Effects of Different Weekly Set Volumes on Strength and Perceptual Responses in Athletes.

This study investigated the effects of different resistance training (RT) volumes quantified by weekly sets at high intensity (load and effort) on dynamic strength adaptations and psychophysiological responses in trained individuals. Twenty-four athletes were randomly allocated to three groups that performed three (3 S, n=8), six (6 S, n=8), and nine (9 S, n=8) weekly sets, respectively, three times a week on the barbell back squat and bench press during an 8-week period. While all groups showcased strength gains (p<0.05), post hoc comparisons revealed that 6 S and 9 S elicited greater strength adaptations than 3 S in barbell back squat (p=0.027 and p=0.004, respectively) and bench press (p=0.001 and p=0.044, respectively). There were no differences between 6 S and 9 S conditions for back squat (p=0.999) and bench press (p=0.378). Although a time effect was observed for Session-RPE (p=0.014) and Total Quality Recovery scale (p=0.020), psychophysiological responses were similar among groups. Our findings suggest that performing six and nine weekly sets at high intensities led to greater strength gains compared to three weekly sets in strength-trained individuals, despite similar psychophysiological responses.

Effects of Resistance Training Techniques on Metabolic Responses in Trained Males.

This study investigated the effects of biset, drop-set and traditional resistance training (RT) techniques on metabolic responses in resistance-trained males. Fifteen trained males (age 29.7 ± 6.1 years; body mass 83.4 ± 7.6 kg; RT experience 11.4 ± 6.7 years; one-repetition maximum (1RM) barbell bench press: body mass ratio 1.4 ± 0.1 a.u.) were assigned to three experimental conditions, in a randomized crossover design. The experimental conditions were bi-set (3×10 repetitions at 70%1RM in barbell bench press followed by 10 repetitions at 60%1RM in incline bench press), drop-set (3×10 repetitions at 70%1RM followed by 10 repetitions at 50%1RM in barbell bench press) and traditional RT (3×20 at 60%1RM in barbell bench press). A portable gas analyzer was used to assess energy expenditure and maximal oxygen uptake during the experimental protocols. Blood lactate levels were assessed at baseline and 1, 3, and 5 minutes after the training session. There were no differences for total training volume (p = 0.999). Post hoc comparisons revealed that bi-set elicited higher aerobic energy expenditure (p = 0.003 vs. drop-set; p < 0.001 vs. traditional RT) and aerobic oxygen consumption (p = 0.034 vs. drop-set; p < 0.001 vs. traditional RT) than other RT schemes. There were no differences regarding anaerobic EE between-conditions (p > 0.05). There was a main effect of time and condition for blood lactate levels (p < 0.001). Post hoc comparisons revealed that drop-set training elicited higher blood lactate levels than traditional RT (p = 0.009). The results suggest that RT techniques may have a potential role in optimizing metabolic responses in resistance-trained males.

Drop-Set Resistance Training versus Pyramidal and Traditional Sets Elicits Greater Psychophysiological Responses in Men.

We compared the effects of resistance training (ResisT) to pyramidal and traditional weightlifting sets on men's psychophysiological responses. In a randomized crossover design, 24 resistance-trained males performed drop-set, descending pyramid, and traditional ResisT in the barbell back squat, 45° leg press, and seated knee extension. We assessed participants' rating of perceived exertion (RPE) and feelings of pleasure/displeasure (FPD) at the end of each set and at 10, 15, 20, and 30 minutes post-session. No differences were detected across ResisT Methods in total training volume (p = 0.180). Post hoc comparisons revealed that drop-set training elicited higher RPE (M 8.8 SD 0.7 arbitrary units) and lower FPD (M -1.4 SD 1.5 arbitrary units) values compared to descending pyramid (M Set RPE 8.0 SD 0.9 arbitrary units and M Set FPD 0.4 SD 1.6 arbitrary units) and traditional set (M Set RPE 7.5 SD 1.1 arbitrary units and M Set FPD 1.3 SD 1.2 arbitrary units) schemes (p < 0.05). In addition, drop-set training elicited higher session RPE (M 8.1 SD 0.8 arbitrary units) and lower session FPD (M 0.2 SD 1.4 arbitrary units) values than descending pyramid and traditional ResisT (p < 0.001). Similarly, descending pyramid training elicited higher session RPE (M 6.6 SD 0.9 arbitrary units) and lower session FPD (M 1.2 SD 1.4 arbitrary units) than traditional set (M Session RPE 5.9 SD 0.8 arbitrary units and M Session FPD 1.5 SD 1.2 arbitrary units) training (p = 0.015). No differences were found in the temporality of post-session metrics, suggesting that testing 10 and 15 minutes post-ResisT was sufficient to assess session RPE (p = 0.480) and session FPD (p = 0.855), respectively. In conclusion, even with similar total training volume, drop-set training elicited more pronounced psychophysiological responses than either pyramidal or traditional ResisT in resistance-trained males.

Muscular Adaptations and Psychophysiological Responses in Resistance Training Systems.

Purpose: We investigated the effect of drop-set (DS) and rest-pause (RP) systems compared to traditional (TRAD) resistance training on muscular adaptations and psychophysiological responses. Methods: Twenty-seven trained men (age: 23.4 ± 3.4 years; resistance training experience: 5.1 ± 1.7 years) were assigned to experimental groups (DS: n = 9, 3 × 10 repetitions at 75% with 6 additional repetitions at 55% 1RM; RP: n = 9, 3 × 16 repetitions at 75% 1RM; TRAD: n = 9, 4 × 12 repetitions at 70% 1RM) and performed lower-limb training sessions twice a week for 8 weeks. Maximum dynamic strength (1RM) and localized muscular endurance (LME) tests were performed in 45° leg press at baseline and post intervention. Session-RPE was assessed 15 min after the end of each training session. Results: A significant time vs. group interaction was observed for 1RM (p = .012) and LME (p < .0001). Post hoc comparisons revealed that RP elicited greater gains in muscular strength than DS (p = .044) but not TRAD (p = .116); and DS elicited greater LME than RP (p < .001) and TRAD (p = .001). No statistical differences were observed in Session-RPE and training strain between conditions; however, RP promoted higher training monotony (p = .036) than DS and TRAD. Conclusions: The DS and RP systems have a potential role in training programs aiming to promote muscle strength and localized muscular endurance adaptations, respectively. However, RP may promote higher training monotony than DS and TRAD, even though the other psychophysiological responses are similar.

Rest-pause and drop-set training elicit similar strength and hypertrophy adaptations compared with traditional sets in resistance-trained males.

This paper aimed to compare the effect of drop-set (DS) and rest-pause (RP) systems versus traditional resistance training (TRT) with equalized total training volume on maximum dynamic strength (1RM) and thigh muscle thickness (MT). Twenty-eight resistance-trained males were randomly assigned to either RP (n = 10), DS (n = 9) or TRT (n = 9) protocols performed twice a week for 8 weeks. 1RM and MT of the proximal, middle and distal portions of the lateral thigh were assessed at baseline and post-intervention. A significant time × group interaction was observed for 1RM (P = 0.001) in the barbell back squat after 8-weeks. Post hoc comparisons revealed that RP promoted higher 1RM than TRT (P = 0.001); no statistical differences in strength were observed between the other conditions. A significant main effect of time was revealed for MT at the proximal (P = 0.0001) and middle (P = 0.0001) aspects of the lateral thigh for all training groups; however, the distal portion did not show a time effect (P = 0.190). There were no between-group interactions for MT. Our findings suggest that RP promotes slightly superior strength-related improvements compared with TRT, but hypertrophic adaptations are similar between conditions. Novelty: Rest-pause elicited a slightly superior benefit for strength adaptations compared with traditional resistance training. Resistance training systems do not promote superior hypertrophic adaptations when total training volume is equalized. Muscle thickness in distal portion of thigh is similar to baseline. Although modest, effect sizes tended to favor rest-pause.

Determinant Factors of the Match-Based Internal Load in Elite Soccer Players.

Purpose: To analyze the contribution of physical measures and external load in the match-based internal load of elite soccer players. Methods: Twenty-three elite soccer players (n = 23, age 26.69 ± 3.93 years, body mass 78.04 ± 5.03 kg, height 178.04 ± 5.19 cm, body fat 10.98 ± 1.25%) from a first division soccer team of the Brazilian Championship were evaluated first with anthropometric and physical measures (flexibility and muscle power of lower limbs), and after 24 hrs they were asked to perform an incremental treadmill test (VO2max and ventilatory thresholds). Subsequently, athletes were monitored for 6 weeks during nine official matches of a regional championship. On match days, the external load data (e.g., player load) were collected by triaxial accelerometers with GPS systems and post 30 min after the end of the match the internal load was assessed with the Session Rating of Perceived Exertion method (Session-RPE). Results: Our main findings showed significant contributions of the Player Load (r = .62, p < .001; 42.3%) and Anaerobic Threshold (r = - .199, p = .05, 17%) for the predictive model of Session-RPE. Conclusions: Physical measures and external load have a significant influence on the internal load in elite soccer players. Our findings suggest that sport scientists can use the Session-RPE as a low-cost method for prescribing and monitoring training loads, by the influence of physical measures and external load on the match-based internal load, in order to optimize athletes' performance.

Can a genetic profile be related to performance in young talent track and field athletes? A pilot study

Abstract Aim: This study analyzed the influences of ACE and ACTN3 gene variants in sprinters, jumpers, and endurance young athletes of track and field. Methods: 36 school-level competitors of both sex (15 girls and 21 boys; aged 16.4 ± 1.2 years; training experience 4 ± 1.2 years) practitioners of different sport disciplines (i.e., sprint, jump, and endurance athletes) participated in the study. The deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) was extracted from peripheral blood using a standard protocol. Anthropometric measurements, 30 m sprint, squat jump (SJ), and maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max) tests were measured. Results: Genotype distribution of the ACE and ACTN3 genes did not differ between groups. In ACE DD and ACTN3 RX genotypes, the SJ test was bigger in sprinters and jumpers than in the endurance runners. In contrast, when analyzing the ACE ID genotype, sprinters had higher SJ than endurance athletes. Moreover, in the ACE DD genotype, the sprinters and jumpers' athletes had lower time in 30 m tests compared to endurance runners. However, the ACE ID and ACTN3 RX genotypes was greater aerobic fitness in endurance runners than in jumpers' athletes. Conclusion: Although the genetic profile is not a unique factor for determining athletic performance, the ACE DD and ACTN3 RX genotypes seem to favor athletic performance in power and sprint versus endurance sports. Thus, this study evidenced that assessing genetic variants could be used as an auxiliary way to predict a favorable profile for the identification of young talents of track and field.

Could physical, technical, and tactical variables differentiate the top players of the 2018 FIFA World Cup?

Abstract Aim: This study aimed to analyze the difference between tactical, technical, and physical variables in selected and unselected top players of the 2018 FIFA World Cup. Methods: A sample data of 1049 soccer players were collected by the multiple-camera computerised tracking system. Subsequently, data were analyzed and divided into two groups: selected (man of the match and top 10 players of the World Cup) and unselected players (other players). Twenty-six performance variables were used to assess tactical (passing), technical (goals, assist, shots, and fouls), and physical variables (height, distance covered, distance with and without the ball, number of sprints, maximal speed, and intensities zone 1 [low] to 5 [high]). Results: The selected players had more tactical (performed and completed more long, middle, and short pass), technical (goal for, assist, shots, shots on goal, fouls committed on them), and physical variables (covered more distance and distance with the ball, more sprints, greater speed and distance in low intensity [zone 1]). However, they were shorter in height and covered less distance in moderate intensity [zones 2 and 3] when compared to unselected players (p < 0.05). Conclusion: This study suggests that the selected players have more tactical, technical, and physical variables than the unselected players. Our findings could be used as a trustworthy tool (performance variables) to characterize the top players of the World Cup.