Elastic Bands as a Component of Periodized Resistance Training.

Joy, JM, Lowery, RP, Oliveira de Souza, E, and Wilson, JM. Elastic bands as a component of periodized resistance training. J Strength Cond Res 30(8): 2100-2106, 2016-Variable resistance training (VRT) has recently become a component of strength and conditioning programs. Prior research has demonstrated increases in power and/or strength using low loads of variable resistance. However, no study has examined using high loads of variable resistance as a part of a periodized training protocol to examine VRT within the context of a periodized training program and to examine a greater load of variable resistance than has been examined in prior research. Fourteen National Collegiate Athletic Association division II male basketball players were recruited for this study. Athletes were divided equally into either a variable resistance or control group. The variable resistance group added 30% of their 1 repetition maximum (1RM) as band tension to their prescribed weight 1 session per week. Rate of power development (RPD), peak power, strength, body composition, and vertical jump height were measured pretreatment and posttreatment. No baseline differences were observed between groups for any measurement of strength, power, or body composition. A significant group by time interaction was observed for RPD, in which RPD was greater in VRT posttraining than in the control group. Significant time effects were observed for all other variables including squat 1RM, bench press 1RM, deadlift 1RM, clean 3RM, vertical jump, and lean mass. Although there were no significant group ×-time interactions, the VRT group's percent changes and effect sizes indicate a larger treatment effect in the squat and bench press 1RM values and the vertical jump performed on the force plate and vertec. These results suggest that when using variable resistance as a component of a periodized training program, power and strength can be enhanced. Therefore, athletes who add variable resistance to 1 training session per week may enhance their athletic performance.

Early adaptations to six weeks of non-periodized and periodized strength training regimens in recreational males.

UNLABELLED: This study compared quadriceps muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) and maximum strength (1RM) after three different short-term strength training (ST) regimens (i.e. non-periodized [NP], traditional-periodization [TP], and undulating-periodization [UP]) matched for volume load in previously untrained individuals. Thirty-one recreationally active males were randomly divided into four groups: NP: n = 9; TP: n = 9; UP: n = 8 and control group (C): n = 5. Experimental groups underwent a 6-week program consisting of two training sessions per week. Muscle strength was assessed at baseline and after the training period. Dominant leg quadriceps CSA was obtained through magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at baseline and 48h after the last training session. RESULTS: The 1RM increased from pre to post only in the NP and UP groups (NP = 17.0 %, p = 0.002; UP = 12.9 %, p = 0.03), respectively. There were no significant differences in 1RM for LP and C groups after 6 weeks (TP = 7.7 %, p = 0.58, C = 1.2 %, p = 1.00). The CSA increased from pre to post in all of the experimental groups (NP = 5.1 %, p = 0.0001; TP = 4.6 %, p = 0.001; UP = 5.2 %, p = 0.0001), with no changes observed in the C group (p = 0.93). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that different ST periodization regimens over a short-term (i.e. 6 weeks), volume load equated conditions seem to induce similar hypertrophic responses regardless of the loading scheme employed. In addition, for those recreational males who need to develop muscle strength in the short-term, the training regimen should be designed properly. Key pointsMuscle hypertrophy occurs within six weeks in recreationally active men regardless the ST training regimen employed.When the total volume is similar, training at greater intensities will demonstrate superior gains in the 1RM performance.Some caution should be exercised when interpreting our findings since long-term periodized regimens could produce different training-induced responses.

Effects of static stretching on 1-mile uphill run performance.

It is previously demonstrated that static stretching was associated with a decrease in running economy and distance run during a 30-minute time trial in trained runners. Recently, the detrimental effects of static stretching on economy were found to be limited to the first few minutes of an endurance bout. However, economy remains to be studied for its direct effects on performance during shorter endurance events. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of static stretching on 1-mile uphill run performance, electromyography (EMG), ground contact time (GCT), and flexibility. Ten trained male distance runners aged 24 ± 5 years with an average VO2max of 64.9 ± 6.5 mL·kg-1·min-1 were recruited. Subjects reported to the laboratory on 3 separate days interspersed by 72 hours. On day 1, anthropometrics and V[Combining Dot Above]O2max were determined on a motor-driven treadmill. On days 2 and 3, subjects performed a 5-minute treadmill warm-up and either performed a series of 6 lower-body stretches for three 30-second repetitions or sat still for 10 minutes. Time to complete a 1-mile run under stretching and nonstretching conditions took place in randomized order. For the performance run, subjects were instructed to run as fast as possible at a set incline of 5% until a distance of 1 mile was completed. Flexibility from the sit and reach test, EMG, GCT, and performance, determined by time to complete the 1-mile run, were recorded after each condition. Time to complete the run was significantly less (6:51 ± 0:28 minutes) in the nonstretching condition as compared with the stretching condition (7:04 ± 0:32 minutes). A significant condition-by-time interaction for muscle activation existed, with no change in the nonstretching condition (pre 91.3 ± 11.6 mV to post 92.2 ± 12.9 mV) but increased in the stretching condition (pre 91.0 ± 11.6 mV to post 105.3 ± 12.9 mV). A significant condition-by-time interaction for GCT was also present, with no changes in the nonstretching condition (pre 211.4 ± 20.8 ms to post 212.5 ± 21.7 ms) but increased in the stretching trial (pre 210.7 ± 19.6 ms to post 237.21 ± 22.4 ms). A significant condition-by-time interaction for flexibility was found, which was increased in the stretching condition (pre 33.1 ± 2 to post 38.8 ± 2) but unchanged in the nonstretching condition (pre 33.5 ± 2 to post 35.2 ± 2). Study findings indicate that static stretching decreases performance in short endurance bouts (∼8%) while increasing GCT and muscle activation. Coaches and athletes may be at risk for decreased performance after a static stretching bout. Therefore, static stretching should be avoided before a short endurance bout.