Purpose: To analyze the relationship between movement velocity and relative load (%1RM) in the pull-up exercise (PU) and to determine the pattern of repetition-velocity loss during a single set to failure in pulling one’s own body mass. Methods: Fifty-two men (age = 26.5 ± 3.9 y, body mass = 74.3 ± 7.2 kg) performed a first evaluation (T1) consisting of an 1-repetition-maximum test (1RM) and a test of maximum number of repetitions to failure pulling one’s own body mass (MNR) in the PU exercise. Thirty-nine subjects performed both tests on a second occasion (T2) following 12 wk of training. Results: The authors observed a strong relationship between mean propulsive velocity (MPV) and %1RM (r = −.96). Mean velocity attained with 1RM load (V1RM) was 0.20 ± 0.05 m·s−1, and it influenced the MPV attained with each %1RM. Although 1RM increased by 3.4% from T1 to T2, the relationship between MPV and %1RM, and V1RM, remained stable. The authors also confirmed stability in the V1RM regardless of individual relative strength. The authors found a strong relationship between percentage of velocity loss and percentage of performed repetitions (R 2 = .88), which remained stable despite a 15% increase in MNR. Conclusions: Monitoring repetition velocity allows estimation of the %1RM used as soon as the first repetition with a given load is performed, and the number of repetitions remaining in reserve when a given percentage of velocity loss is achieved during a PU exercise set.
Miguel Sánchez-Moreno, David Rodríguez-Rosell, Fernando Pareja-Blanco, Ricardo Mora-Custodio, and Juan José González-Badillo
Pedro Jiménez-Reyes, Pierre Samozino, Fernando Pareja-Blanco, Filipe Conceição, Víctor Cuadrado-Peñafiel, Juan José González-Badillo, and Jean-Benoît Morin
To analyze the reliability and validity of a simple computation method to evaluate force (F), velocity (v), and power (P) output during a countermovement jump (CMJ) suitable for use in field conditions and to verify the validity of this computation method to compute the CMJ force–velocity (F–v) profile (including unloaded and loaded jumps) in trained athletes.
Sixteen high-level male sprinters and jumpers performed maximal CMJs under 6 different load conditions (0–87 kg). A force plate sampling at 1000 Hz was used to record vertical ground-reaction force and derive vertical-displacement data during CMJ trials. For each condition, mean F, v, and P of the push-off phase were determined from both force-plate data (reference method) and simple computation measures based on body mass, jump height (from flight time), and push-off distance and used to establish the linear F–v relationship for each individual.
Mean absolute bias values were 0.9% (± 1.6%), 4.7% (± 6.2%), 3.7% (± 4.8%), and 5% (± 6.8%) for F, v, P, and slope of the F–v relationship (SFv), respectively. Both methods showed high correlations for F–v-profile-related variables (r = .985–.991). Finally, all variables computed from the simple method showed high reliability, with ICC >.980 and CV <1.0%.
These results suggest that the simple method presented here is valid and reliable for computing CMJ force, velocity, power, and F–v profiles in athletes and could be used in practice under field conditions when body mass, push-off distance, and jump height are known.
Pedro Jiménez-Reyes, Fernando Pareja-Blanco, Carlos Balsalobre-Fernández, Víctor Cuadrado-Peñafiel, Manuel A. Ortega-Becerra, and Juan J. González-Badillo
To examine the relationship between the relative load in full squats and the height achieved in jump-squat (JS) exercises and to determine the load that maximizes the power output of high-level athletes.
Fifty-one male high-level track-and-field athletes (age 25.2 ± 4.4 y, weight 77. ± 6.2 kg, height 179.9 ± 5.6 cm) who competed in sprinting and jumping events took part in the study. Full-squat 1-repetition-maximum (1-RM) and JS height (JH) with loads from 17 to 97 kg were measured in 2 sessions separated by 48 h.
Individual regression analyses showed that JH (R 2 = .992 ± .005) and the jump decrease (JD) that each load produced with respect to the unloaded countermovement jump (CMJ) (R 2 = .992 ± 0.007) are highly correlated with the full-squat %1-RM, which means that training intensities can be prescribed using JH and JD values. The authors also found that the load that maximizes JS’s power output was 0%RM (ie, unloaded CMJ).
These results highlight the close relationship between JS performance and relative training intensity in terms of %1-RM. The authors also observed that the load that maximizes power output was 0%1-RM. Monitoring jump height during JS training could help coaches and athletes determine and optimize their training loads.
David Rodríguez-Rosell, Felipe Franco-Márquez, Fernando Pareja-Blanco, Ricardo Mora-Custodio, Juan M. Yáñez-García, José M. González-Suárez, and Juan J. González-Badillo
To analyze the effects of low-load, high-velocity resistance training (RT) combined with plyometrics on physical performance in pre-peak-height-velocity (PHV) soccer players.
Thirty young soccer players from the same academy were randomly assigned to either a strength training (STG, n = 15) or a control group (CG, n = 15). Strength training consisted of full squat exercise with low load (45–58% 1RM) and low volume (4–8 repetitions/set) combined with jumps and sprints twice a week over 6 wk of preseason. The effect of the training protocol was assessed using sprint performance over 10 and 20 m, countermovement jump, estimated 1-repetition maximum, and average velocity attained against all loads common to pre- and posttests in full squat.
STG showed significant improvements (P = .004–.001) and moderate to very large standardized effects (ES = 0.71–2.10) in all variables measured, whereas no significant gains were found in CG (ES = –0.29 to 0.06). Moreover, significant test × group interactions (P < .003–.001) and greater between-groups ESs (0.90–1.97) were found for all variables in favor of STG compared with CG.
Only 6 wk of preseason low-volume and low-load RT combined with plyometrics can lead to relevant improvements in strength, jump, and sprint performance. Thus, the combination of field soccer training and lightweight strength training could be used for a greater development of the tasks critical to soccer performance in pre-PHV soccer players.
Fernando Pareja-Blanco, Eduardo Sáez de Villarreal, Beatriz Bachero-Mena, Ricardo Mora-Custodio, José Antonio Asián-Clemente, Irineu Loturco, and David Rodríguez-Rosell
Purpose: This study aimed to compare the effects of unresisted versus heavy sled sprint training (0% vs 40% body mass [BM]) on sprint performance in women. Moreover, the effects of the aforementioned loads on resisted sprint and jump performance were analyzed. Methods: Twenty-eight physically active women were randomly allocated into 2 groups: unloaded sprint training group (G0%, n = 14), and resisted sprint training with 40% BM group (G40%, n = 14). Pretraining and posttraining assessments included countermovement jump, unloaded 30-m sprint, and 20-m sprint with 20%, 40%, 60%, and 80% BM. Times to cover 0 to 10 (T10), 0 to 20 (T20), 0 to 30 (T30), 10 to 20 (T10–20), 20 to 30 (T20–30), and 10 to 30 m (T10–30) were recorded. Both groups were trained once a week for 8 weeks and completed the same training program, but with different loads (0% vs 40% BM). Results: No significant time × group interactions were observed. For unloaded sprint performance, G0% showed significant (P = .027) decreases only in T10–20, while G40% attained significant decreases in T30 (P = .021), T10–30 (P = .015), and T20–30 (P = .003). Regarding resisted sprint performance, G0% showed significant (P = .010) improvements only for the 20% BM condition. The G40% group attained significant improvements in all loading conditions (20%, 40%, 60%, and 80% BM). Both groups showed significant improvements (P < .001) in countermovement jump height. Conclusions: In physically active women, no significant differences in sprint and countermovement jump performance were detected after 8 weeks of resisted and unresisted sprint training programs. Future studies should, therefore, be devoted to how sprint training should be individualized to maximize performance.