Redistributing load using wearable resistance during power clean training improves athletic performance

Acute physiological and psychological responses during an incremental treadmill test wearing a new upper-body sports garment with elastomeric technology

Background: The use of elastomeric technology in sports garments is increasing in popularity; however, its specific impact on physiological and psychological variables is not fully understood. Thus, we aimed to analyze the physiological (muscle activation of the pectoralis major, triceps brachii, anterior deltoid, and rectus abdominis, capillary blood lactate, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and heart rate) and psychological (global and respiratory rating of perceived exertion [RPE]) responses during an incremental treadmill test wearing a new sports garment for the upper body that incorporates elastomeric technology or a placebo garment. Methods: Eighteen physically active young adults participated in two randomized sessions, one wearing the elastomeric garment and the other wearing a placebo. Participants performed in both sessions the same treadmill incremental test (i.e., starting at 8 km/h, an increase of 2 km/h each stage, stage duration of 3 min, and inclination of 1%; the test ended after completing the 18 km/h Stage or participant volitional exhaustion). The dependent variables were assessed before, during, and/or after the test. Nonparametric tests evaluated differences. Results: The elastomeric garment led to a greater muscle activation (p < 0.05) in the pectoralis major at 16 km/h (+33.35%, p = 0.01, d = 0.47) and 18 km/h (+32.09%, p = 0.02, d = 0.55) and in the triceps brachii at 10 km/h (+20.28%, p = 0.01, d = 0.41) and 12 km/h (+34.95%, p = 0.04, d = 0.28). Additionally, lower lactate was observed at the end of the test (-7.81%, p = 0.01, d = 0.68) and after 5 min of recovery (-13.71%, p < 0.001, d = 1.00) with the elastomeric garment. Nonsignificant differences between the garments were encountered in the time to exhaustion, cardiovascular responses, or ratings of perceived exertion. Conclusion: These findings suggest that elastomeric garments enhance physiological responses (muscle activation and blood lactate) during an incremental treadmill test without impairing physical performance or effort perception.

Assessment of Physical Tests in 6-11 Years Old Children: Findings from the Play Lifestyle and Activity in Youth (PLAY) Study

The purpose was to evaluate selected physical tests in children and to compare the outcomes by sex. A cross-sectional study design was used to evaluate children 6-11 years who completed five physical tests: hand grip, vertical jump, sit and reach, Y-balance, and obstacle course (time and score). The outcome measures including test results were descriptively examined and compared by sex. The study participants consisted of 133 children (62 males and 71 females, with a median age of 7.8 years). Girls showed superior sit and reach performance (p = 0.002) compared with boys. Boys demonstrated better Y-balance scores (p = 0.007) and faster obstacle time (p = 0.042) than girls. Sex comparison within three age groups (6-<8 years, 8-<10 years, and 10-<12 years) showed that girls performed better on the sit and reach compared with boys in the in 6-<8 years (p = 0.009). Boys demonstrated higher Y-balance scores (p = 0.017) and faster obstacle time (p = 0.007) compared with girls in the 8-<10-year age group. These data will serve to guide future efforts to evaluate normative measures of physical literacy and guide targeted training interventions to promote sustained physical activity in children with deficits relative to their age and sex norms.

Using Velocity to Predict the Maximum Dynamic Strength in the Power Clean

The primary aim of the present study was to examine the commonly performed training exercise for athlete preparation. Twenty-two recreationally trained males (age: 26.3 ± 4.1 y, height: 1.80 ± 0.07 m; body mass (BM): 87.01 ± 13.75 kg, 1-repetitoon maximum(1-RM)/BM: 0.90 ± 0.19 kg) participated in the present study. All subjects had their 1-RM power clean tested with standard procedures. On a separate testing day, subjects performed three repetitions at 30% and 45%, and two repetitions at 70% and 80% of their 1-RM power clean. During all trials during both sessions, peak velocity (PV) and mean velocity (MV) were measured with the use of a GymAware device. There were no significant differences between the actual and estimated 1-RM power clean (p = 0.37, ES = −0.11) when the load-PV profile was utilized. There was a large typical error (TE) present for the load-PV- and load-MV-estimated 1-RM values. Additionally, the raw TE exceeded the smallest worthwhile change for both load-PV and load-MV profile results. Based upon the results of this study, the load-velocity profile is not an acceptable tool for monitoring power clean strength.

Mechanical power production assessment during weightlifting exercises. A systematic review

The assessment of the mechanical power production is of great importance for researchers and practitioners. The purpose of this review was to compare the differences in ground reaction force (GRF), kinematic, and combined (bar velocity x GRF) methods to assess mechanical power production during weightlifting exercises. A search of electronic databases was conducted to identify all publications up to 31 May 2019. The peak power output (PPO) was selected as the key variable. The exercises included in this review were clean variations, which includes the hang power clean (HPC), power clean (PC) and clean. A total of 26 articles met the inclusion criteria with 53.9% using the GRF, 38.5% combined, and 30.8% the kinematic method. Articles were evaluated and descriptively analysed to enable comparison between methods. The three methods have inherent methodological differences in the data analysis and measurement systems, which suggests that these methods should not be used interchangeably to assess PPO in Watts during weightlifting exercises. In addition, this review provides evidence and rationale for the use of the GRF to assess power production applied to the system mass while the kinematic method may be more appropriate when looking to assess only the power applied to the barbell.