The purpose of this investigation was to examine blood pressure responses during recovery from resistance exercise and cycling. Seven normotensive volunteers (5 males, 2 females) were studied. Resistance exercise consisted of three sets of five exercises (arm curl, hamstring curl, squat, 'lat pull' and bench press) on four occasions: (1) twice using 40% one-repetition maximum (1RM) for 20-25 repetitions, and (2) twice using 70% 1RM for 8-10 repetitions. The subjects also cycled for 25 min at 70% of heart rate reserve on two occasions. Measurements of recovery systolic and diastolic blood pressure were made at 2, 5, 10, 15, 30 and 60 min post-exercise with subjects in the seated position. Analysis of variance with repeated measures revealed that there were no significant differences between recovery blood pressures after the cycling or resistance exercise treatments. Average systolic blood pressure after 2 min of recovery was elevated (115 +/- 2 mmHg, P < 0.0001) and diastolic blood pressure was depressed (48 +/- 3 mmHg, P < 0.0001) in comparison to previously determined baseline values. Systolic blood pressure at 5 min and diastolic blood pressure at 15 min post-exercise were not significantly lower than resting baseline values, and remained so after 60 min of recovery. It was concluded that different intensities of resistance exercise produce the same blood pressure response in recovery and that these changes were approximately equal to those produced by cycling.

No abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine the concurrent validity of a new bench press power (BPP) test using the medicine ball put (MBP) as the criterion measure. Forty-three college-age students (19 males and 24 females) participated in the study. Participants performed 1 repetition at maximum speed using 61.4 kg (males) and 25 kg (females), at a grip width of 130% of biacromial breadth. Timing was initiated manually at the moment of upward bar movement and stopped automatically as the bar broke an infrared beam 0.3 m above the chest. All tests were conducted within 2 weeks. There was 1 practice session for the BPP test and 2 separate testing sessions, one for BPP and the other for the MBP. Three BPP trials were separated by >or=2 minutes of passive recovery. Individual scores were the average of the second and third tests and were expressed in Watts: Power=Bar mass kg.9.81x0.3 m/s. Medicine ball put scores were the average distance the ball was thrown on the second and third trials from a sitting position on a 45 degrees recumbent weight bench. Concurrent validity was determined by conducting a Pearson Correlation on BPP and MBP scores at an alpha level of 0.05: males, r=0.861; females, r=0.79, (p<0.000). In addition, results of an Intraclass R indicated excellent test-retest reliability for both males and females for BPP and the MBP (p<0.05). The conclusion was that the BPP test is a logically and concurrently valid method for coaches and trainers to use in assessing upper body power for both college-age males and females.

No abstract

No abstract