Background and aim of the study : In recent years, the use of ergogenic aid has become widespread in order to improve performance among the athletes and to achieve success more easily. Pre-workout nutritional supplements that attract the attention of many athletes as a legal ergogenic aid are used by both aerobic and anaerobic branch athletes. The aim of this study is to examine the acute effect of the pre-workout supplement on aerobic and anaerobic performance in basketball players. Material and Method: Twenty male college basketball players who have played regularly at least for 5 years participated in the study voluntarily (mean ± SD 22.00 ± 1.70 years, height 1.83 ± 0.07 cm, weight 85.15 ± 10.78 kg, BMI 25.32 ± 3.10). Double-blind placebo-controlled, cross-over method was used for the collection of data. The players were divided into two groups as placebo (PL, n= 10) and pre-workout (PRW, n= 10). Placebo and pre-workout groups were replaced 48 hours after the initial measurements and the same tests were repeated. The pre-workout group was given 17 gr (Bigjoy Predator) in 200 mg of additive-free juice 1 hour before the test, only 200 mg of additive free juice was given to the placebo group. Countermovement Jump (CMJ) and Running-Based Anaerobic Sprint Test (RAST) were used to measure the anaerobic performance of the athletes, and Yoyo Intermittent Recovery Test 1(Yo-Yo IRL1) was used to measure aerobic capacities. Results: A significant difference was found concerning the Countermovement Jump (CMJ) test results (p= 0, 004), Relative peak power (p= 0.001) and Relative average power (p= 0.012) values obtained from RAST test data. There was no significant difference in fatigue index (p = 0.79) and VO2 max (p= 0.492) values. Conclusion: While pre-workout supplementation has an acute effect on anaerobic power data, it has been observed that there is no acute effect on the data obtained from fatigue index and aerobic endurance test.

This study aimed at examining the concurrent validity and reliability of the multi-point method and the two-point method’s variations for estimating the one-repetition maximum (1RM) in the deadlift and squat exercises and to determine the accuracy of which optimal two loads can be used for the two-point method protocol. Thirteen resistance-trained men performed six sessions that consisted of two incremental loading tests (multi-point method: 20–40–60–80–90% and two-point method variations: 40–60%, 40–80%, 40–90%,60–80%, 60–90%) followed by 1RM tests. Both the multi-point method and the two-point method load variations showed reliable results for 1RM estimation (CV < 10%) squat and deadlift exercises. Session-session reliability was found to be low in deadlift (ICC: 0.171–0.335) and squat exercises (ICC: 0.235–0.479) of 40–60% and 60–80% in two-point methods. Deadlift (ICC: 0.815–0.996) and squat (ICC: 0.817–0.988) had high session-to-session reliability in all other methods. Regarding the validity of deadlift exercise, the multipoint method (R2 = 0.864) and two variations of the two-point method (R2 = 0.816 for 40–80%, R2 = 0.732 for 60–80%) showed very large correlations, whereas other two variations of the two-point method (R2 = 0.945 for 40–90%, R2 = 0.914 for 60–90%) showed almost perfect correlations with the actual 1RM. Regarding the validity of squat exercise, the multi-point method (R2 = 0.773) and two variations of the two-point method (R2 = 0.0847 for 60–80%, R2 = 0.705 for 40–90%) showed very large correlations, whereas 40–60% variation showed almost perfect correlation (R2 = 0.962) with the actual 1RM. In conclusion, whereas both the multi-point method and the two-point method load variations showed reliable results, the multiple-point method and most of the two-point methods’ load variations examined in this research provided an accurate (from large-moderate to perfect) estimate of the 1RM. Therefore, we recommend using the multi-point method and especially the two-point methods variations including higher relative loads to estimate 1RM.

Background and Study Aim. To compare the effects of three different sets method, which is frequently used in resistance training, on strength and hypertrophy values. Materials and Methods. Thirty-three young male athletes with similar daily activities and nutrient intakes at the Fitlife fitness center in Sakarya were included in the study. Participants were randomly divided into three different groups as Modified German Volume Training (MGVT) (n=11, 21.5 ± 2.4 years), Super Set (SS) (n=11, 22.4 ± 2.9) and Giant Set (GS) (n=11, 23.0 ± 4.3 years). The study was started with a total of thirty-three people, but two participants in the Giant set group were excluded from the measurements because they left the study due to personal reasons. Strength, muscle thickness and cross-sectional area (CSA) measurements were made in the upper extremity muscles before and after the six-week training period.    Results. After six weeks of training, significant increases were observed in the cross-sectional area and thickness (p<0.05) of pectoralis major, deltoid, and latissimus dorsi muscle groups in all three groups, and in the strength parameter (p<0.05) in bench press, barbell row and shoulder press exercises. There was no difference in strength, muscle cross-sectional area and thickness parameters between the groups (p>0,05).   Conclusions. Modified German Volume Training (MGVT), Super Set (SS) and Giant Set (GS) methods reveal that there is no difference between the set methods in the 1 Repetition Maximum (1RM) strength and hypertrophy development of young male individuals who do not have a history of resistance exercise but have completed the adaptation period, and that there is an improvement in all set methods.

This study aimed to compare the effects of handgrip and range of motion (ROM) variations on muscle activity in different deltoid exercises. 14 resistance-trained men volunteered for 1RM and EMG testing with a load corresponding to 80% of 1RM. The subjects performed three different handgrips during Dumbell Front Raise (DFR), two different ROM variations for Dumbell Lateral Raise (DLR), and two different handgrips during Dumbell Rear Delt Raise (DRDR). Electromyogram (EMG) activity was measured in the anterior, medial, and posterior heads of deltoids. For the DFR exercise, the highest mean EMG activity was greater for the anterior deltoid, and the highest activity was observed in pronate grip (PG) con (51.57%). For the anterior deltoid EMG activity was significantly greater in PG con (51.57%) compared with hammer grip (HG) con (43.36%) (p˂0.05). HG ecc activity (40.36%) was significantly greater than PG ecc (36.4%) in posterior deltoid (p˂0.05). For the DLR exercise, the highest activity was observed in medial deltoid, and for limited ROM (LTR) (20.74%). LTR con activity (19.37%) was significantly greater than full ROM con (FLR) (16.88%) in the anterior head (p˂0.05). For the DRDR exercise, the mean activity was greater in medial deltoid, and HG con showed the highest activity (24.47%). The mean electromyography activity for the posterior deltoid was significantly greater in standard grip (STD) ecc compared with HG ecc (17.3%) (p˂0.05). In conclusion, for the heads of the deltoid muscle, the use of the different handgrip and ROM variations may increase neuromuscular activity.

Kuvvet antrenmanları; kas boyutunda, kuvvetinde ve gücünde artışlara neden olan bir uyarıcıdır. Kuvvet antrenman programı tasarımında yoğunluk, yük, tekrar sayıları, set sayıları, egzersiz türü, egzersiz sırası ve setler arası dinlenme gibi akut antrenman yükü değişkenleri dikkate alınmaktadır. 1,2 On yıllar-