Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 2 of 2 items for :

  • Author: Pedro Fonseca x
  • Physical Education and Coaching x
  • Refine by Access: All Content x
Clear All Modify Search
Restricted access

Pedro Galoza, Felipe Sampaio-Jorge, Marco Machado, Ricardo Fonseca, and Pierre A. V. Silva

Purpose:

To compare the effect of inter-set cooling and no cooling during resistance exercise (RE) on the total repetitions and select muscle damage biomarker responses.

Methods:

Sixteen healthy men volunteered to participate in this study and were randomly assigned to Cooling (n = 8) or Control (n = 8) groups. They performed a RE protocol consisting of four sets of biceps curl at 80% of 1RM. The cooling group received the application of wet bags of ice during each inter-set rest interval (Cooling), while the Control realized the same protocol without ice application. Exercise was performed to voluntary fatigue and the numbers of repetitions per set were recorded. Subjects provided blood samples before and at 24, 48, and 72 h following RE to evaluate serum CK activity and myoglobin concentration.

Results:

The Cooling group produced a greater number of repetitions (approx. 21%) than did the Control, but there were no differences in serum CK activity and myoglobin responses between the groups.

Conclusion:

Incorporating inter-set external cooling augments the number of repetitions per set during RE without inducing an additional muscle damage biomarker response.

Restricted access

Manoel Rios, Rodrigo Zacca, Rui Azevedo, Pedro Fonseca, David B. Pyne, Victor Machado Reis, Daniel Moreira-Gonçalves, and Ricardo J. Fernandes

Aim: To quantify the physiological demands and impact of muscle function t of the Fran workout, one of the most popular CrossFit benchmarks. Methods: Twenty experienced CrossFitters—16 male: 29 (6) years old and 4 female: 26 (5) years old— performed 3 rounds (with 30-s rests in between) of 21–21, 15–15, and 9–9 front squats to overhead press plus pull-up repetitions. Oxygen uptake and heart rate were measured at baseline, during the workout, and in the recovery period. Rating of perceived exertion, blood lactate, and glucose concentrations were assessed at rest, during the intervals, and in the recovery period. Muscular fatigue was also monitored at rest and at 5 minutes, 30 minutes, and 24 hours postexercise. Repeated-measures analysis of variance was performed to compare time points. Results: Aerobic (52%–29%) and anaerobic alactic (30%–23%) energy contributions decreased and the anaerobic lactic contribution increased (18%–48%) across the 3 rounds of the Fran workout. Countermovement jump height decreased by 8% (−12 to −3) mean change (95% CI), flight duration by 14% (−19 to −7), maximum velocity by 3% (−5 to −0.1), peak force 4% (−7 to −0.1), and physical performance (plank prone 47% [−54 to −38]) were observed. Conclusions: It appears that the Fran workout is a physically demanding activity that recruits energy from both aerobic and anaerobic systems. This severe-intensity workout evokes substantial postexercise fatigue and corresponding reduction in muscle function.