Special Issue "Biomechanics of Resistance Training - New Trends in Strength and Power Training"

A special issue of Sports (ISSN 2075-4663).

Deadline for manuscript submissions: closed (31 March 2019)

Special Issue Editors

Guest Editor
Prof. Adam Zając

Academy of Physical Education in Katowice, Department of Sports Training, Katowice, Poland
Website | E-Mail
Phone: 322075139
Interests: power; athletes; complex training; conditioning; nutrition
Guest Editor
Dr. Artur Golas

Academy of Physical Education in Katowice, Department of Sports Training, Katowice, Poland
Website | E-Mail
Phone: 2075363
Interests: Neuromuscular; Resistance Training
Guest Editor
Dr. Petr Stastny

Faculty of Physical Education and Sport, Charles University, Czech Republic
Website | E-Mail
Phone: 220 172 260 l. 2260
Interests: Sport sciences; Muscle; Competitive sports

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

Resistance training is based on the use of external loading during human movement, where the mechanical variables play a crucial role. The mechanics of exercises can determine the performance outcomes, injury occurrence or the effect of specific training methods (such as post activation potential). Therefore, a great deal practical and theoretical fields can benefit from biomechanical approaches to resistance training.

The are two objectives of this special issue. First of all we would like to present how biomechanical approaches are related to resistance training, and what are the crucial biomechanical variables useful for resistance training practice. Special attention is given, but not limited to, kinematic differences in complex exercises, muscle activity during resistance exercises, the role of movement speed in resistance exercises, the sticking region during maximal and submaximal effort, and mechanical properties of the human body in relation to resistance training. The other objective is to present novel approaches to strength and power training. These can include inovative training devices as well as new methods of resistance training, such as PAP, pre-exhaustion, occlusion ect. We would like to concentrate on empirical research with competitive athletes, not the general public.

Prof. Adam Zając
Dr. Artur Golas
Dr. Petr Stastny
Guest Editors

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All papers will be peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Sports is an international peer-reviewed open access monthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 350 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • Kinematics
  • muscle activity
  • reactive forces
  • velocity
  • momentum
  • mechanism
  • training methods

Published Papers (7 papers)

View options order results:
result details:
Displaying articles 1-7
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

Open AccessArticle
Time Course of Recovery Following Resistance Exercise with Different Loading Magnitudes and Velocity Loss in the Set
Received: 3 January 2019 / Revised: 22 February 2019 / Accepted: 26 February 2019 / Published: 4 March 2019
PDF Full-text (479 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare the time course of recovery following four different resistance exercise protocols in terms of loading magnitude (60% vs. 80% 1RM—one-repetition maximum) and velocity loss in the set (20% vs. 40%). Seventeen males performed four different [...] Read more.
The aim of this study was to compare the time course of recovery following four different resistance exercise protocols in terms of loading magnitude (60% vs. 80% 1RM—one-repetition maximum) and velocity loss in the set (20% vs. 40%). Seventeen males performed four different protocols in full squat exercise, which were as follows: (1) 60% 1RM with a velocity loss of 20% (60-20), (2) 60% 1RM with a velocity loss of 40% (60-40), (3) 80% 1RM with a velocity loss of 20% (80-20), and (4) 80% 1RM with a velocity loss of 40% (80-40). Movement velocity against the load that elicited a 1 m·s−1 velocity at baseline measurements (V1-load), countermovement jump (CMJ) height, and sprint time at 20 m (T20) were assessed at Pre, Post, 6 h-Post, 24 h-Post, and 48 h-Post. Impairments in V1-load were significantly higher for 60-40 than other protocols at Post (p < 0.05). The 60-20 and 80-40 protocols exhibited significant performance impairments for V1-load at 6 h-Post and 24 h-Post, respectively (p < 0.05). CMJ height remained decreased for 60-20 and 60-40 until 24 h-Post (p < 0.001–0.05). Regarding T20, the 80-40 protocol resulted in higher performance than 60-40 at 24 h-Post and the 80-20 protocol induced a greater performance than 60-40 protocol at 48 h-Post (p < 0.05). A higher velocity loss during the set (40%) and a lower relative load (60% 1RM) resulted in greater fatigue and slower rate of recovery than lower velocity loss (20%) and higher relative load (80% 1RM). Full article
Figures

Figure 1

Open AccessArticle
Rate of Force Development and Muscle Architecture after Fast and Slow Velocity Eccentric Training
Received: 2 November 2018 / Revised: 1 February 2019 / Accepted: 3 February 2019 / Published: 14 February 2019
PDF Full-text (503 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
The aim of the study was to investigate the rate of force development (RFD) and muscle architecture early adaptations in response to training with fast- or slow-velocity eccentric squats. Eighteen young novice participants followed six weeks (two sessions/week) of either fast-velocity (Fast) or [...] Read more.
The aim of the study was to investigate the rate of force development (RFD) and muscle architecture early adaptations in response to training with fast- or slow-velocity eccentric squats. Eighteen young novice participants followed six weeks (two sessions/week) of either fast-velocity (Fast) or slow-velocity (Slow) squat eccentric-only training. Fast eccentric training consisted of nine sets of nine eccentric-only repetitions at 70% of 1-RM with <1 s duration for each repetition. Slow eccentric training consisted of five sets of six eccentric-only repetitions at 90% of 1-RM with ~4 sec duration for each repetition. Before and after training, squat 1-RM, countermovement jump (CMJ), isometric leg press RFD, and vastus lateralis muscle architecture were evaluated. Squat 1-RM increased by 14.5 ± 7.0% (Fast, p < 0.01) and by 5.4 ± 5.1% (Slow, p < 0.05). RFD and fascicle length increased significantly in the Fast group by 10–19% and 10.0 ± 6.2%, p < 0.01, respectively. Muscle thickness increased only in the Slow group (6.0 ± 6.8%, p < 0.05). Significant correlations were found between the training induced changes in fascicle length and RFD. These results suggest that fast eccentric resistance training may be more appropriate for increases in rapid force production compared to slow eccentric resistance training, and this may be partly due to increases in muscle fascicle length induced by fast eccentric training. Full article
Figures

Figure 1

Open AccessFeature PaperArticle
The Magical Horizontal Force Muscle? A Preliminary Study Examining the “Force-Vector” Theory
Received: 13 December 2018 / Revised: 17 January 2019 / Accepted: 20 January 2019 / Published: 22 January 2019
Cited by 1 | PDF Full-text (440 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
The force-vector theory contends that horizontal exercises are more specific to horizontal sports skills. In this context, the focus is on horizontal force production relative to the global coordinate frame. However, according to the principle of dynamic correspondence, the direction of force relative [...] Read more.
The force-vector theory contends that horizontal exercises are more specific to horizontal sports skills. In this context, the focus is on horizontal force production relative to the global coordinate frame. However, according to the principle of dynamic correspondence, the direction of force relative to the athlete is more important, and thus the basis for the force-vector theory is flawed. The purpose of this study was therefore to test the force-vector theory. According to the force-vector theory, hip thrust is a horizontally loaded exercise, and so hip thrust training would be expected to create greater improvements in horizontal jump performance than vertical jump performance. Eleven collegiate female athletes aged 18–24 years completed a 14-week hip thrust training programme. Pre and post testing was used to measure the following: vertical squat jump, vertical countermovement jump, horizontal squat jump, horizontal countermovement jump and hip thrust 3 repetition maximum (3RM). Subjects improved their 3 repetition maximum hip thrust performance by 33.0% (d = 1.399, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.784) and their vertical and horizontal jump performance (improvements ranged from 5.4–7.7%; d = 0.371–0.477, p = 0.004, η2 = 0.585). However, there were no differences in the magnitude of the improvement between horizontal and vertical jumping (p = 0.561, η2 = 0.035). The results of this study are contrary to the predictions of the force-vector theory. Furthermore, this paper concludes with an analysis of the force-vector theory, presenting the mechanical inconsistencies in the theory. Coaches should use the well established principle of dynamic correspondence in order to assess the mechanical similarity of exercises to sports skills. Full article
Figures

Figure 1

Open AccessArticle
Loading Patterns of Rubber-Based Resistance Bands across Distributors
Received: 16 December 2018 / Revised: 7 January 2019 / Accepted: 9 January 2019 / Published: 16 January 2019
PDF Full-text (1540 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
Variable resistance implemented through concurrent use of rubber-based resistance bands and free weights is commonly used in training athletes. The purpose of this study was to examine the consistency of rubber-based resistance (RBR) band loading patterns across four distributors. Bands (n = [...] Read more.
Variable resistance implemented through concurrent use of rubber-based resistance bands and free weights is commonly used in training athletes. The purpose of this study was to examine the consistency of rubber-based resistance (RBR) band loading patterns across four distributors. Bands (n = 141) were obtained from online distributors (Rogue Fitness, EliteFTS, RubberBanditz, and Power Systems) across a spectrum of available widths (0.635, 1.270, 2.860, 4.450, 6.350, and 10.160 cm). At least five bands for each width were stretched in 5 cm increments from resting (100 cm) to twice resting length (200 cm) while tensile resistance was measured using a load cell integrated with a digital controller. Each band was tested twice on non-consecutive days producing an intertrial intraclass correlational coefficient (ICC) between 0.93–0.99 with a grand mean ICC across all repeated measures of 0.99. Statistical differences were observed in mean resistance for bands of equal thickness across distributors. Significant correlations were found between a range of tensile load expressed as a total load and band thickness (r = 0.658) and when expressed as a percentage (r = −0.386). This study is useful for strength and conditioning professionals and clinicians who should be cognizant of loading variability within both bandwidths and between distributors. Full article
Figures

Figure 1

Open AccessArticle
Effect of Descent Velocity upon Muscle Activation and Performance in Two-Legged Free Weight Back Squats
Received: 13 December 2018 / Revised: 30 December 2018 / Accepted: 3 January 2019 / Published: 7 January 2019
PDF Full-text (2062 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
Background: The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of descent velocity during two-legged full back squats upon muscle activation and squat ascent performance. Methods: Eleven healthy resistance-training males (age: 24 ± 6 years, body mass: 89.5 ± 21.5 kg, height: [...] Read more.
Background: The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of descent velocity during two-legged full back squats upon muscle activation and squat ascent performance. Methods: Eleven healthy resistance-training males (age: 24 ± 6 years, body mass: 89.5 ± 21.5 kg, height: 1.84 ± 0.10 m) performed 4-repetition maximum (4-RM) two-legged full squats with slow, normal, and fast descent phases. Kinematics and muscle activity of ten muscles divided into five regions were measured. Results: The main findings were that maximal and minimal velocity were lower and maximal velocity occurred later in the slow condition, while there was no difference in second peak velocity or ascent displacement when compared with the normal and fast conditions. Furthermore, no differences in muscle activation were found as an effect of the descent velocity. Conclusion: It was concluded that the slow descent velocity had a negative effect upon the ascent phase, because of the lower peak velocity and peak force increasing the chance of failure. The lower velocities were not caused by lower pre-activation of the muscles but were probably a result of potentiation and/or utilization of stored elastic energy and/or the stretch reflex. Full article
Figures

Figure 1

Open AccessArticle
Loading Range for the Development of Peak Power in the Close-Grip Bench Press versus the Traditional Bench Press
Received: 22 August 2018 / Revised: 4 September 2018 / Accepted: 12 September 2018 / Published: 15 September 2018
PDF Full-text (518 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
The close-grip bench press (CGBP) is a variation of the traditional bench press (TBP) that uses a narrower grip (~95% biacromial distance) and has application for athletes performing explosive arm actions where the hands are positioned close to the torso. Limited research has [...] Read more.
The close-grip bench press (CGBP) is a variation of the traditional bench press (TBP) that uses a narrower grip (~95% biacromial distance) and has application for athletes performing explosive arm actions where the hands are positioned close to the torso. Limited research has investigated CGBP peak power. Twenty-six strength-trained individuals completed a one-repetition maximum TBP and CGBP. During two other sessions, subjects completed two repetitions as explosively as possible with loads from 20% to 90% for each exercise, with peak power measured by a linear position transducer. A factorial ANOVA calculated between- and within-exercise differences in peak power. Partial correlations controlling for sex determined relationships between absolute and relative strength and peak power load. Peak power for the TBP occurred at 50% 1RM, and 30% 1RM for the CGBP. There were no significant (p = 0.680) differences between peak power at each load when comparing the TBP and CGBP. For the within-exercise analysis, there were generally no significant differences in TBP and CGBP peak power for the 20–50% 1RM loads. There were no significant relationships between strength and peak power load (p = 0.100–0.587). A peak power loading range of 20–50% 1RM for the TBP and CGBP is suggested for strength-trained individuals. Full article
Figures

Figure 1

Open AccessArticle
The Effect of Set Up Position on EMG Amplitude, Lumbar Spine Kinetics, and Total Force Output During Maximal Isometric Conventional-Stance Deadlifts
Received: 7 August 2018 / Revised: 28 August 2018 / Accepted: 29 August 2018 / Published: 31 August 2018
PDF Full-text (407 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the biomechanical differences between two set up variations during the isometric initiation of conventional barbell deadlifts (DL): Close-bar DL (CBDL), where the bar is positioned above the navicular, and far-bar DL (FBDL), where the bar [...] Read more.
The purpose of this study was to examine the biomechanical differences between two set up variations during the isometric initiation of conventional barbell deadlifts (DL): Close-bar DL (CBDL), where the bar is positioned above the navicular, and far-bar DL (FBDL), where the bar is placed above the 3rd metatarsophalangeal joint. A cross-sectional, randomized, within-participant pilot study was used. Experienced powerlifters and weightlifters (n = 10) performed three individual isometric pulls of the initiation of both conditions. The CBDL resulted in lower tibia and knee angles and greater pelvis and torso angles than the FBDL (p < 0.05), as well as greater electromyography (EMG) activity in the biceps femoris and upper lumbar erector spinae, but lower activity in the vastus lateralis, and a lower knee extensor moment (p < 0.05). There were no statistical differences for ground reaction force, joint reaction lumbar shear and compression forces between the two conditions. Despite the differences in pelvis and torso angles between lifting conditions, the internal joint net moment, internal shear forces, and internal compressive forces were not different between the two lifting styles. The CBDL set up also resulted in greater posterior chain (hamstrings and erector spine) EMG amplitude, whereas the FBDL set up resulted in more anterior chain (quadriceps) amplitude. Lifters and coaches may choose either deadlift style, according to preferences or training goals, without concern for differences in lumbar spinal loading. Full article
Figures

Figure 1

Sports EISSN 2075-4663 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top