No abstract

In the last decade, self-myofascial release has become an increasingly common modality to supplement traditional methods of massage, so a masseuse is not necessary. However, there are limited clinical data demonstrating the efficacy or mechanism of this treatment on athletic performance. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the use of myofascial rollers before athletic tests can enhance performance. Twenty-six (13 men and 13 women) healthy college-aged individuals (21.56 ± 2.04 years, 23.97 ± 3.98 body mass index, 20.57 ± 12.21 percent body fat) were recruited. The study design was a randomized crossover design in which subject performed a series of planking exercises or foam rolling exercises and then performed a series of athletic performance tests (vertical jump height and power, isometric force, and agility). Fatigue, soreness, and exertion were also measured. A 2 × 2 (trial × gender) analysis of variance with repeated measures and appropriate post hoc was used to analyze the data. There were no significant differences between foam rolling and planking for all 4 of the athletic tests. However, there was a significant difference between genders on all the athletic tests (p ≤ 0.001). As expected, there were significant increases from pre to post exercise during both trials for fatigue, soreness, and exertion (p ≤ 0.01). Postexercise fatigue after foam rolling was significantly less than after the subjects performed planking (p ≤ 0.05). The reduced feeling of fatigue may allow participants to extend acute workout time and volume, which can lead to chronic performance enhancements. However, foam rolling had no effect on performance.

No abstract

MA supplementation beneficially affected training-induced changes in lean body mass, muscle strength, and power, as well as hormonal responses and markers of muscle damage in response to 12 wk of resistance exercise training when compared with an isonitrogenous control.

Resistance exercise intensity is commonly prescribed as a percent of 1 repetition maximum (1RM). However, the relationship between percent 1RM and the number of repetitions allowed remains poorly studied, especially using free weight exercises. The purpose of this study was to determine the maximal number of repetitions that trained (T) and untrained (UT) men can perform during free weight exercises at various percentages of 1RM. Eight T and 8 UT men were tested for 1RM strength. Then, subjects performed 1 set to failure at 60, 80, and 90% of 1RM in the back squat, bench press, and arm curl in a randomized, balanced design. There was a significant (p < 0.05) intensity x exercise interaction. More repetitions were performed during the back squat than the bench press or arm curl at 60% 1RM for T and UT. At 80 and 90% 1RM, there were significant differences between the back squat and other exercises; however, differences were much less pronounced. No differences in number of repetitions performed at a given exercise intensity were noted between T and UT (except during bench press at 90% 1RM). In conclusion, the number of repetitions performed at a given percent of 1RM is influenced by the amount of muscle mass used during the exercise, as more repetitions can be performed during the back squat than either the bench press or arm curl. Training status of the individual has a minimal impact on the number of repetitions performed at relative exercise intensity.