Effects of Variable Resistance Using Chains on Bench Throw Performance in Trained Rugby Players

Differences in Various Strength Manifestations Between the Flat and Retracted Bench Press Variants: Are They Affected by Subjects' Experience or Strength Levels?

ABSTRACT

Piepoli, A, Miras-Moreno, S, Janicijevic, D, Martínez-Amat, A, and García-Ramos, A. Differences in various strength manifestations between the flat and retracted bench press variants: are they affected by subjects' experience or strength levels? J Strength Cond Res 37(12): 2339-2345, 2023. The objective of this study was to explore the effect of retracting the scapulae during the free-weight bench press (BP) exercise on various strength manifestations and perceptual variables. Twenty-eight recreationally trained male lifters (BP 1-repetition maximum [1RM] = 96.1 ± 20.8 kg) randomly performed in 2 different sessions: the flat BP (scapulae free to move during the movement) and retracted BP (shoulders retracted during the movement). Three strength manifestations were evaluated: (a) explosive strength -mean velocity (MV) achieved against 3 submaximal loads (40, 60, and 80%1RM); (b) maximal strength -1RM; and (c) endurance strength -number of repetitions completed to failure against the 70%1RM. Discomfort and ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) values were also recorded immediately after completing each test. The upward displacement of the barbell was lower for the retracted BP compared with the flat BP at the 3 submaximal loads ( p ≤ 0.024), but no significant differences between the BP variants were observed for the MV at submaximal loads ( p ≥ 0.473), 1RM ( p = 0.147), number of repetitions completed to failure ( p = 0.447), RPE at submaximal loads ( p ≥ 0.363), or discomfort during any test ( p ≥ 0.611). Subjects always demonstrated a greater strength performance with the BP variant most used in their training programs, but the differences between the flat and retracted BP were not affected by subjects' maximal strength values ( p ≥ 0.162). These results suggest that retracting the scapulae during the BP exercise presents minor effects on different strength manifestations and perceptual measures of effort and discomfort.

Kinetic and Kinematic Assessment of the Band-Assisted Countermovement Jump

ABSTRACT

Fernandes, JFT, Arede, J, Clarke, H, Garcia-Ramos, A, Perez-Castilla, A, Norris, JP, Wilkins, CA, and Dingley, AF. Kinetic and kinematic assessment of the band-assisted countermovement jump. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2022-This study sought to elucidate kinetic and kinematic differences between unloaded and band-assisted countermovement jumps (CMJs). In a randomized order, 20 healthy subjects (mass 84.5 ± 18.6 kg) completed 3 repetitions of CMJs across 3 conditions: unloaded (at body mass), low, and moderate band (8.4 ± 1.9 and 13.3 ± 3.3 kg body weight reduction, respectively). For all repetitions, a force platform and linear position transducer were used to record and calculate kinetic and kinematic data. Body weight was significantly different between the unloaded, low, and moderate band conditions (p < 0.05). Peak velocity, absolute peak, and mean force and movement duration displayed a trend that was mostly related to the condition (i.e., unloaded > low > moderate) (p < 0.05). The opposing trend (i.e., moderate > low > unloaded) was generally observed for relative peak and mean force, reactive strength index modified, and flight time (p < 0.05). No differences were observed for mean velocity, movement duration, and absolute and relative landing forces (p > 0.05). The use of band assistance during CMJs can alter force, time, and velocity variables. Practitioners should be aware of the potential positive and negative effects of band assistance during CMJs.

Acute effects of variable resistance training on force, velocity, and power measures: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

Acute effects of variable resistance training (VRT) and constant resistance training (CRT) on neuromuscular performance are still equivocal. We aimed to determine the differences between VRT and CRT in terms of force, velocity, and power outcomes.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Web of Science, and SPORTDiscus electronic databases for articles until June 2021. Crossover design studies comparing force, velocity, and power outcomes while performing VRT and CRT were included. Two reviewers independently applied the modified version of the Cochrane Collaboration's tool to assess the risk of bias. A three-level random effects meta-analyses and meta-regressions were used to compute standardized mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals.

Results

We included 16 studies with 207 participants in the quantitative synthesis. Based on the pooled results, VRT generated greater mean velocity (SMD = 0.675; moderate Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) quality evidence) and mean power (SMD = 1.022; low) than CRT. Subgroup analyses revealed that VRT considerably increased the mean velocity (SMD = 0.903; moderate) and mean power (SMD = 1.456; moderate) in the equated loading scheme and the mean velocity (SMD = 0.712; low) in the CRT higher loading scheme. However, VRT marginally significantly reduced peak velocity (SMD = -0.481; low) in the VRT higher loading scheme. Based on the meta-regression analysis, it was found that mean power (p = 0.014-0.043) was positively moderated by the contribution of variable resistance and peak velocity (p = 0.018) and peak power (p = 0.001-0.004) and RFD (p = 0.003) were positively moderated by variable resistance equipment, favoring elastic bands.

Conclusions

VRT provides practitioners with the means of emphasizing specific force, velocity, and power outcomes. Different strategies should be considered in context of an individual's needs. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42021259205.

Effects of Variable-Resistance Training Versus Constant-Resistance Training on Maximum Strength: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Greater muscular strength is generally associated with superior sports performance, for example, in jumping, sprinting, and throwing. This meta-analysis aims to compare the effects of variable-resistance training (VRT) and constant-resistance training (CRT) on the maximum strength of trained and untrained subjects. PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were comprehensively searched to identify relevant studies published up to January 2022. Fourteen studies that met the inclusion criteria were used for the systematic review and meta-analysis. Data regarding training status, training modality, and type of outcome measure were extracted for the analyses. The Cochrane Collaboration tool was used to assess the risk of bias. The pooled outcome showed improved maximum strength with VRT, which was significantly higher than that with CRT (ES = 0.80; 95% CI: 0.42−1.19) for all the subjects. In addition, trained subjects experienced greater maximum-strength improvements with VRT than with CRT (ES = 0.57; 95% CI: 0.22−0.93). Based on subgroup analyses, maximum-strength improvement with a VRT load of ≥80% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM) was significantly higher than that with CRT (ES = 0.76; 95% CI: 0.37−1.16) in trained subjects, while no significant differences were found between VRT and CRT for maximum-strength improvement when the load was <80% (ES = 0.00; 95% CI: −0.55−0.55). The untrained subjects also achieved greater maximum strength with VRT than with CRT (ES = 1.34; 95% CI: 0.28−2.40). Interestingly, the improved maximum strength of untrained subjects with a VRT load of <80% of 1RM was significantly higher than that with CRT (ES = 2.38; 95% CI: 1.39−3.36); however, no significant differences were noted between VRT and CRT when the load was ≥80% of 1RM (ES = −0.04; 95% CI: −0.89−0.81). Our findings show that subjects with resistance training experience could use a load of ≥80% of 1RM and subjects without resistance training experience could use a load of <80% of 1RM to obtain greater VRT benefits.

The Acute Effects of Attaching Chains to the Barbell on Kinematics and Muscle Activation in Bench Press in Resistance-Trained Men

The aim of the study was to investigate the acute effects of attaching chains on barbell kinematics and muscle activation in the bench press. Twelve resistance-trained men (height: 1.79 ± 0.05 m, weight: 84.3 ± 13.5 kg, one repetition maximum (1-RM) bench press of 105 ± 17.1 kg) lifted three repetitions of bench press in three conditions: (1) conventional bench press at 85% of 1-RM and bench press with chains that were (2) top-matched and (3) bottom-matched with the resistance from the conventional resistance lift. Barbell kinematics and the muscle activity of eight muscles were measured at different heights during lowering and lifting in the three conditions of the bench press. The main findings were that barbell kinematics were altered using the chains, especially the 85% bottom-matched condition that resulted in lower peak velocities and longer lifting times compared with the conventional 85% condition (p ≤ 0.043). However, muscle activity was mainly only affected during the lowering phase. Based upon the findings, it was concluded that using chains during the bench press alters barbell kinematics, especially when the resistance is matched in the bottom position. Furthermore, muscle activation was only altered during the lowering phase when adding chains to the barbell.

Training with an elastic, supportive bench press device is not superior to a conventional training approach in trained men

The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of an 8‑week powerlifting-type bench press (BP) resistance training (RT) program, either without (RAW) or with using a supportive elastic bench press device (EBD) on one-repetition maximum (1-RM), body weight (BW), mid-upper arm and chest circumference, as well as visual analogue pain scale (VAS) of the shoulder, elbow, and wrist. For this purpose, a matched pair parallel design based on initial 1‑RM was used (BPD n = 16, age 24.4 ± 4 years, RT experience 3.75 ± 1.83 years; RAW n = 16, age 25 ± 2 years, RT experience 5.66 ± 3.00 years). Following two weeks of familiarization with the protocol , BP RT was carried out twice weekly. The EBD group completed more than half of their BP sets with elastic assistance and 10% higher training intensity than the RAW group. There was a significant time × group interaction in BW (p = 0.008). Post hoc analysis showed a significant loss of 0.92 kg in the EBD group (p = 0.049; effect size [ES] = −0.08; 95%CI [−1.80, 0.04]). A significant time effect for 1‑RM was observed (p < 0.001). In both groups there was a significant change in 1‑RM of 5.00 kg (p < 0.001; ES = 0.35; 95%CI [2.98, 7.02]). There was no significant change in any circumference or VAS measure. In conclusion, using an EBD leads to 1‑RM gains similar to conventional RAW BP training. However, more studies are required with highly trained individuals, in particular female athletes. Practitioners may implement EBD training for reasons of variation.

Comparison of the FitroDyne and GymAware Rotary Encoders for Quantifying Peak and Mean Velocity During Traditional Multijointed Exercises

ABSTRACT

Fernandes, JFT, Lamb, KL, Clark, CCT, Moran, J, Drury, B, Garcia-Ramos, A, and Twist, C. Comparison of the FitroDyne and GymAware rotary encoders for quantifying peak and mean velocity during traditional multijointed exercises. J Strength Cond Res 35(6): 1760-1765, 2021-The FitroDyne and GymAware rotary encoders are being increasingly used in resistance training to monitor movement velocity, but how closely their velocity outcomes agree is unknown. Consequently, this study aimed to determine the level of agreement between the FitroDyne and GymAware for the assessment of movement velocity in 3 resistance training exercises. Fifteen men performed 3 repetitions of bench press, back squat, and bent-over-row exercises at 10% 1 repetition maximum increments (from 20 to 80%). For each repetition, the FitroDyne and GymAware recorded peak and mean barbell velocity (cm·s-1). Although strongly correlated (r = 0.79-1.00), peak velocity values for the GymAware were significantly lower than the FitroDyne for all exercises and loads. Importantly, the random errors between the devices, quantified through Bland and Altman's 95% limits of agreement, were unacceptable, ranging from ±3.8 to 25.9 cm·s-1. Differences in mean velocity were smaller (and nonsignificant for most comparisons) and highly correlated (r = 0.86-1.00) between devices. Notwithstanding smaller random errors than for the peak values, mean values still reflected poor agreement (random errors between ±2.1 and 12.0 cm·s-1). These findings suggest that the FitroDyne and GymAware cannot record peak or mean velocity with acceptable agreement and should neither be used interchangeably nor their data compared.

Comparison of traditional and accommodating resistance training with chains on muscular adaptations in young men

BACKGROUND

Providing accommodating resistance with the use of chains (CRT) is a programming technique that may enhance muscle size, strength, and power. However, there is a paucity of studies comparing the responses to CRT and traditional resistance training (TRT) approaches. This study aimed to examine the effects of 8 weeks of CRT and TRT on muscular adaptations in young recreationally-trained men.

METHODS

Thirty men (26 ± 4 y) volunteered to participate in the present study and were randomly assigned to either CRT (n = 10), TRT (n = 10), or a non-exercise control group (CG, n = 10). A resistancetraining program (3-4 sets, ~8-12 repetitions at 65-80% of 1RM) was performed three times a week for 8 weeks. Percentage body fat, arm and thigh circumferences, 1RM and endurance (number of repetitions to failure 60% of 1RM) strength tests in the back squat and bench press exercises, and vertical jump power were assessed before and after the intervention.

RESULTS

Following the intervention, both training groups demonstrated improvements in strength compared to CG, where greater gains were observed for CRT (e.g., bench press 1RM: CRT=28%; TRT=19% / back squat endurance: CRT=8%; TRT=2%).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of chains during resistance training may promote greater gains in strength in young men.