Come parte del nostro processo di ricerca e sviluppo siamo alla continua analisi di nuove ricerche scientifiche che hanno applicazione nel mondo della preparazione atletica. In questo articolo abbiamo voluto condividere 5 degli articoli pubblicati nel mese di Marzo 2022 tra le migliori riviste di sport scienze secondo la graduatoria SCImago. Gli articoli proposti sono stati selezionati a seguito di una ricerca condotta su google scholar digitando le seguenti parole chiave: Strength training”, “Resistance training”, “Endurance training”,” Sprint training”, “Aerobic training”, “Anaerobic training”.
- Orange, S. T., Hritz, A., Pearson, L., Jeffries, O., Jones, T. W., & Steele, J. (2022). Comparison of the effects of velocity-based vs. traditional resistance training methods on adaptations in strength, power, and sprint speed: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and quality of evidence appraisal. Journal of Sports Sciences, 1-15.
We estimated the effectiveness of using velocity feedback to regulate resistance training load on changes in muscle strength, power, and linear sprint speed in apparently healthy participants. Academic and grey literature databases were systematically searched to identify randomised trials that compared a velocity-based training intervention to a ‘traditional’ resistance training intervention that did not use velocity feedback. Standardised mean differences (SMDs) were pooled using a random effects model. Risk of bias was assessed with the Risk of Bias 2 tool and the quality of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach. Four trials met the eligibility criteria, comprising 27 effect estimates and 88 participants. The main analyses showed trivial differences and imprecise interval estimates for effects on muscle strength (SMD 0.06, 95% CI −0.51–0.63; I2 = 42.9%; 10 effects from 4 studies; low-quality evidence), power (SMD 0.11, 95% CI −0.28–0.49; I2 = 13.5%; 10 effects from 3 studies; low-quality evidence), and sprint speed (SMD −0.10, 95% CI −0.72–0.53; I2 = 30.0%; 7 effects from 2 studies; very low-quality evidence). The results were robust to various sensitivity analyses. In conclusion, there is currently no evidence that VBT and traditional resistance training methods lead to different alterations in muscle strength, power, or linear sprint speed.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2022.2059320
- Pelland, J. C., Robinson, Z. P., Remmert, J. F., Cerminaro, R. M., Benitez, B., John, T. A., … & Zourdos, M. C. (2022). Methods for Controlling and Reporting Resistance Training Proximity to Failure: Current Issues and Future Directions. Sports Medicine, 1-12.
Resistance training variables such as volume, load, and frequency are well defined. However, the variable proximity to failure does not have a consistent quantification method, despite being defined as the number of repetitions in reserve (RIR) upon completion of a resistance training set. Further, there is between-study variability in the definition of failure itself. Studies have defined failure as momentary (inability to complete the concentric phase despite maximal effort), volitional (self-termination), or have provided no working definition. Methods to quantify proximity to failure include percentage-based prescription, repetition maximum zone training, velocity loss, and self-reported RIR; each with positives and negatives. Specifically, applying percentage-based prescriptions across a group may lead to a wide range of per-set RIR owing to interindividual differences in repetitions performed at specific percentages of 1 repetition maximum. Velocity loss is an objective method; however, the relationship between velocity loss and RIR varies set-to-set, across loading ranges, and between exercises. Self-reported RIR is inherently individualized; however, its subjectivity can lead to inaccuracy. Further, many studies, regardless of quantification method, do not report RIR. Consequently, it is difficult to make specific recommendations for per-set proximity to failure to maximize hypertrophy and strength. Therefore, this review aims to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the current proximity to failure quantification methods. Further, we propose future directions for researchers and practitioners to quantify proximity to failure, including implementation of absolute velocity stops using individual average concentric velocity/RIR relationships. Finally, we provide guidance for reporting self-reported RIR regardless of the quantification method.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-022-01667-2
- Castilla-López, C., Molina-Mula, J., & Romero-Franco, N. (2022). Blood flow restriction during training for improving the aerobic capacity and sport performance of trained athletes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Exercise Science & Fitness (in-press).
Background/Objective: Combining blow restriction (BFR) with endurance training is exponentially increasing although the benefits are unclear in trained athletes. We aimed to describe the effects of aerobic and/or anaerobic training programmes combined with BFR on the aerobic capacity and related sport performance of trained athletes. Methods: Databases used were MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus, LILACS, IBECS, CINHAL, COCHRANE, SCIELO and PEDro, through October 2021. For study selection, criteria included (a) clinical trials that recruited trained healthy athletes, that (b) proposed BFR in combination with aerobic/anaerobic training programmes (≥8 sessions) and that (c) evaluated either aerobic capacity or related sport performance. For data extraction, a reviewer extracted the data, and another reviewer independently verified it. The tool RoB 2 (Risk of bias 2) was used to assess risk of bias. Results: Ten studies met the eligibility criteria, capturing a total of 207 participants. Although it did not reveal any significant effects from training with BFR on aerobic capacity compared to the same training without BFR, effect sizes were extremely high. Subgroup analyses according to the intensity of the training programmes found similar results for low-to-moderate or high-intensity training compared to the same sessions without BFR. Conclusions: Although adding BFR to training sessions always produce benefits from baseline in aerobic capacity and sport performance of trained athletes, these results are not better than those observed after the same training sessions without BFR. The reduced number of studies, small sample sizes and some concerns regarding risk of bias should be highlighted as limitations.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesf.2022.03.004
- Rissanen, J., Walker, S., Pareja-Blanco, F., & Häkkinen, K. (2022). Velocity-based resistance training: do women need greater velocity loss to maximize adaptations?. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 1-12.
Purpose: Men and women typically display different neuromuscular characteristics, force–velocity relationships, and differing strength deficit (upper vs. lower body). Thus, it is not clear how previous recommendations for training with velocity-loss resistance training based on data in men will apply to women. This study examined the inter-sex differences in neuromuscular adaptations using 20% and 40% velocity-loss protocols in back squat and bench press exercises. Methods: The present study employed an 8-week intervention (2 × week) comparing 20% vs. 40% velocity-loss resistance training in the back squat and bench press exercises in young men and women (~ 26 years). Maximum strength (1-RM) and submaximal-load mean propulsive velocity (MPV) for low- and high-velocity lifts in squat and bench press, countermovement jump and vastus lateralis cross-sectional area were measured at pre-, mid-, and post-training. Surface EMG of quadriceps measured muscle activity during performance tests. Results: All groups increased 1-RM strength in squat and bench press exercises, as well as MPV using submaximal loads and countermovement jump height (P < 0.05). No statistically significant between-group differences were observed, but higher magnitudes following 40% velocity loss in 1-RM (g = 0.60) and in low- (g = 1.42) and high-velocity (g = 0.98) lifts occurred in women. Training-induced improvements were accompanied by increases in surface EMG amplitude and vastus lateralis cross-sectional area. Conclusion: Similar increases in strength and power performance were observed in men and women over 8 weeks of velocity-based resistance training. However, some results suggest that strength and power gains favor using 40% rather than 20% velocity loss in women.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-022-04925-3
- Chaillou, T., Treigyte, V., Mosely, S., Brazaitis, M., Venckunas, T., & Cheng, A. J. (2022). Functional Impact of Post-exercise Cooling and Heating on Recovery and Training Adaptations: Application to Resistance, Endurance, and Sprint Exercise. Sports medicine-open, 8(1), 1-26.
The application of post-exercise cooling (e.g., cold water immersion) and post-exercise heating has become a popular intervention which is assumed to increase functional recovery and may improve chronic training adaptations. However, the effectiveness of such post-exercise temperature manipulations remains uncertain. The aim of this comprehensive review was to analyze the effects of post-exercise cooling and post-exercise heating on neuromuscular function (maximal strength and power), fatigue resistance, exercise performance, and training adaptations. We focused on three exercise types (resistance, endurance and sprint exercises) and included studies investigating (1) the early recovery phase, (2) the late recovery phase, and (3) repeated application of the treatment. We identified that the primary benefit of cooling was in the early recovery phase (< 1 h post-exercise) in improving fatigue resistance in hot ambient conditions following endurance exercise and possibly enhancing the recovery of maximal strength following resistance exercise. The primary negative impact of cooling was with chronic exposure which impaired strength adaptations and decreased fatigue resistance following resistance training intervention (12 weeks and 4–12 weeks, respectively). In the early recovery phase, cooling could also impair sprint performance following sprint exercise and could possibly reduce neuromuscular function immediately after endurance exercise. Generally, no benefits of acute cooling were observed during the 24–72-h recovery period following resistance and endurance exercises, while it could have some benefits on the recovery of neuromuscular function during the 24–48-h recovery period following sprint exercise. Most studies indicated that chronic cooling does not affect endurance training adaptations following 4–6 week training intervention. We identified limited data employing heating as a recovery intervention, but some indications suggest promise in its application to endurance and sprint exercise.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40798-022-00428-9
