Monitoring the resistance training volume load (VL) (sets × reps × load) is essential to managing resistance training and the recovery–adaptation process. Subjects: Eight trained weightlifters, seven of which were at national level, participated in the study. Methods: VL was measured both with (VLwD) and without (VL) the inclusion of barbell displacement, across twenty weeks of training, in order to allow for comparisons to be made of these VL calculating methods. This consisted of recording the load, repetition count, and barbell displacement for every set executed. Comparisons were made between VL and VLwD for individual blocks of training, select training weeks, and select training days. Results: Strong, statistically significant correlations (r ≥ 0.78, p < 0.001) were observed between VL and VLwD between all training periods analyzed. t-tests revealed statistically significant (p ≤ 0.018) differences between VL and VLwD in four of the seven training periods analyzed. Conclusion: The very strong relationship between VL and VLwD suggest that a coach with time constraints and a large number of athletes can potentially spare the addition of displacement. However, differences in percent change indicate that coaches with ample time should include displacement in VL calculations, in an effort to acquire more precise workload totals.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

This study examined the kinetic and kinematic differences between accentuated eccentric loading (AEL) and cluster sets in trained male subjects (age = 26.1 ± 4.1 years, height = 183.5 ± 4.3 cm, body mass = 92.5 ± 10.5 kg, and back squat to body mass ratio = 1.8 ± 0.3). Four load condition sessions consisted of traditionally loaded (TL) “straight sets,” TL cluster (TLC) sets, AEL cluster (AEC) sets, and AEL “straight sets” where only the first repetition had eccentric overload (AEL1). An interrepetition rest interval of 30 seconds was prescribed for both TLC and AEC. Concentric intensity for all load conditions was 80% 1 repetition maximum (1RM). Accentuated eccentric loading was applied to repetitions using weight releasers with total eccentric load equivalent to 105% of concentric 1RM. Traditionally loaded cluster had statistically greater concentric outputs than TL. Furthermore, statistically greater eccentric and concentric outputs were observed during AEC compared with TL with the exception of peak power. Statistically greater concentric characteristics were observed in TLC compared with AEL1, but statistically greater eccentric outputs were observed in AEL1. In the 2 cluster set conditions, statistically greater concentric rate of force development (RFDCON) (d = 0.470, p < 0.001) and average velocity (vavg) (d = 0.560, p < 0.001) in TLC compared with AEC were observed. However, statistically greater eccentric work (WECC) (d = 2.096, p < 0.001) and eccentric RFD (RFDECC) (d = 0.424, p < 0.001) were observed in AEC compared with TLC. Overall, eccentric overload demonstrated efficacy as a means of increasing eccentric work and RFD, but not as a means of potentiating concentric output. Finally, interrepetition rest seems to have the largest influence on concentric power output and RFD.

The purposes of this investigation were to: (1) assess kinetic characteristics of overload, (2) examine eccentric and concentric muscle activations and (3) explore velocity measurement as a method of intensity prescription in inertial flywheel squat training. A series of two experiments were performed: one assessing kinetic and muscle activation characteristics of flywheel squat training using three progressive inertial loads. The second experiment assessed inertial load-velocity relationships using six progressive inertial loads. Peak force, net impulse, positive–negative impulse ratio and positive–negative impulse duration ratio were each statistically significant between all three load conditions (p < 0.05). Concentric vastus lateralis muscle activation was the only significant increase between inertial loads (p < 0.05). Although not statistically significant, concentric quadricep muscle activation was increased from the lowest to highest inertia. Conversely, eccentric quadricep muscle activation was reduced from the lowest to highest inertia. In the second experiment, statistically significant regression equations were observed for average concentric velocity (R2 = 0.66) and peak concentric velocity (R2 = 0.60). In conclusion, our results indicate (1) overload is possible kinetically, (2) phase-specific muscle activation responds differently to increased inertia and (3) velocity has the potential to be used for load prescription in the inertial flywheel squat.

The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the acceleration phase of sprinting could be split into subphases specific to the competitive demands of a soccer match by comparing sprint metrics at various sprint distances in Division I men's soccer players. Twenty-three Division I men's soccer athletes completed 2 maximal-effort 20-m sprints from a standing start position through an optical measurement system. Sprint metrics measured included sprint velocity (SV), step length (SL), step frequency (SF), and ground contact time (GCT). Each metric was recorded at approximately 2.5, 6, and 12 m. Sprint metrics at each distance were compared using a 2-tailed, 1-way repeated-measures analysis of variance. The results indicated that SV, SL, and SF were statistically greater at 12 m in comparison with 6 m (p < 0.001) and 2.5 m (p < 0.001), whereas GCT was statistically shorter at 12 m compared with 6 m (p < 0.001) and 2.5 m (p < 0.001). In addition, sprint metrics at 6 m also displayed the same relationships when compared to 2.5 m, with SV, SL, and SF being statistically greater (p < 0.001) at this distance, and GCT being statistically shorter (p < 0.001) as well. These results suggest that the acceleration phase may effectively be differentiated into early, mid, and late subphases based on differences in key sprint metrics at distances of 2.5, 6, and 12 m, respectively, in Division I men's soccer athletes.

Excerpt:The purpose of this article is to present and discuss the phases of the pull that precede the power position, as well as present some suggestions for how to coach these positions...

The countermovement jump (CMJ) is a reliable and noninvasive test of lower-body neuromuscular performance. Many of the investigations used to establish the reliability of CMJ have been conducted in a controlled environment (i.e., laboratory setting). To better inform coaches, reliability of key CMJ variables should be examined in a practical environment. This study assessed intrasession and intersession reliability of CMJ variables in NCAA D-I volleyball athletes. Eleven female volleyball players (age = 19.8 ± 0.8 years, height = 1.75 ± 0.07 m, body mass = 71.6 ± 8.9 kg) performed twice weekly CMJ testing on force platforms across 14 weeks of training. Dependent variables were CMJ height (CMJH), reactive strength index modified (RSIMOD), relative peak power (rPP), and countermovement depth (CM depth). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), coefficient of variation (CV), and typical error (TE) were calculated, along with Pearson correlation coefficients. Intrasession reliability revealed excellent reliability values for CMJH (ICC = 0.94, CV = 2.9 ± 2.4%, TE = 1.25) and RSIMOD (ICC = 0.93, CV = 4.7 ± 4.9, TE = 0.03). Good reliability values were observed for rPP (ICC = 0.79, CV = 6.1 ± 10.9%, TE = 4.48), with only moderate reliability for CM depth (ICC = 0.61, CV = 7.1 ± 10.9%, TE = 16.9). Intersession reliability indicated excellent reliability for CMJH (ICC = 0.92, CV = 3.2 ± 2.8%, TE = 1.4) and RSIMOD (ICC = 0.92, CV = 5.4 ± 4.3%, TE = 0.03). However, poor reliability was observed for rPP (ICC = 0.41, CV = 10.4 ± 15.4%, TE = 7.95) and CM depth (ICC = 0.39, CV = 7.7 ± 10.8%, TE = 6.42). These results suggest that in the context of weekly athlete monitoring, measures such as CMJH and RSIMOD exhibit the greatest reliability. Conversely, measures such as CM depth and rPP exhibit high levels of variability. Practitioners seeking to track jump performance over time should be cognizant of CM depth variability and its potential impact on CMJ variables.

PURPOSE: To examine the influence of three distinct training phases on isometric mid-thigh pull (IMTP) measures in well-trained weightlifters. METHODS: Pre- and post-block IMTP data from 11 collegiate weightlifters was used for analysis. The mean of the best two attempts from each athlete for measures of PF and RFD from 0-50ms, 0-100ms, 0-150ms, 0-200ms, and 0-250ms were used for comparison. In total, results from five timepoints for each of the 11 athletes were examined in order to compare the effects of the three training phases. RESULTS: A repeated measures ANOVA revealed no statistically significant (p ≥ 0.05) effects of training on any of the variables measured. When comparing post block values from each phase to pre-training cycle values, the largest increase in RFD200 (d = 0.22) and RFD250 (d=0.22) occurred post strength-power (SP) phase, while the peak in RFD50 (d = 0.32), RFD100 (d = 0.31), and RFD150 (d = 0.22) occurred after the peak/taper (PT) phase. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of the study, it is possible that changes in IMTP RFD may reflect the expected adaptations of block periodization. Rather than examining RFD changes at only one time-band, it may be valuable to monitor RFD across multiple time bands as changes in early and late RFD may not occur proportionally during a peak/taper phase.