Peak oxygen uptake (VO 2 peak) and speed at first (LT1, minimal lactate equivalent) and second lactate threshold (LT2 = LT1 +1.5 mmol•L −1 ) are crucial swimming performance surrogates. The present randomized controlled study investigated the effects of blood flow restriction (BFR) during low-intensity swimming (LiT) on VO 2 peak, LT1, and LT2. Eighteen male swimmers (22.7 ±3.0 yrs; 69.9 ±8.5 kg; 1.8 ±0.1 m) were either assigned to the BFR or control (noBFR) group. While BFR was applied during LiT, noBFR completed the identical LIT without BFR application. BFR of the upper limb was applied via customized pneumatic cuffs (75% of occlusion pressure: 135 ±10 mmHg; 8 cm cuff width). BFR training took place three times a week over 5 weeks (accumulated weekly net BFR training: 60 min•week −1 ; occlusion per session: 2-times 10 min•session −1 ) and was used exclusively at low intensities. VO 2 peak, LT1, and LT2 diagnostics were employed. Bayesian credible intervals revealed notable VO 2 peak improvements by +0.29 L•min −1 kg −1 (95% credible interval: −0.26 to +0.85 L•min −1 kg −1 ) when comparing BFR vs. noBFR. Speed at LT1 −0.01 m•s −1 (−0.04 to +0.02 m•s −1 ) and LT2 −0.01 m•s −1 (−0.03 to +0.02 m•s −1 ) did not change meaningfully when BFR was employed. Fifteen sessions of LIT swimming (macrocycle of 5 h over 5 weeks) with a weekly volume of 60 min with BFR application adds additional impact on VO 2 peak improvement compared to noBFR LIT swimming. Occasional BFR applications should be considered as a promising means to improve relevant performance surrogates in trained swimmers. Highlights. Low-intensity swimming with blood flow restricted (BFR) induced superior peak oxygen consumption adaptations compared to non-restricted swimming training over a 5-week lasting training period . BFR and non-BFR swimming training-induced similar adaptations regarding swimming speed at first and second lactate threshold . In conclusion, BFR served as a feasible, promising and beneficial complementary training stimuli to traditional swimming training regarding oxygen consumption adaptations.

Chronic blood flow restriction (BFR) training has been shown to improve drop jumping (DJ) and balance performance. However, the acute effects of low intensity BFR cycling on DJ and balance indices have not yet been examined. 28 healthy young adults (9 female; 21.8 ± 2.7years; 1.79 ± 0.08m; 73.9 ± 9.5kg) performed DJ and balance testing before and immediately after 20min low intensity cycling (40% of power at maximal oxygen uptake) with (BFR) and without BFR (noBFR). For DJ related parameters, no significant mode × time interactions were found (p ≥ 0.221, ηp2 ≤ 0.06). Large time effects for DJ heights and the reactive strength index were observed (p < 0.001, ηp2 ≥ 0.42). Pairwise comparison revealed notably lower values for both DJ jumping height and reactive strength index at post compared to pre (BFR: -7.4 ± 9.4%, noBFR: -4.2 ± 7.4%). No statistically significant mode × time interactions (p ≥ 0.36; ηp2 ≤ 0.01) have been observed for balance testing. Low intensity cycling with BFR results in increased (p ≤ 0.01; SMD ≥ 0.72) mean heart rate (+14 ± 8bpm), maximal heart rate (+16 ± 12 bpm), lactate (+0.7 ± 1.2 mmol/L), perceived training intensity (+2.5 ± 1.6au) and pain scores (+4.9 ± 2.2au) compared to noBFR. BFR cycling induced acutely impaired DJ performance, but balance performance was not affected, compared to noBFR cycling. Heart rate, lactate, perceived training intensity, and pain scores were increased during BFR cycling.

Background Traditional meta-analyses with pairwise direct comparison revealed that a variety of exercise-based training interventions can prevent falls in community-dwelling older adults. This network meta-analysis adds value by comparing and ranking different exercise training strategies based on their effects on fall risk reductions determined by analysis of direct and indirect comparisons. Methods The studies included in this network meta-analysis were identified through a comprehensive search in five biomedical databases (PubMed, SportDiscus, CINAHL, Web of Science and EMBASE). We included (randomized) controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the occurance of fall events in older adults who received different interventional treatments. Results Seventy six comparisons from 66 RCTs with 47.420 (61% male / 39% female) participants aged 77 ± 4 (68 – 88) years were included in this network meta-analysis. The network model revealed low heterogeneity (I2 = 28.0, 95%CI 1.0 to 47.7%) and inconsistency (Q between designs = 15.1, p = 0.37). Postural control training was found to be most effective in preventing falls (Postural Control Training: (home): Risk Ratio (RR) = 0.66, 95%-CI [0.49; 0.88], P-score = 0.97;Postural Control Training: RR = 0.82, 95%-CI [0.75; 0.91], P-score = 0.82). Combined and multifactorial interventions also display a robust but smaller effect (RR = 0.88–0.93, P-score = 0.65–0.47). Conclusion Physical activity that includes balance training presents itself to be the most effective. Multifactorial approaches are well investigated but could be slightly less effective than isolated postural control training.

Recreational and professional climbing is gaining popularity. Thus, valid and reliable infield strength monitoring and testing devices are required. This study aims at assessing the validity as well as within- and between-day reliability of two climbing-specific hanging positions for assessing the maximum force with a new force measurement device. Therefore, 25 experienced male (n = 16) and female (n = 9) climbers (age: 25.5 ± 4.2 years, height: 176.0 ± 9.9 cm, weight: 69.7 ± 14.5 kg, body composition: 11.8 ± 5.7% body fat, climbing level: 17.5 ± 3.9 International Rock Climbing Research Association scale) were randomly tested with climbing-specific hang board strength tests (one-handed rung pulling and one-handed bent arm lock-off at 90°). The Tindeq, a load cell-based sensor for assessing different force-related variables, was employed together with a force plate (Kistler Quattro Jump) during both conditions. Data analysis revealed excellent validity for assessment with Tindeq: The intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) was 0.99 (both positions), while the standard error of the measurement (SEM), coefficient of variation (CV), and limits of agreement (LoA) showed low values. Within day reliability for the assessment with Tindeq was excellent: rung pulling showed an ICC of 0.90 and arm lock-off an ICC of 0.98; between-day reliability was excellent as well: rung pulling indicated an ICC of 0.95 and arm lock-off an ICC of 0.98. Other reliability indicators such as SEM, CV, and LoA were low. The Tindeq progressor can be applied for the cross-sectional and longitudinal climbing strength assessment as this device can detect training-induced changes reliably.

Introduction: Low-intensity endurance training is frequently performed at gradually higher training intensities than intended, resulting in a shift towards threshold training. By restricting oral breathing and only allowing for nasal breathing this shift might be reduced.Methods: Nineteen physically healthy adults (3 females, age: 26.5 ± 5.1 years; height: 1.77 ± 0.08 m; body mass: 77.3 ± 11.4 kg; VO2peak: 53.4 ± 6.6 mL·kg−1 min−1) performed 60 min of self-selected, similar (144.7 ± 56.3 vs. 147.0 ± 54.2 W, p = 0.60) low-intensity cycling with breathing restriction (nasal-only breathing) and without restrictions (oro-nasal breathing). During these sessions heart rate, respiratory gas exchange data and power output data were recorded continuously.Results: Total ventilation (p &lt; 0.001, ηp2 = 0.45), carbon dioxide release (p = 0.02, ηp2 = 0.28), oxygen uptake (p = 0.03, ηp2 = 0.23), and breathing frequency (p = 0.01, ηp2 = 0.35) were lower during nasal-only breathing. Furthermore, lower capillary blood lactate concentrations were found towards the end of the training session during nasal-only breathing (time x condition-interaction effect: p = 0.02, ηp2 = 0.17). Even though discomfort was rated marginally higher during nasal-only breathing (p = 0.03, ηp2 = 0.24), ratings of perceived effort did not differ between the two conditions (p ≥ 0.06, ηp2 = 0.01). No significant “condition” differences were found for intensity distribution (time spent in training zone quantified by power output and heart rate) (p ≥ 0.24, ηp2 ≤ 0.07).Conclusion: Nasal-only breathing seems to be associated with possible physiological changes that may help to maintain physical health in endurance athletes during low intensity endurance training. However, it did not prevent participants from performing low-intensity training at higher intensities than intended. Longitudinal studies are warranted to evaluate longitudinal responses of changes in breathing patterns.