To determine differences in maximal strength and muscle power output of the arm and leg extensor muscles, peak and mean power during a modified standing crank-arm Wingate test, running speed, muscle extensibility, and anthropometric markers between elite and amateurs wrestlers according to the weight classes system; 92 male wrestlers were assigned into 6 groups according to their body mass (light, middle and heavy weight) and their competitive level (elite and amateur): Light Weight (body mass ranged between 55 and 68 kg) in elite (LW(E), n = 18) and amateur (LW(A), n = 15) level; Middle Weight (body mass ranged between 68 and 84 kg) in elite (MW(E), n = 18) and amateur (MW(A), n = 19) level; and Heavy Weight (body mass ranged between 84 and 100 kg) in elite (HW(E), n = 10) and amateur (HW(A), n = 12) level. Elite wrestlers were older (8-12%), had more training experience (25-37%), fat-free mass (3-5%), maximal strength in absolute and relative terms (8-25%), muscle power (14-30%), mean and peak power during crank-arm Wingate testing in absolute and relative terms (13-22%), jumping height (8-17%) as well as grip (6-19%) and back strength (7-20%) compared to amateur wrestlers. However, no differences were observed between elite and amateur groups in height, body mass index, percentage of body fat, hamstring extensibility and running speed. The present results suggest that the higher absolute and relative values of maximal strength, muscle power, and anaerobic metabolism, explained in part by the differences in lean mass and neural activation patterns, will give elite wrestlers a clear advantage during the most frequently used techniques in Olympic wrestling.

Purpose: The COVID-19 outbreak has challenged professional athletes’ training and competition routines in a way not seen before. This report aims to inform about the changes in training volume and intensity distribution and their effects on functional performance due to a 7-week home-confinement period in professional road cyclists from a Union Cycliste Internationale Pro Team. Methods: A total of 18 male professional cyclists (mean [SD] age = 24.9 [2.8] y, body mass = 66.5 [5.6] kg, maximal aerobic power = 449 [39] W; 6.8 [0.6] W/kg) were monitored during the 10 weeks before the lockdown (outdoor cycling) and the 7-week lockdown (indoor cycling turbo trainer). Data from the mean maximal power output (in watts per kilogram) produced during the best 5-minute and best 20-minute records and the training intensity distributions (weekly volumes at power-based training zones) were collected from WKO5 software. Results: Total training volume decreased 33.9% during the lockdown (P < .01). Weekly volumes by standardized zones (Z1 to Z6) declined between 25.8% and 52.2% (effect size from 0.83 to 1.57), except for Z2 (P = .38). There were large reductions in best 5-minute and best 20-minute performance (effect size > 1.36; P < .001) with losses between 1% and 19% in all the cyclists. Conclusions: Total indoor volumes of 12 hours per week, with 6 hours per week at low intensity (Z1 and Z2) and 2 hours per week at high intensity over the threshold (Z5 and Z6), were insufficient to maintain performance in elite road cyclists during the COVID-19 lockdown. Such performance declines should be considered to enable a safe and effective return to competition.

Purpose: To compare the physical demands and performance indicators of male professional cyclists of 2 different categories (Union Cycliste Internationale WorldTour [WT] and ProTeam [PT]) during a cycling grand tour. Methods: A WT team (n = 8, 31.4 [5.4] y) and a PT team (n = 7, 26.9 [3.3] y) that completed “La Vuelta 2020” volunteered to participate. Participants’ power output (PO) was registered, and measures of physical demand and physiological performance (kilojoules spent, training stress score, time spent at different PO bands/zones, and mean maximal PO [MMP] for different exertion durations) were computed. Results: WT achieved a higher final individual position than PT (31 [interquartile range = 33] vs 71 [59], P = .004). WT cyclists showed higher mean PO and kilojoule values than their PT peers and spent more time at high-intensity PO values (>5.25 W·kg−1) and zones (91%–120% of individualized functional threshold power) (Ps < .05). Although no differences were found for MMP values in the overall analysis (P > .05), subanalyses revealed that the between-groups gap increased through the race, with WT cyclists reaching higher MMP values for ≥5-minute efforts in the second and third weeks (Ps < .05). Conclusions: Despite the multifactorial nature of cycling performance, WT cyclists spend more time at high intensities and show higher kilojoules and mean PO than their PT referents during a grand tour. Although the highest MMP values attained during the whole race might not differentiate between WT and PT cyclists, the former achieve higher MMP values as the race progresses.

Purpose: The present study aimed to determine the influence of fatigue on the record power profile of professional male cyclists. We also assessed whether fatigue could differently affect cyclists of 2 competition categories. Methods: We analyzed the record power profile in 112 professional cyclists (n = 46 and n = 66 in the ProTeam [PT] and WorldTour [WT] category, respectively; age 29 [6] y, 8 [5] y experience in the professional category) during 2013–2021 (8 [5] seasons/cyclist). We analyzed their mean maximal power (MMP) values for efforts lasting 10 seconds to 120 minutes with no fatigue (after 0 kJ·kg−1) and with increasing levels of fatigue (after 15, 25, 35, and 45 kJ·kg−1). Results: A significant (P < .001) and progressive deterioration of all MMP values was observed from the lowest levels of fatigue assessed (ie, −1.6% to −3.0% decline after 15 kJ·kg−1, and −6.0% to −9.7% after 45 kJ·kg−1). Compared with WT, PT cyclists showed a greater decay of MMP values under fatigue conditions (P < .001), and these differences increased with accumulating levels of fatigue (decay of −1.8 to −2.9% [WT] with reference to 0 kJ·kg−1 vs −1.1% to −4.4% [PT] after 15 kJ·kg−1 and of −4.7% to −8.8% [WT] vs −7.6% to −11.6% [PT] after 45 kJ·kg−1). No consistent differences were found between WT and PT cyclists in MMP values assessed in nonfatigue conditions (after 0 kJ·kg−1), but WT cyclists attained significantly higher MMP values with accumulating levels of fatigue, particularly for long-duration efforts (≥5 min). Conclusions: Our findings highlight the importance of considering fatigue when assessing the record power profile of endurance athletes and support the ability to attenuate fatigue-induced decline in MMP values as a determinant of endurance performance.

No abstract