"You can't shoot another bullet until you've reloaded the gun": Coaches' perceptions, practices and experiences of deloading in strength and physique sports

Deloading refers to a purposeful reduction in training demand with the intention of enhancing preparedness for successive training cycles. Whilst deloading is a common training practice in strength and physique sports, little is known about how the necessary reduction in training demand should be accomplished. Therefore, the purpose of this research was to determine current deloading practices in competitive strength and physique sports. Eighteen strength and physique coaches from a range of sports (weightlifting, powerlifting, and bodybuilding) participated in semi-structured interviews to discuss their experiences of deloading. The mean duration of coaching experience at ≥ national standard was 10.9 (SD = 3.9) years. Qualitative content analysis identified Three categories: definitions, rationale, and application. Participants conceptualised deloading as a periodic, intentional cycle of reduced training demand designed to facilitate fatigue management, improve recovery, and assist in overall training progression and readiness. There was no single method of deloading; instead, a reduction in training volume (achieved through a reduction in repetitions per set and number of sets per training session) and intensity of effort (increased proximity to failure and/or reduction in relative load) were the most adapted training variables, along with alterations in exercise selection and configuration. Deloading was typically prescribed for a duration of 5 to 7 days and programmed every 4 to 6 weeks, although periodicity was highly variable. Additional findings highlight the underrepresentation of deloading in the published literature, including a lack of a clear operational definition.

Molecular Differences in Skeletal Muscle After 1 Week of Active vs. Passive Recovery From High-Volume Resistance Training

ABSTRACT

Vann, CG, Haun, CT, Osburn, SC, Romero, MA, Roberson, PA, Mumford, PW, Mobley, CB, Holmes, HM, Fox, CD, Young, KC, and Roberts, MD. Molecular differences in skeletal muscle after 1 week of active vs. passive recovery from high-volume resistance training. J Strength Cond Res 35(8): 2102-2113, 2021-Numerous studies have evaluated how deloading after resistance training (RT) affects strength and power outcomes. However, the molecular adaptations that occur after deload periods remain understudied. Trained, college-aged men (n = 30) performed 6 weeks of whole-body RT starting at 10 sets of 10 repetitions per exercise per week and finishing at 32 sets of 10 repetitions per exercise per week. After this period, subjects performed either active (AR; n = 16) or passive recovery (PR; n = 14) for 1 week where AR completed ∼15% of the week 6 training volume and PR ceased training. Variables related to body composition and recovery examined before RT (PRE), after 6 weeks of RT (POST), and after the 1-week recovery period (DL). Vastus lateralis (VL) muscle biopsies and blood samples were collected at each timepoint, and various biochemical and histological assays were performed. Group × time interactions (p < 0.05) existed for skeletal muscle myosin heavy chain (MHC)-IIa mRNA (AR > PR at POST and DL) and 20S proteasome activity (post-hoc tests revealed no significance in groups over time). Time effects (P < 0.05) existed for total mood disturbance and serum creatine kinase and mechano growth factor mRNA (POST > PRE &D L), VL pressure to pain threshold and MHC-IIx mRNA (PRE&DL > POST), Atrogin-1 and MuRF-1 mRNA (PRE < POST < DL), MHC-I mRNA (PRE < POST & DL), myostatin mRNA (PRE & POST < DL), and mechanistic target of rapamycin (PRE > POST & DL). No interactions or time effects were observed for barbell squat velocity, various hormones, histological metrics, polyubiquitinated proteins, or phosphorylated/pan protein levels of 4E-BP1, p70S6k, and AMPK. One week of AR after a high-volume training block instigates marginal molecular differences in skeletal muscle relative to PR. From a practical standpoint, however, both paradigms elicited largely similar responses.

Optimal Loading for Force Production in the Straight Bar Deadlift: Force-Time Characteristics in Strength-Trained Adults

ABSTRACT

Lawson, C, Mundy, P, Lyons, M, and Duncan, MJ. Optimal loading for force production in the straight bar deadlift: Force-time characteristics in strength-trained adults. J Strength Cond Res 35(6): 1636-1641, 2021-This study sought to identify whether there is an optimum load in relation to peak force development and rate of force development (RFD) in the straight bar deadlift and to examine whether baseline strength levels influence this optimum load. Twelve strength-trained men (mean age ± SD; 25.1 ± 5.4 years) performed 3 deadlift repetitions at loads of 10% intervals of 20-90% of their predetermined individual 1 repetition maximum (1RM). Peak vertical force (PFz) and RFD were determined from each repetition. The repetition at each percentage of 1RM that produced the greatest PFz was used for analysis. All data were collected on an AMTI force platform. Repeated-measures analysis of variance indicated significant differences in PFz across loads of 20-90% 1RM (p = 0.001) with a linear increase in PFz with increasing % of 1RM. The highest PFz occurred at 90% of 1RM. For RFD, there was a significant main effect for load (p = 0.018) where instantaneous RFD was significantly higher at 80 and 90% 1RM compared with 20% 1RM. When analyses were re-run using baseline strength as a covariate, the results did not change, indicating that baseline strength did not influence the PFz or RFD output. These results suggest that there is no significant difference in RFD between adjacent loads, but that peak force production was greatest at 90% 1RM in the straight bar deadlift.

Periodization and physical therapy: Bridging the gap between training and rehabilitation

BACKGROUND

Exercise prescription and training progression for competitive athletes has evolved considerably in recent decades, as strength and conditioning coaches increasingly use periodization models to inform the development and implementation of training programs for their athletes. Similarly, exercise prescription and progression is a fundamental skill for sport physical therapists, and is necessary for balancing the physiological stresses of injury with an athlete's capacity for recovery.

OBJECTIVE

This article will provide the sport physical therapist with an overview of periodization models and their application to rehabilitation.

SUMMARY

In recent decades models for exercise prescription and progression also have evolved in theory and scope, contributing to improved rehabilitation for countless athletes, when compared to care offered to athletes of previous generations. Nonetheless, despite such advances, such models typically fail to fully bridge the gap between such rehabilitation schemes and the corresponding training models that coaches use to help athletes peak for competition. Greater knowledge of periodization models can help sport physical therapists in their evaluation, clinical reasoning skills, exercise progression, and goal setting for the sustained return of athletes to high level competition.

Kinetic comparison of the power development between power clean variations

The purpose of this study was to compare the power production of the hang clean (HC), jump shrug (JS), and high pull (HP) when performed at different relative loads. Seventeen men with previous HC training experience, performed 3 repetitions each of the HC, JS, and HP at relative loads of 30, 45, 65, and 80% of their 1 repetition maximum (1RM) HC on a force platform over 3 different testing sessions. Peak power output (PPO), peak force (PF), and peak velocity (PV) of the lifter plus bar system during each repetition were compared. The JS produced a greater PPO, PF, and PV than both the HC (p < 0.001) and HP (p < 0.001). The HP also produced a greater PPO (p < 0.01) and PV (p < 0.001) than the HC. Peak power output, PF, and PV occurred at 45, 65, and 30% 1RM, respectively. Peak power output at 45% 1RM was greater than PPO at 65% (p = 0.043) and 80% 1RM (p = 0.004). Peak force at 30% was less than PF at 45% (p = 0.006), 65% (p < 0.001), and 80% 1RM (p = 0.003). Peak velocity at 30 and 45% was greater than PV at 65% (p < 0.001) and 80% 1RM (p < 0.001). Peak velocity at 65% 1RM was also greater than PV at 80% 1RM (p < 0.001). When designing resistance training programs, practitioners should consider implementing the JS and HP. To optimize PPO, loads of approximately 30 and 45% 1RM HC are recommended for the JS and HP, respectively.

The combination of plyometric and balance training improves sprint and shuttle run performances more often than plyometric-only training with children

Because balance is not fully developed in children and studies have shown functional improvements with balance only training studies, a combination of plyometric and balance activities might enhance static balance, dynamic balance, and power. The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of plyometric only (PLYO) with balance and plyometric (COMBINED) training on balance and power measures in children. Before and after an 8-week training period, testing assessed lower-body strength (1 repetition maximum leg press), power (horizontal and vertical jumps, triple hop for distance, reactive strength, and leg stiffness), running speed (10-m and 30-m sprint), static and dynamic balance (Standing Stork Test and Star Excursion Balance Test), and agility (shuttle run). Subjects were randomly divided into 2 training groups (PLYO [n = 14] and COMBINED [n = 14]) and a control group (n = 12). Results based on magnitude-based inferences and precision of estimation indicated that the COMBINED training group was considered likely to be superior to the PLYO group in leg stiffness (d = 0.69, 91% likely), 10-m sprint (d = 0.57, 84% likely), and shuttle run (d = 0.52, 80% likely). The difference between the groups was unclear in 8 of the 11 dependent variables. COMBINED training enhanced activities such as 10-m sprints and shuttle runs to a greater degree. COMBINED training could be an important consideration for reducing the high velocity impacts of PLYO training. This reduction in stretch-shortening cycle stress on neuromuscular system with the replacement of balance and landing exercises might help to alleviate the overtraining effects of excessive repetitive high load activities.