This study compared the velocity- and power-load relationships of the antagonistic upper-body exercises of prone bench pull (PBP) and bench press (BP). 75 resistance-trained athletes performed a progressive loading test in each exercise up to the one-repetition maximum (1RM) in random order. Velocity and power output across the 30-100% 1RM were significantly higher for PBP, whereas 1RM strength was greater for BP. A very close relationship was observed between relative load and mean propulsive velocity for both BP (R2=0.97) and PBP (R2=0.94) which enables us to estimate %1RM from velocity using the obtained prediction equations. Important differences in the load that maximizes power output (Pmax) and the power profiles of both exercises were found according to the outcome variable used: mean (MP), peak (PP) or mean propulsive power (MPP). When MP was considered, the Pmax load was higher (56% BP, 70% PBP) than when PP (37% BP, 41% PBP) or MPP (37% BP, 46% PBP) were used. For each variable there was a broad range of loads at which power output was not significantly different. The differing velocity- and power-load relationships between PBP and BP seem attributable to the distinct muscle architecture and moment arm levers involved in these exercises.

The use of bar velocity to estimate relative load in the back squat exercise was examined. 80 strength-trained men performed a progressive loading test to determine their one-repetition maximum (1RM) and load-velocity relationship. Mean (MV), mean propulsive (MPV) and peak (PV) velocity measures of the concentric phase were analyzed. Both MV and MPV showed a very close relationship to %1RM (R 2 =0.96), whereas a weaker association (R 2 =0.79) and larger SEE (0.14 vs. 0.06 m·s −1 ) were found for PV. Prediction equations to estimate load from velocity were obtained. When dividing the sample into 3 groups of different relative strength (1RM/body mass), no differences were found between groups for the MPV attained against each %1RM. MV attained with the 1RM was 0.32±0.03 m·s −1 . The propulsive phase accounted for ~82% of concentric duration at 40% 1RM, and progressively increased until reaching 100% at 1RM. Provided that repetitions are performed at maximal intended velocity, a good estimation of load (%1RM) can be obtained from mean velocity as soon as the first repetition is completed. This finding provides an alternative to the often demanding, time-consuming and interfering 1RM or nRM tests and allows implementing a velocity-based resistance training approach.

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, is leading to unknown and unusual health conditions that are challenging to manage. Post-COVID-19 syndrome is one of those challenges, having become increasingly common as the pandemic evolves. The latest estimates suggest that 10 to 20% of the SARS-CoV-2 patients who undergo an acute symptomatic phase are experiencing effects of the disease beyond 12 weeks after diagnosis. Although research is beginning to examine this new condition, there are still serious concerns about the diagnostic identification, which limits the best therapeutic approach. Exercise programs and physical activity levels are well-known modulators of the clinical manifestations and prognosis in many chronic diseases. This narrative review summarizes the up-to-date evidence on post-COVID-19 syndrome to contribute to a better knowledge of the disease and explains how regular exercise may improve many of these symptoms and could reduce the long-term effects of COVID-19.

The ergogenic dose of caffeine required to enhance neuromuscular performance during a single all-out contraction depends on the magnitude of load used. A dose of 3 mg · kg(-1) is enough to improve high-velocity muscle actions against low loads, whereas a higher caffeine dose (9 mg · kg(-1)) is necessary against high loads, despite the appearance of adverse side effects.

Purpose The aim of the study was to compare the outcomes of patients with post‐COVID‐19 condition undergoing supervised therapeutic exercise intervention or following the self‐management WHO (World Health Organization) rehabilitation leaflet. Methods A randomized controlled trial was carried out that included 39 participants with post‐COVID‐19 condition who had a chronic symptomatic phase lasting >12 weeks. Comprehensive medical screening, patient‐reported symptoms, and cardiorespiratory fitness and muscular strength were assessed. Patients were randomly assigned to a tailored multicomponent exercise program based on concurrent training for 8 weeks (two supervised sessions per week comprised resistance training combined with aerobic training [moderate intensity variable training], plus a third day of monitored light intensity continuous training), or to a control group which followed the WHO guidelines for rehabilitation after COVID‐19. Results After follow‐up, there were changes in physical outcomes in both groups, however, the magnitude of the change pre–post intervention favored the exercise group in cardiovascular and strength markers: VO 2 max +5.7%, sit‐to‐stand −22.7% and load‐velocity profiles in bench press +6.3%, and half squat +16.9%, (p < 0.05). In addition, exercise intervention resulted in a significantly better quality of life, less fatigue, less depression, and improved functional status, as well as in superior cardiovascular fitness and muscle strength compared to controls ( p < 0.05). No adverse events were observed during the training sessions. Conclusion Compared to current WHO recommendations, a supervised, tailored concurrent training at low and moderate intensity for both resistance and endurance training is a more effective, safe, and well‐tolerated intervention in post‐COVID‐19 conditions.