Are Strength Indicators and Skin Temperature Affected by the Type of Warm-Up in Paralympic Powerlifting Athletes?

Evaluation of the Training Session in Elite Paralympic Powerlifting Athletes Based on Biomechanical and Thermal Indicators

BACKGROUND

Paralympic powerlifting (PP) is performed on a bench press, aiming to lift as much weight as possible in a single repetition.

PURPOSE

To evaluate thermal asymmetry and dynamic force parameters with 45 and 80% 1 Repetition Maximum (1 RM) in PP athletes.

METHODS

Twelve elite PP male athletes were evaluated before and after a training session regarding skin temperature (thermography) and dynamic force indicators (Average Propulsive Velocity-MPV, Maximum Velocity-VMax, and Power). The training consisted of five series of five repetitions (5 × 5) with 80% 1 RM. The force indicators and dynamics before and after (45% 1 RM) were evaluated in series "1" and "5" with 80% 1 RM.

RESULTS

The temperature did not present asymmetry, and there were differences between the moment before and after. In MPV, Vmax, and Power, with 45% 1 RM, there were differences both in asymmetry and in moments (p < 0.005). With 80% 1 RM, asymmetry was observed, but no differences between moments (p < 0.005).

CONCLUSION

No thermal asymmetry was observed. There were reductions in MVP and VMax at 45 and 80% 1 RM but without significant differences between time points (before and after). However, there was asymmetry in the moments before and after within a safety standard, where Paralympic powerlifting was safe in terms of asymmetries.

Sports and Special Populations: Training Physiology in Health and Sports Performance

Health is increasingly being studied, notably concerning preventive measures for health issues [...].

A Bibliometrics-Enhanced, PAGER-Compliant Scoping Review of the Literature on Paralympic Powerlifting: Insights for Practices and Future Research

Paralympic powerlifting (PP), formerly known as "International Paralympic Committee" (IPC) powerlifting, is the format of powerlifting adapted for athletes with disabilities, and it differs from the version for able-bodied athletes in that it consists of bench press only. According to the mandate of the IPC, PP athletes should be enabled to achieve sporting excellence. As such, rigorous evidence is needed. However, to the best of our knowledge, there exists no systematic assessment of the body of scholarly evidence in the field of PP. Therefore, the present study was conducted to fill in this gap of knowledge, by conducting a scoping review of the literature enhanced by a bibliometrics analysis and by mining two major scholarly databases (MEDLINE via PubMed and Scopus). The aim was to provide a review/summary of the findings to date to help practitioners and athletes. Thirty-seven studies were retained in the present study. These covered the following thematic areas: (i) warm-up strategies (n = 2); (ii) aspects of training (n = 2); (iii) physiological aspects and responses (n = 2); (iv) psychological aspects and responses (n = 2); (v) biomechanics of bench press (n = 8); (vi) recovery strategy (n = 5); (vii) impact of the disability and type of disability (n = 4); (viii) epidemiology of PP (n = 6); and (ix) new analytical/statistical approaches for kinematics assessments, internal load monitoring, and predictions of mechanical outputs in strength exercises and in PP (n = 6). Bibliometrics analysis of the PP-related scientific output revealed that, despite having already become a paralympic sports discipline in 1984, only in the last few years, PP has been attracting a lot of interest from the community of researchers, with the first scholarly contribution dating back to 2012, and with more than one-third of the scientific output being published this year (2022). As such, this scholarly discipline is quite recent and young. Moreover, the community dealing with this topic is poorly interconnected, with most authors contributing to just one article, and with one single author being a hub node of the author network. Distributions of the number of articles and the authors/co-authors were found to be highly asymmetrical, indicating that this research is still in its infancy and has great room as well as great potential to grow. Reflecting this, many research topics are also overlooked and underdeveloped, with the currently available evidence being based on a few studies.

Force-velocity relationship in Paralympic powerlifting: two or multiple-point methods to determine a maximum repetition

Background

Due to the absence of evidence in the literature on Paralympic Powerlifting the present study investigated various methods to assess bench press maximum repetition and the way each method influences the measurement of minimum velocity limit (MVT), load at zero velocity (LD0), and force–velocity (FV).

Objective

To evaluate the precision of the multi-point method using proximal loads (40, 50, 60, 70, 80, and 90% of one repetition maximum; 1RM) compared to the four-point method (50, 60, 70, and 80% of 1RM) and the two-point method using distant loads (40 and 80% and 50 and 80% of 1RM) in in the MVT, LD0, and FV, in bench press performed by Paralympic Powerlifters (PP).

Methods

To accomplish this, 15 male elite PP athletes participated in the study (age: 27.7 ± 5.7 years; BM: 74.0 ± 19.5 kg). All participants performed an adapted bench press test (free weight) with 6 loads (40, 50, 60, 70, 80, and 90% 1RM), 4 loads (50, 60, 70, and 80% 1RM), and 2 loads (40–80% and 50–80% 1RM). The 1RM predictions were made by MVT, LD0, and FV.

Results

The main results indicated that the multiple (4 and 6) pointsmethod provides good results in the MVT (R² = 0.482), the LD0 (R² = 0.614), and the FV (R² = 0.508). The two-point method (50–80%) showed a higher mean in MVT [1268.2 ± 502.0 N; ICC95% 0.76 (0.31–0.92)], in LD0 [1504.1 ± 597.3 N; 0.63 (0.17–0.86)], and in FV [1479.2 ± 636.0 N; 0.60 (0.10–0.86)].

Conclusion

The multiple-point method (4 and 6 points) and the two-point method (40–80%) using the MVT, LD0, and FV all showed a good ability to predict bench press 1RM in PP.

Does the Level of Training Interfere with the Sustainability of Static and Dynamic Strength in Paralympic Powerlifting Athletes?

Background: Paralympic powerlifting (PP) presents adaptations that the training tends to provide, mainly concerning the mechanical variables. Objective: Our aim was to analyze mechanical, dynamic and static indicators, at different intensities, on the performance of paralympic powerlifting athletes. Methods: 23 athletes of PP, 11 national level (NL) and 12 regional level (RL) performed dynamic and static tests over a comprehensive range of loads. The study evaluated regional and national level athletes and the influence on the training level on the performance of strength. The study was carried out in four weeks, with the first week to familiarize with the one repetition maximum (1RM), day 1, and there was a 72-h rest and familiarization with dynamic and static tests carried out day 2. In week 2, the 1RM tests were performed (day 1 and 72 h later), and the static tests were performed with a distance of 15 cm from the bar to the chest, with the tests of maximum isometric strength, time to maximum isometric strength, rate of force development (RFD), impulse, variability and fatigue index (IF) taking place on day 2. In weeks three and four dynamic tests were performed, including means propulsive velocity, maximum velocity, power and prediction of one maximum repeat. Results: Differences were found, with better results than for RL in relation to NL in MVP (45%, 55%, and 75% 1RM), in VMax (50%, 55%, 75% and 95% 1RM). In power, the NL had better results (40%, 45%, 50%, 60% and 95% 1RM). Conclusion: RL athletes tend to present better results with regard to velocity, however in power, NL athletes tend to present better performances.

Analysis of Grip Amplitude on Velocity in Paralympic Powerlifting

(1) Background: Paralympic Powerlifting (PP) is a Paralympic modality that is predominantly about developing maximal force, as there are athletes who lift three times their body weight. Our objective was to evaluate the averages of the velocity for 30% and 50% of 1 Maximum Repetition (1 RM) on different amplitudes of the footprint in PP athletes; (2) Methods: The intervention happened over two weeks, with the first being devoted to the familiarization and testing of 1 RM, while in the second week, through the use of a linear Encoder, tests of velocity average (VA), velocity average propulsive (VAP), and velocity peak (VP) were carried out with loads of 30% and 50% of a maximum repetition 1 RM for 1× of the biacromial distance (BAD) 1.3 × BAD, 1.5 × BAD; (3) Results: There was a significant difference in the average velocity of 1 × BAD (1.16 ± 0.14 m/s, 1.07-1.26 IC; η2p 0.20) when compared to 1.3 × BAD (1.00 ± 0.17 m/s, 0.90-1.09 IC; η2p 0.20) over 30% of 1 RM. For the other velocity variables for 30% and 50% of 1 RM with different grip amplitudes, there were no significant differences; (4) Conclusions: In PP, the 1 × BAD footprint contributes significantly to VA at 30% of 1 RM when compared to the 1.3 × BAD and 1.5 × BAD footprints. For loading at 50% of 1 RM the VA, VAP and VP decreased when compared to 30% of 1 RM, to the extent that the VAP and VP generated with the 1.3 × BAD and 1.5 × BAD footprints were higher than those with 1 × BAD, other than for VA 50% of 1 RM, where the 1 × BAD footprint was superior to the others.