiveness. The overall results showed that the auto-regulation method was more effective than the fixed-loading method in maximum strength training (effect size = 0.64; P < 0.001; I2 = 0%). In specific, the pooled results in subgroup analysis indicated that the auto-regulation method may effectively improve the strength performance in squat (effect size = 4.64; P < 0.05; I2 = 54%) and bench press (effect size = 3.21; P < 0.05; I2 = 62%). Greater benefits of the auto-regulation method on strength improvement could be achieved in an 8-week or even shorter training (effect size = 0.87; P < 0.001; I2 = 0%) compared with those of 8–10 weeks (effect size = 0.32; P < 0.001; I2 = 0%). The APRE is the most effective training program among the three auto-regulation programs (effect size = 0.78; P < 0.001; I2 = 0%). In conclusion, the auto-regulation method could be more effective than the fixed-loading method in maximum strength training. The APRE is a convenient and effective training program that may be considered a practical training program to replace traditional training in athletes.

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to clarify whether blood-flow restriction during resting intervals [resting blood-flow restriction (rBFR)] is comparable to a continuous BFR (cBFR) training regarding its effects on maximum strength, hypertrophy, fatigue resistance, and perceived discomfort.Materials and Methods: Nineteen recreationally trained participants performed four sets (30-15-15-15 repetitions) with 20% 1RM on a 45° leg press twice a week for 6 weeks (cBFR, n = 10; rBFR, n = 9). Maximum strength, fatigue resistance, muscle thickness, and girth were assessed at three timepoints (pre, mid, and post). Subjective pain and perceived exertion were determined immediately after training at two timepoints (mid and post).Results: Maximum strength (p < 0.001), fatigue resistance (p < 0.001), muscle thickness (p < 0.001), and girth (p = 0.008) increased in both groups over time with no differences between groups (p > 0.05). During the intervention, the rBFR group exposed significantly lower perceived pain and exertion values compared to cBFR (p < 0.05).Discussion: Resting blood-flow restriction training led to similar gains in strength, fatigue resistance, and muscle hypertrophy as cBFR training while provoking less discomfort and perceived exertion in participants. In summary, rBFR training could provide a meaningful alternative to cBFR as this study showed similar functional and structural changes as well as less discomfort.

Introduction : The purpose of this study was to clarify whether blood-flow restriction during resting intervals [resting blood-flow restriction (rBFR)] is comparable to a continuous BFR (cBFR) training regarding its effects on maximum strength, hypertrophy, fatigue resistance, and perceived discomfort. Materials and Methods : Nineteen recreationally trained participants performed four sets (30-15-15-15 repetitions) with 20% 1RM on a 45° leg press twice a week for 6 weeks (cBFR, n = 10; rBFR, n = 9). Maximum strength, fatigue resistance, muscle thickness, and girth were assessed at three timepoints (pre, mid, and post). Subjective pain and perceived exertion were determined immediately after training at two timepoints (mid and post). Results : Maximum strength (p < 0.001), fatigue resistance (p < 0.001), muscle thickness (p < 0.001), and girth (p = 0.008) increased in both groups over time with no differences between groups (p > 0.05). During the intervention, the rBFR group exposed significantly lower perceived pain and exertion values compared to cBFR (p < 0.05). Discussion : Resting blood-flow restriction training led to similar gains in strength, fatigue resistance, and muscle hypertrophy as cBFR training while provoking less discomfort and perceived exertion in participants. In summary, rBFR training could provide a meaningful alternative to cBFR as this study showed similar functional and structural changes as well as less discomfort. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The auto-regulation method is a rising training strategy to improve strength and motor performance, and the Autoregulatory Progressive Resistance Exercise (APRE), Rating of Perceived Exertion program (RPE), and Velocity-Based Training (VBT) are the three common auto-regulation programs. However, whether the auto-regulation method is more effective than the traditional strength training (the fixed-loading method) in maximum strength training is still unclear. The present study searched the Pubmed, SPORTDiscus, Web of Science, Embase, EBSCO, Cochrane, CNKI, and CQVIP databases, and included eight related studies published between 2010 and 2020, with a total of 166 subjects including division 1 college players and athletes with at least 1-year training history, and interventions ranging from 5 to 10 weeks. A meta-analysis was performed to check the difference between the two training methods, and analyzed the differences in the existing auto-regulation programs' effectiveness. The overall results showed that the auto-regulation method was more effective than the fixed-loading method in maximum strength training (effect size = 0.64; P < 0.001; I 2 = 0%). In specific, the pooled results in subgroup analysis indicated that the auto-regulation method may effectively improve the strength performance in squat (effect size = 4.64; P < 0.05; I 2 = 54%) and bench press (effect size = 3.21; P < 0.05; I 2 = 62%). Greater benefits of the auto-regulation method on strength improvement could be achieved in an 8-week or even shorter training (effect size = 0.87; P < 0.001; I 2 = 0%) compared with those of 8–10 weeks (effect size = 0.32; P < 0.001; I 2 = 0%). The APRE is the most effective training program among the three auto-regulation programs (effect size = 0.78; P < 0.001; I 2 = 0%). In conclusion, the auto-regulation method could be more effective than the fixed-loading method in maximum strength training. The APRE is a convenient and effective training program that may be considered a practical training program to replace traditional training in athletes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]