Jose Luis Hernández-Davó

The effects of training with loads that maximise power output and individualised repetitions vs. traditional power training

Background It has been suggested that strength training effects (i.e. neural or structural) vary, depending on the total repetitions performed and velocity loss in each training set. Purpose The aim of this study is to compare the effects of two training programmes (i.e. one with loads that maximise power output and individualised repetitions, and the other following traditional power training). Methods Twenty-five males were divided into three groups (optimum power [OP = 10], traditional training [TT = 9] and control group [CG = 6]). The training load used for OP was individualised using loads that maximised power output (41.7% ± 5.8 of one repetition maximum [1RM]) and repetitions at maximum power (4 to 9 repetitions, or ‘reps’). Volume (sets x repetitions) was the same for both experimental groups, while intensity for TT was that needed to perform only 50% of the maximum number of possible repetitions (i.e. 61.1%–66.6% of 1RM). The training programme ran over 11 weeks (2 sessions per week; 4–5 sets per session; 3-minute rests between sets), with pre-, intermediate and post-tests which included: anthropometry, 1RM, peak power output (PPO) with 30%, 40% and 50% of 1RM in the bench press throw, and salivary testosterone (ST) and cortisol (SC) concentrations. Rate of perceived exertion (RPE) and power output were recorded in all sessions. Results Following the intermediate test, PPO was increased in the OP group for each load (10.9%–13.2%). Following the post-test, both experimental groups had increased 1RM (11.8%–13.8%) and PPO for each load (14.1%–19.6%). Significant decreases in PPO were found for the TT group during all sets (4.9%–15.4%), along with significantly higher RPE (37%). Conclusion OP appears to be a more efficient method of training, with less neuromuscular fatigue and lower RPE.

Effects of adding a weekly eccentric-overload training session on strength and athletic performance in team-handball players

Abstract To investigate the influence of adding a weekly eccentric-overload training (EOT) session in several athletic performance’s tests, 18 team-handball players were assigned either to an EOT (n = 11) or a Control (n = 7) group. Both groups continued to perform the same habitual strength training, but the EOT group added one session/week during a 7-week training programme consisting of four sets of eight repetitions for the bilateral half-squat and unilateral lunge exercises. The test battery included handball throwing velocity, maximum dynamic strength (1RM), countermovement jump (CMJ), 20 m sprint, triple hop for distance, and eccentric/concentric power in both the half-squat and lunge exercises. Data were analysed using magnitude-based inferences. Both groups improved their 1RM in the half squat, 20 m sprint time, and CMJ performance to a similar extent, but the EOT group showed a beneficial effect for both right [(42/58/0), possibly positive] and left [(99/1/0), very likely positive] triple hop for distance performance. In addition, the EOT group showed greater power output improvements in both eccentric and concentric phases of the half-squat (difference in percent of change ranging from 6.5% to 22.0%) and lunge exercises (difference in per cent of change ranging from 13.1% to 24.9%). Nevertheless, no group showed changes in handball throwing velocity. Selected variables related to team-handball performance (i.e. functional jumping performance, power output) can be improved by adding a single EOT session per week, highlighting the usefulness of this low-volume/high-intensity training when aiming at optimizing dynamic athletic performance.

Effects of 4-Week Training Intervention with Unknown Loads on Power Output Performance and Throwing Velocity in Junior Team Handball Players.

Purpose To compare the effect of 4-week unknown vs known loads strength training intervention on power output performance and throwing velocity in junior team handball players. Methods Twenty-eight junior team-handball players (17.2 ± 0.6 years, 1.79 ± 0.07 m, 75.6 ± 9.4 kg)were divided into two groups (unknown loads: UL; known loads: KL). Both groups performed two sessions weekly consisting of four sets of six repetitions of the bench press throw exercise, using the 30%, 50% and 70% of subjects’ individual 1 repetition maximum (1RM). In each set, two repetitions with each load were performed, but the order of the loads was randomised. In the KL group, researchers told the subjects the load to mobilise prior each repetition, while in the UL group, researchers did not provide any information. Maximal dynamic strength (1RM bench press), power output (with 30, 50 and 70% of 1RM) and throwing velocity (7 m standing throw and 9 m jumping throw) were assessed pre- and post-training intervention. Results Both UL and KL group improved similarly their 1RM bench press as well as mean and peak power with all loads. There were significant improvements in power developed in all the early time intervals measured (150 ms) with the three loads (30, 50, 70% 1RM) in the UL group, while KL only improved with 30% 1RM (all the time intervals) and with 70% 1RM (at certain time intervals). Only the UL group improved throwing velocity in both standing (4.7%) and jumping (5.3%) throw (p > 0.05). Conclusions The use of unknown loads has led to greater gains in power output in the early time intervals as well as to increases in throwing velocity compared with known loads. Therefore unknown loads are of significant practical use to increase both strength and in-field performance in a short period of training.

Effects of resistance training using known vs. unknown loads on eccentric phase adaptations and concentric velocity

The aims of this study were to compare both eccentric‐ and concentric‐phase adaptations in highly trained handball players to 4 weeks of twice‐weekly rebound bench press throw training with varying loads (30%, 50% and 70% of one‐repetition maximum [1‐RM]) using either known (KL) or unknown (UL) loads and to examine the relationship between changes in eccentric‐ and concentric‐phase performance. Twenty‐eight junior team handball players were divided into two experimental groups (KL or UL) and a control group. KL subjects were told the load prior each repetition, while UL were blinded. For each repetition, the load was dropped and then a rebound bench press at maximum velocity was immediately performed. Both concentric and eccentric velocity as well as eccentric kinetic energy and musculo‐articular stiffness prior to the eccentric‐concentric transition were measured. Results showed similar increases in both eccentric velocity and kinetic energy under the 30% 1‐RM but greater improvements under 50% and 70% 1‐RM loads for UL than KL. UL increased stiffness under all loads (with greater magnitude of changes). KL improved concentric velocity only under the 30% 1‐RM load while UL also improved under 50% and 70% 1‐RM loads. Improvements in concentric movement velocity were moderately explained by changes in eccentric velocity (R2=.23‐.62). Thus, UL led to greater improvements in concentric velocity, and the improvement is potentially explained by increases in the speed (as well as stiffness and kinetic energy) of the eccentric phase. Unknown load training appears to have significant practical use for the improvement of multijoint stretch‐shortening cycle movements.