In order to stimulate further adaptation toward specific training goals, progressive resistance training (RT) protocols are necessary The optimal characteristics of strength-specific programs include the use of concentric (CON), eccentric (ECC), and isometric muscle actions and the performance of bilateral and unilateral single- and multiple-joint exercises In addition, it is recommended that strength programs sequence exercises to optimize the preservation of exercise intensity (large before small muscle group exercises, multiple-joint exercises before single-joint exercises, and higher-intensity before lower-intensity exercises) For novice (untrained individuals with no RT experience or who have not trained for several years) training, it is recommended that loads correspond to a repetition range of an 8-12 repetition maximum (RM) For intermediate (individuals with approximately 6 months of consistent RT experience) to advanced (individuals with years of RT experience) training, it is recommended that individuals use a wider loading range from 1 to 12 RM in a periodized fashion with eventual emphasis on heavy loading (1-6 RM) using 3- to 5-min rest periods between sets performed at a moderate contraction velocity (1-2 s CON; 1-2 s ECC) When training at a specific RM load, it is recommended that 2-10% increase in load be applied when the individual can perform the current workload for one to two repetitions over the desired number The recommendation for training frequency is 2-3 d·wk -1 for novice training, 3-4 d·wk -1 for intermediate training, and 4-5 d·wk -1 for advanced training Similar program designs are recommended for hypertrophy training with respect to exercise selection and frequency For loading, it is recommended that loads corresponding to 1-12 RM be used in periodized fashion with emphasis on the 6-12 RM zone using 1- to 2-min rest periods between sets at a moderate velocity Higher volume, multiple-set programs are recommended for maximizing hypertrophy Progression in power training entails two general loading strategies: 1) strength training and 2) use of light loads (0-60% of 1 RM for lower body exercises; 30-60% of 1 RM for upper body exercises) performed at a fast contraction velocity with 3-5 min of rest between sets for multiple sets per exercise (three to five sets) It is also recommended that emphasis be placed on multiple-joint exercises especially those involving the total body For local muscular endurance training, it is recommended that light to moderate loads (40-60% of 1 RM) be performed for high repetitions (>15) using short rest periods (<90 s) In the interpretation of this position stand as with prior ones, recommendations should be applied in context and should be contingent upon an individual's target goals, physical capacity, and training status

/pdf/progression-models-in-resistance-training-for-healthy-adults-1vkvqzcu18.pdf

Progression Models in Resistance Training for Healthy Adults

The quest to increase lean body mass is widely pursued by those who lift weights. Research is lacking, however, as to the best approach for maximizing exercise-induced muscle growth. Bodybuilders generally train with moderate loads and fairly short rest intervals that induce high amounts of metabolic stress. Powerlifters, on the other hand, routinely train with high-intensity loads and lengthy rest periods between sets. Although both groups are known to display impressive muscularity, it is not clear which method is superior for hypertrophic gains. It has been shown that many factors mediate the hypertrophic process and that mechanical tension, muscle damage, and metabolic stress all can play a role in exercise-induced muscle growth. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is twofold: (a) to extensively review the literature as to the mechanisms of muscle hypertrophy and their application to exercise training and (b) to draw conclusions from the research as to the optimal protocol for maximizing muscle growth.

/pdf/the-mechanisms-of-muscle-hypertrophy-and-their-application-544z22aglp.pdf

The mechanisms of muscle hypertrophy and their application to resistance training.

The evaluation of rate of force development during rapid contractions has recently become quite popular for characterising explosive strength of athletes, elderly individuals and patients. The main aims of this narrative review are to describe the neuromuscular determinants of rate of force development and to discuss various methodological considerations inherent to its evaluation for research and clinical purposes. Rate of force development (1) seems to be mainly determined by the capacity to produce maximal voluntary activation in the early phase of an explosive contraction (first 50–75 ms), particularly as a result of increased motor unit discharge rate; (2) can be improved by both explosive-type and heavy-resistance strength training in different subject populations, mainly through an improvement in rapid muscle activation; (3) is quite difficult to evaluate in a valid and reliable way. Therefore, we provide evidence-based practical recommendations for rational quantification of rate of force development in both laboratory and clinical settings.

/pdf/rate-of-force-development-physiological-and-methodological-5a4kwox9nh.pdf

Rate of force development: physiological and methodological considerations

This review discusses previous literature that has examined the influence of muscular strength on various factors associated with athletic performance and the benefits of achieving greater muscular strength. Greater muscular strength is strongly associated with improved force-time characteristics that contribute to an athlete’s overall performance. Much research supports the notion that greater muscular strength can enhance the ability to perform general sport skills such as jumping, sprinting, and change of direction tasks. Further research indicates that stronger athletes produce superior performances during sport specific tasks. Greater muscular strength allows an individual to potentiate earlier and to a greater extent, but also decreases the risk of injury. Sport scientists and practitioners may monitor an individual’s strength characteristics using isometric, dynamic, and reactive strength tests and variables. Relative strength may be classified into strength deficit, strength association, or strength reserve phases. The phase an individual falls into may directly affect their level of performance or training emphasis. Based on the extant literature, it appears that there may be no substitute for greater muscular strength when it comes to improving an individual’s performance across a wide range of both general and sport specific skills while simultaneously reducing their risk of injury when performing these skills. Therefore, sport scientists and practitioners should implement long-term training strategies that promote the greatest muscular strength within the required context of each sport/event. Future research should examine how force-time characteristics, general and specific sport skills, potentiation ability, and injury rates change as individuals transition from certain standards or the suggested phases of strength to another.

The Importance of Muscular Strength in Athletic Performance

This series of reviews focuses on the most important neuromuscular function in many sport performances: the ability to generate maximal muscular power. Part 1, published in an earlier issue of Sports Medicine, focused on the factors that affect maximal power production while part 2 explores the practical application of these findings by reviewing the scientific literature relevant to the development of training programmes that most effectively enhance maximal power production. The ability to generate maximal power during complex motor skills is of paramount importance to successful athletic performance across many sports. A crucial issue faced by scientists and coaches is the development of effective and efficient training programmes that improve maximal power production in dynamic, multi-joint movements. Such training is referred to as ‘power training’ for the purposes of this review. Although further research is required in order to gain a deeper understanding of the optimal training techniques for maximizing power in complex, sportsspecific movements and the precise mechanisms underlying adaptation, several key conclusions can be drawn from this review. First, a fundamental relationship exists between strength and power, which dictates that an individual cannot possess a high level of power without first being relatively strong. Thus, enhancing and maintaining maximal strength is essential when considering the long-term development of power. Second, consideration of movement pattern, load and velocity specificity is essential when designing power training programmes. Ballistic, plyometric and weightlifting exercises can be used effectively as primary exercises within a power training programme that enhances maximal power. The loads applied to these exercises will depend on the specific requirements of each particular sport and the type of movement being trained. The use of ballistic exercises with loads ranging from 0% to 50% of one-repetition maximum (1RM) and/or weightlifting exercises performed with loads ranging from 50% to 90% of 1RM appears to be the most potent loading stimulus for improving maximal power in complex movements. Furthermore, plyometric exercises should involve stretch rates as well as stretch loads that are similar to those encountered in each specific sport and involve little to no external resistance. These loading conditions allow for superior transfer to performance because they require similar movement velocities to those typically encountered in sport. Third, it is vital to consider the individual athlete’s window of adaptation (i.e. the magnitude of potential for improvement) for each neuromuscular factor contributing to maximal power production when developing an effective and efficient power training programme. A training programme that focuses on the least developed factor contributing to maximal power will prompt the greatest neuromuscular adaptations and therefore result in superior performance improvements for that individual. Finally, a key consideration for the long-term development of an athlete’s maximal power production capacity is the need for an integration of numerous power training techniques. This integration allows for variation within power meso-/micro-cycles while still maintaining specificity, which is theorized to lead to the greatest long-term improvement in maximal power.

/pdf/developing-maximal-neuromuscular-power-part-2-training-2zh4zw3rn7.pdf

Developing maximal neuromuscular power: part 2 - training considerations for improving maximal power production.

Purpose: The influence of various loads on power output in the jump squat (JS), squat (S), and power clean (PC) was examined to determine the load that maximizes power output in each lift.

Methods: Twelve Division I male athletes participated in four testing sessions. The first session involved performing one-repetition maximums (1RM) in the S and PC, followed by three randomized testing sessions involving either the JS, S, or PC. Peak force, velocity, and power were calculated across loads of 0, 12, 27, 42, 56, 71, and 85% of each subject's 1RM in the JS and S and at 10% intervals from 30 to 90% of each subject's 1RM in the PC.

Results: The optimal load for the JS was 0% of 1RM; absolute peak power was significantly lower from the optimal load at 42, 56, 71, and 85% of 1RM (P = 0.05), whereas peak power relative to body mass was significantly lower at 27% of 1RM in addition to 42, 56, 71, and 85% of 1RM. Peak power in the S was maximized at 56% of 1RM; however, power was not significantly different across the loading spectrum. The optimal load in the PC occurred at 80% of 1RM. Relative peak power at 80% of 1RM was significantly different from the 30 and 40% of 1RM.

Conclusion: This investigation indicates that the optimal load for maximal power output occurs at various percentages of 1RM in the JS, S, and PC

Optimal loading for maximal power output during lower-body resistance exercises.

The purpose of this investigation was to determine the relationship between countermovement vertical jump (CMJ) performance and various methods used to assess isometric and dynamic multijoint strength. Twelve NCAA Division I-AA male football and track and field athletes (age, 19.83 +/- 1.40 years; height, 179.10 +/- 4.56 cm; mass, 90.08 +/- 14.81 kg; percentage of body fat, 11.85 +/- 5.47%) participated in 2 testing sessions. The first session involved 1 repetition maximum (1RM) (kg) testing in the squat and power clean. During the second session, peak force (N), relative peak force (N x kg(-1)), peak power (W), relative peak power (W x kg(-1)), peak velocity (m x s(-1)), and jump height (meters) in a CMJ, and peak force and rate of force development (RFD) (N x s(-1)) in a maximal isometric squat (ISO squat) and maximal isometric mid-thigh pull (ISO mid-thigh) were assessed. Significant correlations (P < or = 0.05) were found when comparing relative 1RMs (1RM/body mass), in both the squat and power clean, to relative CMJ peak power, CMJ peak velocity, and CMJ height. No significant correlations existed between the 4 measures of absolute strength, which did not account for body mass (squat 1RM, power clean 1RM, ISO squat peak force, and ISO mid-thigh peak force) when compared to CMJ peak velocity and CMJ height. In conclusion, multijoint dynamic tests of strength (squat 1RM and power clean 1RM), expressed relative to body mass, are most closely correlated with CMJ performance. These results suggest that increasing maximal strength relative to body mass can improve performance in explosive lower body movements. The squat and power clean, used in a concurrent strength and power training program, are recommended for optimizing lower body power.

Relationship Between Countermovement Jump Performance and Multijoint Isometric and Dynamic Tests of Strength

The purpose of this investigation was to examine the impact of training on the power-, force-, and velocity-time curves of the countermovement jump (CMJ) through both cross-sectional and longitudinal comparisons. The most novel aspect of this study was the analysis of these curves for the entire movement at a sampling frequency of 386-506 Hz averaged across 30 subjects. Thirty subjects, all men, participated in this investigation and included 12 athletes and 18 untrained men. Two major comparisons were conducted: 1) an acute, cross-sectional examination comparing experienced jumpers (jump height > 0.50 m; n = 12 men's athletes) with nonjumpers (jump height < 0.50 m; n = 14 untrained men), and 2) a longitudinal examination comparing performance before and after 12 weeks of power training (training group n = 10 untrained men; control group n = 8 untrained men). Data obtained from the baseline testing session of 14 subjects involved in the longitudinal study were used for the cross-sectional examination to represent the nonjumper group. The cross-sectional examination revealed significant (p <or= 0.05) differences between jumpers and nonjumpers in peak performance variables (i.e., peak power, force, velocity, displacement) as well as over a range of time points throughout the power-, force-, velocity-, and displacement-time curves of the CMJ. Similar results were observed in the longitudinal examination, with power training eliciting significant changes to peak performance variables as well as significant changes to the power-, force-, velocity-, and displacement-time curves over a range of time points throughout the CMJ. This study illustrates that training status not only influences the peak performance variables of the countermovement jump but also impacts the shape of the power-, force-, velocity-, and displacement-time curves throughout the movement. Because analysis of peak performance variables offers little insight into how adaptations have occurred after training, examination of the changes to the power-, force-, velocity-, and/or displacement-time curves offers a simple yet powerful monitoring technique that practitioners can use to gain insight into the precise nature and timing of adaptations to training.

Power-time, force-time, and velocity-time curve analysis of the countermovement jump: Impact of training

The objective of this study was to investigate the validity of power measurement techniques utilizing various kinematic and kinetic devices during the jump squat (JS), squat (S) and power clean (PC). Ten Division I male athletes were assessed for power output across various intensities: 0, 12, 27, 42, 56, 71, and 85% of one repetition maximum strength (1RM) in the JS and S and 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, and 90% of 1RM in the PC. During the execution of each lift, six different data collection systems were utilized; (1) one linear position transducer (1-LPT); (2) one linear position transducer with the system mass representing the force (1-LPT+MASS); (3) two linear position transducers (2-LPT); (4) the force plate (FP); (5) one linear position transducer and a force plate (1-LPT+FP); (6) two linear position transducers and a force place (2-LPT+FP). Kinetic and kinematic variables calculated using the six methodologies were compared. Vertical power, force, and velocity differed significantly between 2-LPT+FP and 1-LPT, 1-LPT+MASS, 2-LPT, and FP methodologies across various intensities throughout the JS, S, and PC. These differences affected the load-power relationship and resulted in the transfer of the optimal load to a number of different intensities. This examination clearly indicates that data collection and analysis procedures influence the power output calculated as well as the load-power relationship of dynamic lower body movements.

Validation of power measurement techniques in dynamic lower body resistance exercises.

The purpose of the current study was to determine the acute neuroendocrine response to hypertrophy (H), strength (S), and power (P) type resistance exercise (RE) equated for total volume. Ten male subjects completed three RE protocols and a rest day (R) using a randomized cross-over design. The protocols included (1) H: 4 sets of 10 repetitions in the squat at 75% of 1RM (90 s rest periods); (2) S: 11 sets of three repetitions at 90% of 1RM (5 min rest periods); and (3) P: 8 sets of 6 repetitions of jump squats at 0% of 1RM (3 min rest periods). Total testosterone (T), cortisol (C), and sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG) were determined prior to (PRE), immediately post (IP), 60 min post, 24 h post, and 48 h post exercise bout. Peak force, rate of force development, and muscle activity from the vastus medialis (VM) and biceps femoris (BF) were determined during a maximal isometric squat test. A unique pattern of response was observed in T, C, and SHBG for each RE protocol. The percent change in T, C, and SHBG from PRE to IP was significantly (p ≤ 0.05) greater in comparison to the R condition only after the H protocol. The percent of baseline muscle activity of the VM at IP was significantly greater following the H compared to the S protocol. These data indicate that significant acute increases in hormone concentrations are limited to H type protocols independent of the volume of work competed. In addition, it appears the H protocol also elicits a unique pattern of muscle activity as well. RE protocols of varying intensity and rest periods elicit strikingly different acute neuroendocrine responses which indicate a unique physiological stimulus.

/pdf/acute-hormonal-and-neuromuscular-responses-to-hypertrophy-1502b3r6nh.pdf

Grant O. McCaulley

Papers

Optimal loading for maximal power output during lower-body resistance exercises.

Relationship Between Countermovement Jump Performance and Multijoint Isometric and Dynamic Tests of Strength

Power-time, force-time, and velocity-time curve analysis of the countermovement jump: Impact of training

Validation of power measurement techniques in dynamic lower body resistance exercises.

Acute hormonal and neuromuscular responses to hypertrophy, strength and power type resistance exercise