The intra- and inter-day reproducibility of the FitroDyne as a measure of multi-jointed muscle function

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.

Validity of the bench press one-repetition maximum test predicted through individualized load-velocity relationship using different repetition criteria and minimal velocity thresholds

BACKGROUND: More practical and less fatiguing strategies have been developed to accurately predict the one-repetition maximum (1RM). OBJETIVE: To compare the accuracy of the estimation of the free-weight bench press 1RM between six velocity-based 1RM prediction methods. METHODS: Sixteen men performed an incremental loading test until 1RM on two separate occasions. The first session served to determine the minimal velocity threshold (MVT). The second session was used to determine the validity of the six 1RM prediction methods based on 2 repetition criteria (fastest or average velocity) and 3 MVTs (general MVT of 0.17 m⋅s-1, individual MVT of the preliminary session, and individual MVT of the validity session). Five loads (≈ 2540557085% of 1RM) were used to assess the individualized load-velocity relationships. RESULTS: The absolute difference between the actual and predicted 1RM were low (range = 2.7–3.7%) and did not reveal a significant main effect for repetition criterion (P= 0.402), MVT (P= 0.173) or their two-way interaction (P= 0.354). Furthermore, all 1RM prediction methods accurately estimated bench press 1RM (P⩾ 0.556; ES ⩽ 0.02; r⩾ 0.99). CONCLUSIONS: The individualized load-velocity relationship provides an accurate prediction of the 1RM during the free-weight bench press exercise, while the repetition criteria and MVT do not appear to meaningfully affect the prediction accuracy.

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.

Prediction of One Repetition Maximum Using Reference Minimum Velocity Threshold Values in Young and Middle-Aged Resistance-Trained Males

Background: This study determined the accuracy of different velocity-based methods when predicting one-repetition maximum (1RM) in young and middle-aged resistance-trained males. Methods: Two days after maximal strength testing, 20 young (age 21.0 ± 1.6 years) and 20 middle-aged (age 42.6 ± 6.7 years) resistance-trained males completed three repetitions of bench press, back squat, and bent-over-row at loads corresponding to 20–80% 1RM. Using reference minimum velocity threshold (MVT) values, the 1RM was estimated from the load-velocity relationships through multiple (20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, and 80% 1RM), two-point (20 and 80% 1RM), high-load (60 and 80% 1RM) and low-load (20 and 40% 1RM) methods for each group. Results: Despite most prediction methods demonstrating acceptable correlations (r = 0.55 to 0.96), the absolute errors for young and middle-aged groups were generally moderate to high for bench press (absolute errors = 8.2 to 14.2% and 8.6 to 20.4%, respectively) and bent-over-row (absolute error = 14.9 to 19.9% and 8.6 to 18.2%, respectively). For squats, the absolute errors were lower in the young group (5.7 to 13.4%) than the middle-aged group (13.2 to 17.0%) but still unacceptable. Conclusion: These findings suggest that reference MVTs cannot accurately predict the 1RM in these populations. Therefore, practitioners need to directly assess 1RM.

Influence of Coaching Condition on the Magnitude and Reliability of Drop Jump Height in Men and Women

This study examined the effect of different coaching conditions on the magnitude and reliability of drop jump height in men and women. Nineteen collegiate sport sciences students (10 men) performed two sets of 10 drop jumps under four different coaching conditions: neutral, augmented feedback, external focus of attention, and a combination of augmented feedback and external focus of attention. The augmented feedback condition revealed a significantly higher jump height than the neutral condition (p = .002), while no significant differences were observed for the remaining conditions (p ≥ .38). The external focus of attention condition was more reliable than the neutral and augmented feedback conditions (coefficient of variationratio ≥ 1.15), while no differences were observed between the remaining conditions. These results suggest that both the magnitude and reliability of the drop jump height performance are influenced by the coaching condition.

Group versus Individualised Minimum Velocity Thresholds in the Prediction of Maximal Strength in Trained Female Athletes

This study examined the accuracy of different velocity-based methods in the prediction of bench press and squat one-repetition maximum (1RM) in female athletes. Seventeen trained females (age 17.8 ± 1.3 years) performed an incremental loading test to 1RM on bench press and squat with the mean velocity being recorded. The 1RM was estimated from the load-velocity relationship using the multiple- (8 loads) and two-point (2 loads) methods and group and individual minimum velocity thresholds (MVT). No significant effect of method, MVT or interaction was observed for the two exercises (p > 0.05). For bench press and squat, all prediction methods demonstrated very large to nearly perfect correlations with respect to the actual 1RM (r range = 0.76 to 0.97). The absolute error (range = 2.1 to 3.8 kg) for bench press demonstrated low errors that were independent of the method and MVT used. For squat, the favorable group MVT errors for the multiple- and two-point methods (absolute error = 7.8 and 9.7 kg, respectively) were greater than the individual MVT errors (absolute error = 4.9 and 6.3 kg, respectively). The 1RM can be accurately predicted from the load-velocity relationship in trained females, with the two-point method offering a quick and less fatiguing alternative to the multiple-point method.

Exercise-Induced Muscle Damage and Recovery in Young and Middle-Aged Males with Different Resistance Training Experience

This study compared the time course of recovery after a squatting exercise in trained young (YG; n = 9; age 22.3 ± 1.7 years) and trained (MT; n = 9; 39.9 ± 6.2 years) and untrained (MU; n = 9; age 44.4 ± 6.3 years) middle-aged males. Before and at 24 and 72 h after 10 × 10 squats at 60% one-repetition maximum (1RM), participants provided measurements of perceived muscle soreness (VAS), creatine kinase (CK), maximal voluntary contraction (MVC), voluntary activation (VA), and resting doublet force of the knee extensors and squatting peak power at 20% and 80% 1RM. When compared to the YG males, the MT experienced likely and very likely moderate decrements in MVC, resting doublet force, and peak power at 20% and 80% 1RM accompanied by unclear differences in VAS, CK, and VA after the squatting exercise. MU males, compared to MT, experienced greater alterations in peak power at 20% and 80% 1RM and VAS. Alterations in CK, MVC, VA, and resting doublet force were unclear at all time-points between the middle-aged groups. Middle-aged males experienced greater symptoms of muscle damage and an impaired recovery profile than young resistance trained males. Moreover, regardless of resistance training experience, middle-aged males are subject to similar symptoms after muscle-damaging lower-body exercise.

Influence of Playing Standard on Upper- and Lower-Body Strength, Power, and Velocity Characteristics of Elite Rugby League Players

BACKGROUND

To compare load-velocity and load-power relationships among first grade (n = 26, age 22.9 ± 4.3 years), academy (n = 23, age 17.1 ± 1.0 years), and scholarship (n = 16, age 15.4 ± 0.5 years) Super League rugby league players.

METHODS

Participants completed assessments of maximal upper- and lower-body strength (1RM) and peak velocity and power at 20, 40, 60, and 80 kg during bench press and squat exercises, in a randomised order.

RESULTS

Bench press and squat 1RM were highest for first grade players compared with other standards (effect size (ES) = -0.43 to -3.18). Peak velocities during bench and squat were greater in the higher playing standards (ES = -0.39 to -3.72 range), except for the squat at 20 and 40 kg. Peak power was higher in the better playing standards for all loads and exercises. For all three groups, velocity was correlated to optimal bench press power (r = 0.514 to 0.766), but only 1RM was related to optimal power (r = 0.635) in the scholarship players. Only squat 1RM in the academy was related to optimal squat power (r = 0.505).

CONCLUSIONS

Peak velocity and power are key physical qualities to be developed that enable progression from junior elite rugby league to first grade level. Resistance training should emphasise both maximal strength and velocity components, in order to optimise upper- and lower-body power in professional rugby league players.

Internal Loads, but Not External Loads and Fatigue, Are Similar in Young and Middle-Aged Resistance-Trained Males during High Volume Squatting Exercise †

Little is known about the internal and external loads experienced during resistance exercise, or the subsequent fatigue-related response, across different age groups. This study compared the internal (heart rate, OMNI ratings of perceived exertion (RPE), session RPE) and external loads (peak velocity and power and volume load) during high volume squatting exercise (10 × 10 at 60% one-repetition maximum (1RM)) and the fatigue-related response (maximal voluntary contraction (MVC), voluntary activation (VA), resting doublet force, peak power, and blood lactate) in young (n = 9; age 22.3 ± 1.7 years) and middle-aged (n = 9; age 39.9 ± 6.2 years) resistance-trained males. All internal load variables and peak velocity illustrated unclear differences between groups during exercise. Peak power and volume load were likely higher in the young group compared to their middle-aged counterparts. The unclear differences in MVC, VA and blood lactate between groups after exercise were accompanied by very likely greater decrements in resting doublet force and peak power at 20 and 80% 1RM in the middle-aged group compared to the young group. These data indicate that internal load is not different between young and middle-aged resistance-trained males, though certain external load measures and the fatigue response are.

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

Godwin, MS, Fernandes, JFT, and Twist, C. Effects of variable resistance using chains on bench throw performance in trained rugby players. J Strength Cond Res 32(4): 950-954, 2018-This study sought to determine the effects of variable resistance using chain resistance on bench throw performance. Eight male rugby union players (19.4 ± 2.3 years, 88.8 ± 6.0 kg, 1RM 105.6 ± 17.0 kg) were recruited from a national league team. In a randomized crossover design, participant's performed 3 bench throws at 45% one repetition maximum (1RM) at a constant load (no chains) or a variable load (30% 1RM constant load and 15% 1RM variable load; chains) with 7 days between conditions. For each repetition, the peak and mean velocity, peak power, peak acceleration, and time to peak velocity were recorded. Differences in peak and mean power were very likely trivial and unclear between the chain and no chain conditions, respectively. Possibly greater peak and likely greater mean bar velocity were accompanied by likely to most likely greater bar velocity between 50 and 400 ms from initiation of bench press in the chain condition compared with the no chain condition. Accordingly, bar acceleration was very likely greater in the chain condition compared with the no chain condition. In conclusion, these results show that the inclusion of chain resistance can acutely enhance several variables in the bench press throw and gives support to this type of training.