Effect of a Neoprene Knee Sleeve on Performance and Muscle Activity in Men and Women During High-Intensity, High-Volume Resistance Training

ABSTRACT

Hatfield, DL, Stranieri, AM, Vincent, LM, and Earp, JE. Effect of a neoprene knee sleeve on performance and muscle activity in men and women during high-intensity, high-volume resistance training. J Strength Cond Res 35(12): 3300-3307, 2021-The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of a commercially available neoprene knee sleeve (KS) on exercise performance and muscle activity during an exhaustive leg press exercise. Twenty resistance-trained individuals, 11 men {21.0 ± 2.2 years; 77.7 ± 8.7 kg; 1 repetition maximum (1RM/body mass [BM]): 0.30 ± 0.04} and 9 women (22.0 ± 3.5 years; 66.1 ± 9.1 kg; 1RM/BM: 0.30 ± 0.04), all subjects (21.5 ± 2.8 years; 72.5 ± 10.5 kg; 1RM/BM: 0.30 ± 0.04), participated in 3 testing sessions. The second and third sessions were performed using a counterbalanced and randomized design in which subjects exercised with (WS) or without (NS) KSs and performed 6 sets of leg press exercise at 80% of 1RM until failure with a 3-minute rest between sets. Number of repetitions, blood lactate (BL), heart rate (HR), rating of perceived exertion (RPE), and peak and average power were recorded after each set. Surface electromyography (EMG) of the right and left vastus lateralis muscles was also recorded to compare muscle activity between conditions. Significance was set at p ≤ 0.05, and values are presented as mean ± SD. No significant differences were observed in the total number of repetitions for all sets (p = 0.3; WS 75.3 ± 33.7, NS 79.8 ± 34.3) and the number of repetitions per set between conditions (p ≤ 0.05) or between men and women. Similarly, no significance differences (p ≤ 0.05) were observed for BL, HR, RPE, or EMG per set between conditions or between men and women. These results suggest that wearing compressive neoprene KSs has no effect on improving performance and associated variables during high-load, high-volume lower-body resistance training.

Analysis of USA Powerlifting Federation Data From January 1, 2012-June 11, 2016

Ball, R and Weidman, D. Analysis of USA Powerlifting federation data from January 1, 2012-June 11, 2016. J Strength Cond Res 32(7): 1843-1851, 2018-In this article, we report 47,913 officially judged contestant results from powerlifting matches from January 1, 2012 to June 11, 2016 for the USA Powerlifting Federation. We found age and sex to be the most complex factors in predicting powerlifting results. For women, in general, the younger the woman is the more they can squat; the older the woman is the less they can squat. For men and women, with the 1 exception for women's squat, the peak age of lifting power is between the ages 24-49, at which point lifting power slowly declines. Women's peak performance declines faster than men's peak performance. Women seem to reach their peak sooner than men and decline sooner than men. We also analyzed match attendance. At matches with a large number of competitors, there is a 1:1.7 ratio of women to men, approximately a 2-3 ratio of women to men. Except for the lightest weight category of men, the ratio of weight to lift decreases the more they weigh. For example, a lighter person can generally lift a greater percentage of their weight than a heavier person. In addition, men in general can lift a heavier ratio of their weight when compared with women. The powerlifting stereotype of mostly heavy men lifting extremely large amounts of weights is simply wrong. There is a large amount of variation in age, weight, and sex.

A Review of the Biomechanical Differences Between the High-Bar and Low-Bar Back-Squat

Glassbrook, DJ, Helms, ER, Brown, SR, and Storey, AG. A review of the biomechanical differences between the high-bar and low-bar back-squat. J Strength Cond Res 31(9): 2618-2634, 2017-The back-squat is a common exercise in strength and conditioning for a variety of sports. It is widely regarded as a fundamental movement to increase and measure lower-body and trunk function, as well as an effective injury rehabilitation exercise. There are typically 2 different bar positions used when performing the back-squat: the traditional "high-bar" back-squat (HBBS) and the "low-bar" back-squat (LBBS). Different movement strategies are used to ensure that the center of mass remains in the base of support for balance during the execution of these lifts. These movement strategies manifest as differences in (a) joint angles, (b) vertical ground reaction forces, and (c) the activity of key muscles. This review showed that the HBBS is characterized by greater knee flexion, lesser hip flexion, a more upright torso, and a deeper squat. The LBBS is characterized by greater hip flexion and, therefore, a greater forward lean. However, there are limited differences in vertical ground reaction forces between the HBBS and LBBS. The LBBS can also be characterized by a greater muscle activity of the erector spinae, adductors, and gluteal muscles, whereas the HBBS can be characterized by greater quadriceps muscle activity. Practitioners seeking to develop the posterior-chain hip musculature (i.e., gluteal, hamstring, and erector muscle groups) may seek to use the LBBS. In comparison, those seeking to replicate movements with a more upright torso and contribution from the quadriceps may rather seek to use the HBBS in training.

The Efficacy of Wrestling-Style Compression Suits to Improve Maximum Isometric Force and Movement Velocity in Well-Trained Male Rugby Athletes

Purpose: The prevalence of compression garment (CG) use is increasing with athletes striving to take advantage of the purported benefits to recovery and performance. Here, we investigated the effect of CG on muscle force and movement velocity performance in athletes. Methods: Ten well-trained male rugby athletes wore a wrestling-style CG suit applying 13-31 mmHg of compressive pressure during a training circuit in a repeated-measures crossover design. Force and velocity data were collected during a 5-s isometric mid-thigh pull (IMTP) and repeated countermovement jump (CMJ), respectively; and time to complete a 5-m horizontal loaded sled push was also measured. Results: IMTP peak force was enhanced in the CG condition by 139 ± 142 N (effect size [ES] = 0.36). Differences in CMJ peak velocity (ES = 0.08) and loaded sled-push sprint time between the conditions were trivial (ES = -0.01). A qualitative assessment of the effects of CG wear suggested that the likelihood of harm was unlikely in the CMJ and sled push, while a beneficial effect in the CMJ was possible, but not likely. Half of the athletes perceived a functional benefit in the IMTP and CMJ exercises. Conclusion: Consistent with other literature, there was no substantial effect of wearing a CG suit on CMJ and sprint performance. The improvement in peak force generation capability in an IMTP may be of benefit to rugby athletes involved in scrummaging or lineout lifting. The mechanism behind the improved force transmission is unclear, but may involve alterations in neuromuscular recruitment and proprioceptive feedback.

Force Outputs during Squats Performed Using a Rotational Inertia Device under Stable versus Unstable Conditions with Different Loads

The purpose of the study was to compare the force outputs achieved during a squat exercise using a rotational inertia device in stable versus unstable conditions with different loads and in concentric and eccentric phases. Thirteen male athletes (mean ± SD: age 23.7 ± 3.0 years, height 1.80 ± 0.08 m, body mass 77.4 ± 7.9 kg) were assessed while squatting, performing one set of three repetitions with four different loads under stable and unstable conditions at maximum concentric effort. Overall, there were no significant differences between the stable and unstable conditions at each of the loads for any of the dependent variables. Mean force showed significant differences between some of the loads in stable and unstable conditions (P < 0.010) and peak force output differed between all loads for each condition (P < 0.045). Mean force outputs were greater in the concentric than in the eccentric phase under both conditions and with all loads (P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in peak force between concentric and eccentric phases at any load in either stable or unstable conditions. In conclusion, squatting with a rotational inertia device allowed the generation of similar force outputs under stable and unstable conditions at each of the four loads. The study also provides empirical evidence of the different force outputs achieved by adjusting load conditions on the rotational inertia device when performing squats, especially in the case of peak force. Concentric force outputs were significantly higher than eccentric outputs, except for peak force under both conditions. These findings support the use of the rotational inertia device to train the squatting exercise under unstable conditions for strength and conditioning trainers. The device could also be included in injury prevention programs for muscle lesions and ankle and knee joint injuries.