Michael R. McGuigan

Monitoring exercise intensity during resistance training using the session RPE scale.

This study investigated the reliability of the session rating of perceived exertion (RPE) scale to quantify exercise intensity during high-intensity (H), moderate-intensity (M), and low-intensity (L) resistance training. Nine men (24.7 ± 3.8 years) and 10 women (22.1 ± 2.6 years) performed each intensity twice. Each protocol consisted of 5 exercises: back squat, bench press, overhead press, biceps curl, and triceps pushdown. The H consisted of 1 set of 4–5 repetitions at 90% of the subjects 1 repetition maximum (1RM). The M consisted of 1 set of 10 repetitions at 70% 1RM, and the L consisted of 1 set of 15 repetitions at 50% 1RM. RPE was measured following the completion of each set and 30 minutes postexercise (session RPE). Session RPE was higher for the H than M and L exercise bouts (p ≤ 0.05). Performing fewer repetitions at a higher intensity was perceived to be more difficult than performing more repetitions at a lower intensity. The intraclass correlation coefficient for the session RPE was 0.88. The session RPE is a reliable method to quantify various intensities of resistance training.

Developing maximal neuromuscular power: Part 1 - Biological basis of maximal power production

This series of reviews focuses on the most important neuromuscular function in many sport performances, the ability to generate maximal muscular power. Part 1 focuses on the factors that affect maximal power production, while part 2, which will follow in a forthcoming edition of Sports Medicine, explores the practical application of these findings by reviewing the scientific literature relevant to the development of training programmes that most effectively enhance maximal power production. The ability of the neuromuscular system to generate maximal power is affected by a range of interrelated factors. Maximal muscular power is defined and limited by the force-velocity relationship and affected by the length-tension relationship. The ability to generate maximal power is influenced by the type of muscle action involved and, in particular, the time available to develop force, storage and utilization of elastic energy, interactions of contractile and elastic elements, potentiation of contractile and elastic filaments as well as stretch reflexes. Furthermore, maximal power production is influenced by morphological factors including fibre type contribution to whole muscle area, muscle architectural features and tendon properties as well as neural factors including motor unit recruitment, firing frequency, synchronization and intermuscular coordination. In addition, acute changes in the muscle environment (i.e. alterations resulting from fatigue, changes in hormone milieu and muscle temperature) impact the ability to generate maximal power. Resistance training has been shown to impact each of these neuromuscular factors in quite specific ways. Therefore, an understanding of the biological basis of maximal power production is essential for developing training programmes that effectively enhance maximal power production in the human.

Developing maximal neuromuscular power: part 2 - training considerations for improving maximal power production.

This series of reviews focuses on the most important neuromuscular function in many sport performances: the ability to generate maximal muscular power. Part 1, published in an earlier issue of Sports Medicine, focused on the factors that affect maximal power production while part 2 explores the practical application of these findings by reviewing the scientific literature relevant to the development of training programmes that most effectively enhance maximal power production. The ability to generate maximal power during complex motor skills is of paramount importance to successful athletic performance across many sports. A crucial issue faced by scientists and coaches is the development of effective and efficient training programmes that improve maximal power production in dynamic, multi-joint movements. Such training is referred to as ‘power training’ for the purposes of this review. Although further research is required in order to gain a deeper understanding of the optimal training techniques for maximizing power in complex, sportsspecific movements and the precise mechanisms underlying adaptation, several key conclusions can be drawn from this review. First, a fundamental relationship exists between strength and power, which dictates that an individual cannot possess a high level of power without first being relatively strong. Thus, enhancing and maintaining maximal strength is essential when considering the long-term development of power. Second, consideration of movement pattern, load and velocity specificity is essential when designing power training programmes. Ballistic, plyometric and weightlifting exercises can be used effectively as primary exercises within a power training programme that enhances maximal power. The loads applied to these exercises will depend on the specific requirements of each particular sport and the type of movement being trained. The use of ballistic exercises with loads ranging from 0% to 50% of one-repetition maximum (1RM) and/or weightlifting exercises performed with loads ranging from 50% to 90% of 1RM appears to be the most potent loading stimulus for improving maximal power in complex movements. Furthermore, plyometric exercises should involve stretch rates as well as stretch loads that are similar to those encountered in each specific sport and involve little to no external resistance. These loading conditions allow for superior transfer to performance because they require similar movement velocities to those typically encountered in sport. Third, it is vital to consider the individual athlete’s window of adaptation (i.e. the magnitude of potential for improvement) for each neuromuscular factor contributing to maximal power production when developing an effective and efficient power training programme. A training programme that focuses on the least developed factor contributing to maximal power will prompt the greatest neuromuscular adaptations and therefore result in superior performance improvements for that individual. Finally, a key consideration for the long-term development of an athlete’s maximal power production capacity is the need for an integration of numerous power training techniques. This integration allows for variation within power meso-/micro-cycles while still maintaining specificity, which is theorized to lead to the greatest long-term improvement in maximal power.

Adaptations in Athletic Performance after Ballistic Power versus Strength Training

PURPOSE To determine whether the magnitude of improvement in athletic performance and the mechanisms driving these adaptations differ in relatively weak individuals exposed to either ballistic power training or heavy strength training. METHODS Relatively weak men (n = 24) who could perform the back squat with proficient technique were randomized into three groups: strength training (n = 8; ST), power training (n = 8; PT), or control (n = 8). Training involved three sessions per week for 10 wk in which subjects performed back squats with 75%-90% of one-repetition maximum (1RM; ST) or maximal-effort jump squats with 0%-30% 1RM (PT). Jump and sprint performances were assessed as well as measures of the force-velocity relationship, jumping mechanics, muscle architecture, and neural drive. RESULTS Both experimental groups showed significant (P < or = 0.05) improvements in jump and sprint performances after training with no significant between-group differences evident in either jump (peak power: ST = 17.7% +/- 9.3%, PT = 17.6% +/- 4.5%) or sprint performance (40-m sprint: ST = 2.2% +/- 1.9%, PT = 3.6% +/- 2.3%). ST also displayed a significant increase in maximal strength that was significantly greater than the PT group (squat 1RM: ST = 31.2% +/- 11.3%, PT = 4.5% +/- 7.1%). The mechanisms driving these improvements included significant (P < or = 0.05) changes in the force-velocity relationship, jump mechanics, muscle architecture, and neural activation that showed a degree of specificity to the different training stimuli. CONCLUSIONS Improvements in athletic performance were similar in relatively weak individuals exposed to either ballistic power training or heavy strength training for 10 wk. These performance improvements were mediated through neuromuscular adaptations specific to the training stimulus. The ability of strength training to render similar short-term improvements in athletic performance as ballistic power training, coupled with the potential long-term benefits of improved maximal strength, makes strength training a more effective training modality for relatively weak individuals.

Quantitation of resistance training using the session rating of perceived exertion method.

The purpose of this study was to apply the session rating of perceived exertion (RPE) method, which is known to work with aerobic training, to resistance training. Ten men (26.1 ± 10.2 years) and 10 women (22.2 ± 1.8 years), habituated to both aerobic and resistance training, performed 3 × 30 minutes aerobic training bouts on the cycle ergometer at intensities of 56%, 71%, and 83% VO2 peak and then rated the global intensity using the session RPE technique (e.g., 0–10) 30 minutes after the end of the session. They also performed 3 3 30 minutes resistance exercise bouts with 2 sets of 6 exercises at 50% (15 repetitions), 70% (10 repetitions), and 90% (4 repetitions) of 1 repetition maximum (1RM). After each set the exercisers rated the intensity of that exercise using the RPE scale. Thirty minutes after the end of the bout they rated the intensity of the whole session and of only the lifting components of the session, using the session RPE method. The rated intensity of exercise increased with the %VO2 peak and the %1RM. There was a general correspondence between the relative intensity (%VO2 peak and % 1RM) and the session RPE. Between different types of resistance exercise at the same relative intensity, the average RPE after each lift varied widely. The resistance training session RPE increased as the intensity increased despite a decrease in the total work performed (p < 0.05). Mean RPE and session RPE–lifting only also grew with increased intensity (p < 0.05). In many cases, the mean RPE, session RPE, and session RPE–lifting only measurements were different at given exercise intensities (p < 0.05). The session RPE appears to be a viable method for quantitating the intensity of resistance training, generally comparable to aerobic training. However, the session RPE may meaningfully underestimate the average intensity rated immediately after each set.

Relationships between sprinting, agility, and jump ability in female athletes

Abstract The aim of this study was to assess the relationships between various field tests in female athletes. Altogether, 83 high school soccer, 51 college soccer, and 79 college lacrosse athletes completed tests for linear sprinting, countermovement jump, and agility in a single session. Linear sprints (9.1, 18.3, 27.4, and 36.6 m) and agility tests (Illinois and pro-agility) were evaluated using infrared timing gates, while countermovement jump height was assessed using an electronic timing mat. Pearsons product – moment correlation coefficients (r) were used to determine the strength and directionality of the relationship between tests and coefficients of determination (r 2) were used to examine the amount of explained variance between tests. All of the performance scores were statistically correlated with each other; however, the coefficients of determination were low, moderate, and high depending on the test pairing. Linear sprint split times were strongly correlated with each other (r = 0.775 to 0.991). The relationship between countermovement jump height and linear sprinting was stronger with the longer distances (27.4 and 36.6 m) than with the shorter distances (9.1 and 18.3 m), and showed a stronger relationship within the college athletes (r = −0.658 to −0.788) than high school soccer players (r = −0.491 to −0.580). The Illinois and pro-agility tests were correlated (r ≥ 0.600) with each other as well as with linear sprint times. The results of this study indicate that linear sprinting, agility, and vertical jumping are independent locomotor skills and suggest a variety of tests ought to be included in an assessment protocol for high school and college female athletes.

Relative Importance of Strength, Power, and Anthropometric Measures to Jump Performance of Elite Volleyball Players

The purpose of this investigation was to examine the potential strength, power, and anthropometric contributors to vertical jump performances that are considered specific to volleyball success: the spike jump (SPJ) and counter-movement vertical jump (CMVJ). To assess the relationship among strength, power, and anthropometric variables with CMVJ and SPJ, a correlation and regression analysis was performed. In addition, a comparison of strength, power, and anthropometric differences between the seven best subjects and the seven worst athletes on the CMVJ test and SPJ test was performed. When expressed as body mass relative measures, moderate correlations (0.53-0.65; p ≤ 0.01) were observed between the 1RM measures and both relative CMVJ and relative SPJ. Very strong correlations were observed between relative (absolute height-standing reach height) depth jump performance and relative SPJ (0.85; p ≤ 0.01) and relative CMVJ (0.93; p ≤ 0.01). The single best regression model component for relative CMVJ was the relative depth jump performance, explaining 84% of performance. The single best predictor for relative SPJ was also the relative depth jump performance (72% of performance), with the three-component models of relative depth jump, relative CMVJ, spike jump contribution (percent difference between SPJ and CMVJ), and relative CMVJ, spike jump contribution, and peak force, accounting for 96% and 97%, respectively. The results of this study clearly demonstrate that in an elite population of volleyball players, stretch-shortening cycle performance and the ability to tolerate high stretch loads, as in the depth jump, is critical to performance in the jumps associated with volleyball performance.

Influence of Strength on Magnitude and Mechanisms of Adaptation to Power Training

PURPOSE To determine whether the magnitude of performance improvements and the mechanisms driving adaptation to ballistic power training differ between strong and weak individuals. METHODS Twenty-four men were divided into three groups on the basis of their strength level: stronger (n = 8, one-repetition maximum-to-body mass ratio (1RM/BM) = 1.97 +/- 0.08), weaker (n = 8, 1RM/BM = 1.32 +/- 0.14), or control (n = 8, 1RM/BM = 1.37 +/- 0.13). The stronger and weaker groups trained three times per week for 10 wk. During these sessions, subjects performed maximal-effort jump squats with 0%-30% 1RM. The impact of training on athletic performance was assessed using a 2-d testing battery that involved evaluation of jump and sprint performance as well as measures of the force-velocity relationship, jumping mechanics, muscle architecture, and neural drive. RESULTS Both experimental groups showed significant (P < or = 0.05) improvements in jump (stronger: peak power = 10.0 +/- 5.2 W.kg, jump height = 0.07 +/- 0.04 m; weaker: peak power = 9.1 +/- 2.3 W.kg, jump height = 0.06 +/- 0.04 m) and sprint performance after training (stronger: 40-m time = -2.2% +/- 2.0%; weaker: 40-m time = -3.6% +/- 2.3%). Effect size analyses revealed a tendency toward practically relevant differences existing between stronger and weaker individuals in the magnitude of improvements in jump performance (effect size: stronger: peak power = 1.55, jump height = 1.46; weaker: peak power = 1.03, jump height = 0.95) and especially after 5 wk of training (effect size: stronger: peak power = 1.60, jump height = 1.59; weaker: peak power = 0.95, jump height = 0.61). The mechanisms driving these improvements included significant (P < or = 0.05) changes in the force-velocity relationship, jump mechanics, and neural activation, with no changes to muscle architecture observed. CONCLUSIONS The magnitude of improvements after ballistic power training was not significantly influenced by strength level. However, the training had a tendency toward eliciting a more pronounced effect on jump performance in the stronger group. The neuromuscular and biomechanical mechanisms driving performance improvements were very similar for both strong and weak individuals.

Does Performance of Hang Power Clean Differentiate Performance of Jumping, Sprinting, and Changing of Direction?

The primary purpose of this study was to investigate whether the athlete who has high performance in hang power clean, a common weightlifting exercise, has high performances in sprinting, jumping, and changing of direction (COD). As the secondary purpose, relationships between hang power clean performance, maximum strength, power and performance of jumping, sprinting, and COD also were investigated. Twenty-nine semiprofessional Australian Rules football players (age, height, and body mass [mean ± SD]: 21.3 ± 2.7 years, 1.8 ± 0.1 m, and 83.6 ± 8.2 kg) were tested for one repetition maximum (1RM) hang power clean, 1RM front squat, power output during countermovement jump with 40-kg barbell and without external load (CMJ), height of CMJ, 20-m sprint time, and 5-5 COD time. The subjects were divided into top and bottom half groups (n = 14 for each group) based on their 1RM hang power clean score relative to body mass, then measures from all other tests were compared with one-way analyses of variance. In addition, Pearsons product moment correlations between measurements were calculated among all subjects (n = 29). The top half group possessed higher maximum strength (P < 0.01), power (P < 0.01), performance of jumping (P < 0.05), and sprinting (P < 0.01). However, there was no significant difference between groups in 5-5 COD time, possibly because of important contributing factors other than strength and power. There were significant correlations between most of, but not all, combinations of performances of hang power clean, jumping, sprinting, COD, maximum strength, and power. Therefore, it seems likely there are underlying strength qualities that are common to the hang power clean, jumping, and sprinting.

Comparison of four different methods to measure power output during the hang power clean and the weighted jump squat

Measurement of power output during resistance training is becoming ubiquitous in strength and conditioning programs, but there is great variation in the methods used. The main purposes of this study were to compare the power output values obtained from 4 different methods and to examine the relationships between these values. Male semiprofessional Australian rules football players (n = 30) performed hang power clean and weighted jump squat while ground reaction force (GRF)-time data and barbell displacement-time data were sampled simultaneously using a force platform and a linear position transducer attached to the barbell. Peak and mean power applied to the barbell was obtained from barbell displacement-time data (method 1). Peak and mean power applied to the system (barbell + lifter) was obtained from 3 other methods: (a) using GRF-time data (method 2), (b) using barbell displacement-time data (method 3), and (c) using both barbell displacement-time data and GRF-time data (method 4). The peak power values (W) obtained from methods 1, 2, 3, and 4 were (mean ± SD) 1,644 ± 295, 3,079 ± 638, 3,821 ± 917, and 4,017 ± 833 in hang power clean and 1,184 ± 115, 3,866 ± 451, 3,567 ± 494, and 4,427 ± 557 in weighted jump squat. There were significant differences between power output values obtained from method 1 vs. methods 2, 3, and 4, as well as method 2 vs. methods 3 and 4. The power output applied to the barbell and that applied to the system was significantly correlated (r = 0.65–0.81). As a practical application, it is important to understand the characteristics of each method and consider how power output should be measured during the hang power clean and the weighted jump squat.