Training of Muscle Strength and Power: Interaction of Neuromotoric, Hypertrophic, and Mechanical Factors

Pv, Komi

doi:10.1055/s-2008-1025796

Cited by 251 publications

(145 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

121

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although previous studies have suggested that measureable increases in muscle fiber area may require several weeks [45][46][47], recent investigation using computerized tomography has shown that two RT sessions can result in a 3.5% increase in muscle cross-sectional area [48]. Thus, we cannot discount the possibility that certain individuals may microscopically increase muscle size enough to work in conjunction with increased neural drive to produce slight gains in the early sessions of 1RM testing.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 86%

Reliability and smallest worthwhile difference in 1RM tests according to previous resistance training experience in young women

Nascimento¹,

Ribeiro²,

Padilha³

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Strength testing reliability INTRODUCTIONThe one-repetition maximum (1RM) test is the premier method used to determine relative loads for prescribing resistance training (RT) program intensity and to assess changes in muscle strength during RT [1,2]. Its popularity is related to factors such as the possibility of evaluating various muscle groups, ease of administration, low cost, and lack of need for sophisticated equipment. It is considered to be a safe and valid indicator for the estimation of muscle strength in different populations [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11].The most widely used exercises utilized for measuring strength are the bench press (BP) and squat (SQ) [12][13][14][15]. In addition, the arm curl (AC) is a common component of training programs [16,17] and provides measurement of a smaller muscle group frequently utilized for upper-body manual tasks. Several studies have shown that to obtain stable 1RM measures in these exercises, previous familiarization sessions are needed [18][19][20][21][22]. Variables such as age [18,19], gender [18,[20][21][22][23] ABSTRACT:The objective of this study was to determine the familiarization and smallest worthwhile difference (SWD) of one-repetition maximum (1RM) tests in detrained women according to their previous resistance training experience. Three groups of women with varying amounts of previous resistance training experience were recruited: Novice (n = 27, 1 to 6 months), Intermediate (n = 13, from 7 to 12 months), and Advanced (n = 20, 13 to 24 months). All participants performed four 1RM test sessions in the bench press (BP), squat (SQ), and arm curl (AC). A significant (p< 0.05) (group vs. time) interaction was observed in SQ suggesting that more experienced participants needed fewer 1RM test sessions to reach a stable load compared to the less experienced groups. Strength changes (p<0.05) observed in BP and AC occurred with no significant interaction for groups (p> 0.05), suggesting that experience had no impact on familiarization for these lifts. SWDs suggest that strength gains greater than 2-4% in these lifts would indicate a meaningful improvement in strength beyond random variation from trial to trial no matter the experience of the subject. Women with limited previous resistance training experience do not require more trials to reach load stabilization than those with more experience. Stability of 1RM loads for BP and AC may require only two sessions, while SQ may require at least three trials. CITATION:

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 86%

Reliability and smallest worthwhile difference in 1RM tests according to previous resistance training experience in young women

Nascimento¹,

Ribeiro²,

Padilha³

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A great number of empiric training interventions have been developed for rehabilitation purposes and in sports science in order to improve postural control and leg motor performance. The acquisition of motor skills in the first 4 to 6 weeks of training primarily relies on neural plasticity rather than on changes in muscle structure (Enoka, 1997;Komi, 1986;Ploutz et aI., 1994). With respect to lesion sites within the central nervous system (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Task-specific changes in motor evoked potentials of lower limb muscles after different training interventions

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Improved intramuscular coordination refers to increased motor-unit recruitment, firing rates, synchronization and reflex potentiation and decreased inhibition from eccentric loads during stretch-shortening cycle. (Komi 1986;Schmidtbleicher 1991, 384. ) A poor transfer might be explained by a violation of the specificity principle.…”

Section: Transfer Of Strength and Power Training To Sports Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

“…After all, it seems that GM is substantially more activated and BF somewhat less activated in the sled-pulling than in the block start. The higher aEMG value could be a result of an increased recruitment, firing rate and/or synchronization of motor units (Komi 1986) in GM. Moreover, it seems that EMG activation increases with strength training and the increase might be more pronounced at the beginning phases of training (4-8 weeks) (e.g.…”

Section: Sled-pulling Vs Block Startmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…rapid/increased recruitment of motor units, increased firing rate of motor units and improved synchronization of motor units). (Komi 1986;Schmidtbleicher 1991, 384;Delecluse 1997. ) In maximum strength training the goal is also to activate the largest fast twitch motor units (Delecluse et al 1995), although it might be also possible with rapid ballistic muscle actions (Sale 1991, 256).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Biomechanical Comparison Between Sprint Start, Sled Pulling, and Selected Squat-Type Exercises

Okkonen

Häkkinen²

2013

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Okkonen, Olli 2012. Biomechanical comparison between sprint start, sled-pulling and selected squat type exercises. Department of Biology of Physical Activity, University of Jyväskylä.Master's Thesis in Science of Sport Coaching and Fitness Testing. 69 pp.The purpose of the present study was to compare kinetics, kinematics and muscle activity between sprint start, sled-pulling and selected squat type exercises and also to examine how different exercises and variables correlate with the performance time of the block start (10 m).Nine male athletes (4 sprinters, 3 decathlonists, 1 long jumper and 1 triple jumper; mean ± SD; age = 24.9 ± 3.9 yr; height = 180.4 ± 5.9 cm; weight = 80.3 ± 7.5 kg; 100 m record = 11.35 ± 0.29 s) performed measurements and different force-time, electromyographic (EMG) and kinematic variables were compared to sprint start. Most of the comparison was done to the block phase (the phase of force production towards starting blocks) of the block start. In nearly all exercises, the activity of the gluteus maximus (GM) was significantly (p≤0.05) higher than during the block phase. The opposite was true for the activation of the biceps femoris (BF).Ground reaction forces (GRF) were highest during the 1-RM (one repetition maximum) ½-squat (SMAX). The GRFs were also significantly (p≤0.05) larger during the countermovement jumps (CMJ) with different loads and during the ½-squat with 70 % of 1-RM (S70) as compared to the block phase. The angular velocity of the knee was significantly (p≤0.05) higher during CMJs than during the block phase. The highest correlation existed between the performance time in the block start (10 m) and the takeoff velocity during CMJ (r=-0.950, p≤0.05). According to the results of the present study, it can be suggested that to overload the force production (peak and average force) of the block phase, CMJs and ½-squats could be used in training. If the aim is to activate the GM intensively, almost all of the exercises analyzed in the present study seems to be suitable. The results also indicate that CMJs could be used as supra-velocity exercise for the knee joint in the training of the block start. In addition, the correlation analyses indicate the importance of a good performance in CMJs for a good performance in the block start.

show abstract

Training of Muscle Strength and Power: Interaction of Neuromotoric, Hypertrophic, and Mechanical Factors

Cited by 251 publications

References 12 publications

Reliability and smallest worthwhile difference in 1RM tests according to previous resistance training experience in young women

Reliability and smallest worthwhile difference in 1RM tests according to previous resistance training experience in young women

Task-specific changes in motor evoked potentials of lower limb muscles after different training interventions

Biomechanical Comparison Between Sprint Start, Sled Pulling, and Selected Squat-Type Exercises

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About