Search

Abstract The aim of this study is to investigate the acute effects of hip mobility exercises applied before anaerobic activities on vertical jump, 1 repetition maximum (1TM) and isometric strength performances. For this purpose, 12 male athletes with a high level of training (age = 21 ± 1.2 years; height = 180 ± 0.05 m; body weight = 88.08 ± 9.17 kg) voluntarily participated in the study. Before starting the study, an approval report was obtained from the Sakarya University of Applied Sciences Ethics Committee and all athletes signed a voluntary consent form before the study. All participants were asked to perform a standard 15-minute dynamic warm-up procedure (dynamic stretching exercises related to cycling and tests) on the first measurement day, and then, in order to avoid fatigue in the athletes, 1 TM ( 1 Repetition Maximum) strength tests were applied. On the second measurement day, the subjects performed 8 different hip mobility exercises (2 sets x 20 seconds for each exercise) with the same 15-minute dynamic warm-up protocol and re-applied the tests applied on the first measurement day. When the findings were examined, it was found that there was no significant difference in the 1TM strength values of the deadlift exercise in the 1st and 2nd measurement sessions (p = 0.596 ). However, a significant difference was found between the 1TM strength, Isometric back-leg strength, Counter Movement Jump (CMJ) and Squat Jump (SJ) values of the squat exercise (p = 0.003, p = 0.002, p = 0.002, p = 0.002). In conclusion, this study shows that a dynamic warm-up protocol that includes hip mobility has a positive effect on vertical jump, maximal and isometric strength parameters.

Background and Study Aim. To compare the effects of three different sets method, which is frequently used in resistance training, on strength and hypertrophy values. Materials and Methods. Thirty-three young male athletes with similar daily activities and nutrient intakes at the Fitlife fitness center in Sakarya were included in the study. Participants were randomly divided into three different groups as Modified German Volume Training (MGVT) (n=11, 21.5 ± 2.4 years), Super Set (SS) (n=11, 22.4 ± 2.9) and Giant Set (GS) (n=11, 23.0 ± 4.3 years). The study was started with a total of thirty-three people, but two participants in the Giant set group were excluded from the measurements because they left the study due to personal reasons. Strength, muscle thickness and cross-sectional area (CSA) measurements were made in the upper extremity muscles before and after the six-week training period. Results. After six weeks of training, significant increases were observed in the cross-sectional area and thickness (p0,05). Conclusions. Modified German Volume Training (MGVT), Super Set (SS) and Giant Set (GS) methods reveal that there is no difference between the set methods in the 1 Repetition Maximum (1RM) strength and hypertrophy development of young male individuals who do not have a history of resistance exercise but have completed the adaptation period, and that there is an improvement in all set methods.

This study aimed at examining the concurrent validity and reliability of the multi-point method and the two-point method’s variations for estimating the one-repetition maximum (1RM) in the deadlift and squat exercises and to determine the accuracy of which optimal two loads can be used for the two-point method protocol. Thirteen resistance-trained men performed six sessions that consisted of two incremental loading tests (multi-point method: 20–40–60–80–90% and two-point method variations: 40–60%, 40–80%, 40–90%,60–80%, 60–90%) followed by 1RM tests. Both the multi-point method and the two-point method load variations showed reliable results for 1RM estimation (CV < 10%) squat and deadlift exercises. Session-session reliability was found to be low in deadlift (ICC: 0.171–0.335) and squat exercises (ICC: 0.235–0.479) of 40–60% and 60–80% in two-point methods. Deadlift (ICC: 0.815–0.996) and squat (ICC: 0.817–0.988) had high session-to-session reliability in all other methods. Regarding the validity of deadlift exercise, the multipoint method (R2 = 0.864) and two variations of the two-point method (R2 = 0.816 for 40–80%, R2 = 0.732 for 60–80%) showed very large correlations, whereas other two variations of the two-point method (R2 = 0.945 for 40–90%, R2 = 0.914 for 60–90%) showed almost perfect correlations with the actual 1RM. Regarding the validity of squat exercise, the multi-point method (R2 = 0.773) and two variations of the two-point method (R2 = 0.0847 for 60–80%, R2 = 0.705 for 40–90%) showed very large correlations, whereas 40–60% variation showed almost perfect correlation (R2 = 0.962) with the actual 1RM. In conclusion, whereas both the multi-point method and the two-point method load variations showed reliable results, the multiple-point method and most of the two-point methods’ load variations examined in this research provided an accurate (from large-moderate to perfect) estimate of the 1RM. Therefore, we recommend using the multi-point method and especially the two-point methods variations including higher relative loads to estimate 1RM.