Refine
Document Type
- Article (53)
- Postprint (19)
- Review (2)
- Habilitation Thesis (1)
- Other (1)
Language
- English (76)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (76)
Keywords
- stretch-shortening cycle (11)
- athletic performance (7)
- football (6)
- human physical conditioning (6)
- muscle strength (6)
- physical fitness (6)
- strength training (6)
- young athletes (6)
- training load (5)
- youth (5)
Objective: To examine the effect of plyometric jump training on skeletal muscle hypertrophy in healthy individuals.
Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in the databases PubMed, SPORTDiscus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library up to September 2021.
Results: Fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria. The main overall finding (44 effect sizes across 15 clusters median = 2, range = 1–15 effects per cluster) indicated that plyometric jump training had small to moderate effects [standardised mean difference (SMD) = 0.47 (95% CIs = 0.23–0.71); p < 0.001] on skeletal muscle hypertrophy. Subgroup analyses for training experience revealed trivial to large effects in non-athletes [SMD = 0.55 (95% CIs = 0.18–0.93); p = 0.007] and trivial to moderate effects in athletes [SMD = 0.33 (95% CIs = 0.16–0.51); p = 0.001]. Regarding muscle groups, results showed moderate effects for the knee extensors [SMD = 0.72 (95% CIs = 0.66–0.78), p < 0.001] and equivocal effects for the plantar flexors [SMD = 0.65 (95% CIs = −0.25–1.55); p = 0.143]. As to the assessment methods of skeletal muscle hypertrophy, findings indicated trivial to small effects for prediction equations [SMD = 0.29 (95% CIs = 0.16–0.42); p < 0.001] and moderate-to-large effects for ultrasound imaging [SMD = 0.74 (95% CIs = 0.59–0.89); p < 0.001]. Meta-regression analysis indicated that the weekly session frequency moderates the effect of plyometric jump training on skeletal muscle hypertrophy, with a higher weekly session frequency inducing larger hypertrophic gains [β = 0.3233 (95% CIs = 0.2041–0.4425); p < 0.001]. We found no clear evidence that age, sex, total training period, single session duration, or the number of jumps per week moderate the effect of plyometric jump training on skeletal muscle hypertrophy [β = −0.0133 to 0.0433 (95% CIs = −0.0387 to 0.1215); p = 0.101–0.751].
Conclusion: Plyometric jump training can induce skeletal muscle hypertrophy, regardless of age and sex. There is evidence for relatively larger effects in non-athletes compared with athletes. Further, the weekly session frequency seems to moderate the effect of plyometric jump training on skeletal muscle hypertrophy, whereby more frequent weekly plyometric jump training sessions elicit larger hypertrophic adaptations.
Objective: To examine the effect of plyometric jump training on skeletal muscle hypertrophy in healthy individuals.
Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in the databases PubMed, SPORTDiscus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library up to September 2021.
Results: Fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria. The main overall finding (44 effect sizes across 15 clusters median = 2, range = 1–15 effects per cluster) indicated that plyometric jump training had small to moderate effects [standardised mean difference (SMD) = 0.47 (95% CIs = 0.23–0.71); p < 0.001] on skeletal muscle hypertrophy. Subgroup analyses for training experience revealed trivial to large effects in non-athletes [SMD = 0.55 (95% CIs = 0.18–0.93); p = 0.007] and trivial to moderate effects in athletes [SMD = 0.33 (95% CIs = 0.16–0.51); p = 0.001]. Regarding muscle groups, results showed moderate effects for the knee extensors [SMD = 0.72 (95% CIs = 0.66–0.78), p < 0.001] and equivocal effects for the plantar flexors [SMD = 0.65 (95% CIs = −0.25–1.55); p = 0.143]. As to the assessment methods of skeletal muscle hypertrophy, findings indicated trivial to small effects for prediction equations [SMD = 0.29 (95% CIs = 0.16–0.42); p < 0.001] and moderate-to-large effects for ultrasound imaging [SMD = 0.74 (95% CIs = 0.59–0.89); p < 0.001]. Meta-regression analysis indicated that the weekly session frequency moderates the effect of plyometric jump training on skeletal muscle hypertrophy, with a higher weekly session frequency inducing larger hypertrophic gains [β = 0.3233 (95% CIs = 0.2041–0.4425); p < 0.001]. We found no clear evidence that age, sex, total training period, single session duration, or the number of jumps per week moderate the effect of plyometric jump training on skeletal muscle hypertrophy [β = −0.0133 to 0.0433 (95% CIs = −0.0387 to 0.1215); p = 0.101–0.751].
Conclusion: Plyometric jump training can induce skeletal muscle hypertrophy, regardless of age and sex. There is evidence for relatively larger effects in non-athletes compared with athletes. Further, the weekly session frequency seems to moderate the effect of plyometric jump training on skeletal muscle hypertrophy, whereby more frequent weekly plyometric jump training sessions elicit larger hypertrophic adaptations.
Non-local muscle fatigue effects on muscle strength, power, and endurance in healthy individuals
(2021)
Background
The fatigue of a muscle or muscle group can produce global responses to a variety of systems (i.e., cardiovascular, endocrine, and others). There are also reported strength and endurance impairments of non-exercised muscles following the fatigue of another muscle; however, the literature is inconsistent.
Objective
To examine whether non-local muscle fatigue (NLMF) occurs following the performance of a fatiguing bout of exercise of a different muscle(s).
Design
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Search and Inclusion
A systematic literature search using a Boolean search strategy was conducted with PubMed, SPORTDiscus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar in April 2020, and was supplemented with additional 'snowballing' searches up to September 2020. To be included in our analysis, studies had to include at least one intentional performance measure (i.e., strength, endurance, or power), which if reduced could be considered evidence of muscle fatigue, and also had to include the implementation of a fatiguing protocol to a location (i.e., limb or limbs) that differed to those for which performance was measured. We excluded studies that measured only mechanistic variables such as electromyographic activity, or spinal/supraspinal excitability. After search and screening, 52 studies were eligible for inclusion including 57 groups of participants (median sample = 11) and a total of 303 participants.
Results
The main multilevel meta-analysis model including all effects sizes (278 across 50 clusters [median = 4, range = 1 to 18 effects per cluster) revealed a trivial point estimate with high precision for the interval estimate [- 0.02 (95% CIs = - 0.14 to 0.09)], yet with substantial heterogeneity (Q((277)) = 642.3, p < 0.01), I-2 = 67.4%). Subgroup and meta-regression analyses showed that NLMF effects were not moderated by study design (between vs. within-participant), homologous vs. heterologous effects, upper or lower body effects, participant training status, sex, age, the time of post-fatigue protocol measurement, or the severity of the fatigue protocol. However, there did appear to be an effect of type of outcome measure where both strength [0.11 (95% CIs = 0.01-0.21)] and power outcomes had trivial effects [- 0.01 (95% CIs = - 0.24 to 0.22)], whereas endurance outcomes showed moderate albeit imprecise effects [- 0.54 (95% CIs = - 0.95 to - 0.14)].
Conclusions
Overall, the findings do not support the existence of a general NLMF effect; however, when examining specific types of performance outcomes, there may be an effect specifically upon endurance-based outcomes (i.e., time to task failure). However, there are relatively fewer studies that have examined endurance effects or mechanisms explaining this possible effect, in addition to fewer studies including women or younger and older participants, and considering causal effects of prior training history through the use of longitudinal intervention study designs. Thus, it seems pertinent that future research on NLMF effects should be redirected towards these still relatively unexplored areas.
Fatigue has been defined differently in the literature depending on the field of research. The inconsistent use of the term fatigue complicated scientific communication, thereby limiting progress towards a more in-depth understanding of the phenomenon. Therefore, Enoka and Duchateau (Med Sci Sports Exerc 48:2228-38, 2016, [3]) proposed a fatigue framework that distinguishes between trait fatigue (i.e., fatigue experienced by an individual over a longer period of time) and motor or cognitive task-induced state fatigue (i.e., self-reported disabling symptom derived from the two interdependent attributes performance fatigability and perceived fatigability). Thereby, performance fatigability describes a decrease in an objective performance measure, while perceived fatigability refers to the sensations that regulate the integrity of the performer. Although this framework served as a good starting point to unravel the psychophysiology of fatigue, several important aspects were not included and the interdependence of the mechanisms driving performance fatigability and perceived fatigability were not comprehensively discussed. Therefore, the present narrative review aimed to (1) update the fatigue framework suggested by Enoka and Duchateau (Med Sci Sports Exerc 48:2228-38, 2016, [3]) pertaining the taxonomy (i.e., cognitive performance fatigue and perceived cognitive fatigue were added) and important determinants that were not considered previously (e.g., effort perception, affective valence, self-regulation), (2) discuss the mechanisms underlying performance fatigue and perceived fatigue in response to motor and cognitive tasks as well as their interdependence, and (3) provide recommendations for future research on these interactions. We propose to define motor or cognitive task-induced state fatigue as a psychophysiological condition characterized by a decrease in motor or cognitive performance (i.e., motor or cognitive performance fatigue, respectively) and/or an increased perception of fatigue (i.e., perceived motor or cognitive fatigue). These dimensions are interdependent, hinge on different determinants, and depend on body homeostasis (e.g., wakefulness, core temperature) as well as several modulating factors (e.g., age, sex, diseases, characteristics of the motor or cognitive task). Consequently, there is no single factor primarily determining performance fatigue and perceived fatigue in response to motor or cognitive tasks. Instead, the relative weight of each determinant and their interaction are modulated by several factors.
The effects of static stretching (StS) on subsequent strength and power activities has been one of the most debated topics in sport science literature over the past decades. The aim of this review is (1) to summarize previous and current findings on the acute effects of StS on muscle strength and power performances; (2) to update readers’ knowledge related to previous caveats; and (3) to discuss the underlying physiological mechanisms of short-duration StS when performed as single-mode treatment or when integrated into a full warm-up routine. Over the last two decades, StS has been considered harmful to subsequent strength and power performances. Accordingly, it has been recommended not to apply StS before strength- and power-related activities. More recent evidence suggests that when performed as a single-mode treatment or when integrated within a full warm-up routine including aerobic activity, dynamic-stretching, and sport-specific activities, short-duration StS (≤60 s per muscle group) trivially impairs subsequent strength and power activities (∆1–2%). Yet, longer StS durations (>60 s per muscle group) appear to induce substantial and practically relevant declines in strength and power performances (∆4.0–7.5%). Moreover, recent evidence suggests that when included in a full warm-up routine, short-duration StS may even contribute to lower the risk of sustaining musculotendinous injuries especially with high-intensity activities (e.g., sprint running and change of direction speed). It seems that during short-duration StS, neuromuscular activation and musculotendinous stiffness appear not to be affected compared with long-duration StS. Among other factors, this could be due to an elevated muscle temperature induced by a dynamic warm-up program. More specifically, elevated muscle temperature leads to increased muscle fiber conduction-velocity and improved binding of contractile proteins (actin, myosin). Therefore, our previous understanding of harmful StS effects on subsequent strength and power activities has to be updated. In fact, short-duration StS should be included as an important warm-up component before the uptake of recreational sports activities due to its potential positive effect on flexibility and musculotendinous injury prevention. However, in high-performance athletes, short-duration StS has to be applied with caution due to its negligible but still prevalent negative effects on subsequent strength and power performances, which could have an impact on performance during competition.
The effects of static stretching (StS) on subsequent strength and power activities has been one of the most debated topics in sport science literature over the past decades. The aim of this review is (1) to summarize previous and current findings on the acute effects of StS on muscle strength and power performances; (2) to update readers’ knowledge related to previous caveats; and (3) to discuss the underlying physiological mechanisms of short-duration StS when performed as single-mode treatment or when integrated into a full warm-up routine. Over the last two decades, StS has been considered harmful to subsequent strength and power performances. Accordingly, it has been recommended not to apply StS before strength- and power-related activities. More recent evidence suggests that when performed as a single-mode treatment or when integrated within a full warm-up routine including aerobic activity, dynamic-stretching, and sport-specific activities, short-duration StS (≤60 s per muscle group) trivially impairs subsequent strength and power activities (∆1–2%). Yet, longer StS durations (>60 s per muscle group) appear to induce substantial and practically relevant declines in strength and power performances (∆4.0–7.5%). Moreover, recent evidence suggests that when included in a full warm-up routine, short-duration StS may even contribute to lower the risk of sustaining musculotendinous injuries especially with high-intensity activities (e.g., sprint running and change of direction speed). It seems that during short-duration StS, neuromuscular activation and musculotendinous stiffness appear not to be affected compared with long-duration StS. Among other factors, this could be due to an elevated muscle temperature induced by a dynamic warm-up program. More specifically, elevated muscle temperature leads to increased muscle fiber conduction-velocity and improved binding of contractile proteins (actin, myosin). Therefore, our previous understanding of harmful StS effects on subsequent strength and power activities has to be updated. In fact, short-duration StS should be included as an important warm-up component before the uptake of recreational sports activities due to its potential positive effect on flexibility and musculotendinous injury prevention. However, in high-performance athletes, short-duration StS has to be applied with caution due to its negligible but still prevalent negative effects on subsequent strength and power performances, which could have an impact on performance during competition.
Performance- and healthrelated benefits of yoThere is ample evidence that youth resistance training (RT) is safe, joyful, and effective for different markers of performance (e.g., muscle strength, power, linear sprint speed) and health (e.g., injury prevention). Accordingly, the first aim of this narrative review is to present and discuss the relevance of muscle strength for youth physical development. The second purpose is to report evidence on the effectiveness of RT on muscular fitness (muscle strength, power, muscle endurance), on movement skill performance and injury prevention in youth. There is evidence that RT is effective in enhancing measures of muscle fitness in children and adolescents, irrespective of sex. Additionally, numerous studies indicate that RT has positive effects on fundamental movement skills (e.g., jumping, running, throwing) in youth regardless of age, maturity, training status, and sex. Further, irrespective of age, sex, and training status, regular exposure to RT (e.g., plyometric training) decreases the risk of sustaining injuries in youth. This implies that RT should be a meaningful element of youths’ exercise programming. This has been acknowledged by global (e.g., World Health Organization) and national (e.g., National Strength and Conditioning Association) health- and performance-related organizations which is why they recommended to perform RT as an integral part of weekly exercise programs to promote muscular strength, fundamental movement skills, and to resist injuries in youth.uth resistance training
There is ample evidence that youth resistance training (RT) is safe, joyful, and effective for different markers of performance (e.g., muscle strength, power, linear sprint speed) and health (e.g., injury prevention). Accordingly, the first aim of this narrative review is to present and discuss the relevance of muscle strength for youth physical development. The second purpose is to report evidence on the effectiveness of RT on muscular fitness (muscle strength, power, muscle endurance), on movement skill performance and injury prevention in youth. There is evidence that RT is effective in enhancing measures of muscle fitness in children and adolescents, irrespective of sex. Additionally, numerous studies indicate that RT has positive effects on fundamental movement skills (e.g., jumping, running, throwing) in youth regardless of age, maturity, training status, and sex. Further, irrespective of age, sex, and training status, regular exposure to RT (e.g., plyometric training) decreases the risk of sustaining injuries in youth. This implies that RT should be a meaningful element of youths’ exercise programming. This has been acknowledged by global (e.g., World Health Organization) and national (e.g., National Strength and Conditioning Association) health- and performance-related organizations which is why they recommended to perform RT as an integral part of weekly exercise programs to promote muscular strength, fundamental movement skills, and to resist injuries in youth.
Objective:
This study aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze the effect of flywheel resistance training (FRT) versus traditional resistance training (TRT) on change of direction (CoD) performance in male athletes.
Methods:
Five databases were screened up to December 2021.
Results:
Seven studies were included. The results indicated a significantly larger effect of FRT compared with TRT (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.64). A within-group comparison indicated a significant large effect of FRT on CoD performance (SMD = 1.63). For TRT, a significant moderate effect was observed (SMD = 0.62). FRT of <= 2 sessions/week resulted in a significant large effect (SMD = 1.33), whereas no significant effect was noted for >2 sessions/week. Additionally, a significant large effect of <= 12 FRT sessions (SMD = 1.83) was observed, with no effect of >12 sessions. Regarding TRT, no significant effects of any of the training factors were detected (p > 0.05).
Conclusions:
FRT appears to be more effective than TRT in improving CoD performance in male athletes. Independently computed single training factor analyses for FRT indicated that <= 2 sessions/week resulted in a larger effect on CoD performance than >2 sessions/week. Additionally, a total of <= 12 FRT sessions induced a larger effect than >12 training sessions. Practitioners in sports, in which accelerative and decelerative actions occur in quick succession to change direction, should regularly implement FRT.