Search Results

You are looking at 11 - 15 of 15 items for

  • Author: Michael R. McGuigan x
Clear All Modify Search
Restricted access

Michael R. McGuigan, Abdulaziz Al Dayel, David Tod, Carl Foster, Robert U. Newton and Simone Pettigrew

The purpose of this study was to investigate the use of the OMNI Resistance Exercise scale (OMNI-RES) for monitoring the intensity of different modes of resistance training in children who are overweight or obese. Sixty-one children (mean age = 9.7 ± 1.4 years) performed three resistance training sessions every week for 4 weeks. Each session consisted of three sets of 3–15 repetitions of eight different resistance exercises. OMNI-RES RPE measures (0–10) were obtained following each set and following the end of the exercise session. There was a significant difference between average RPE (1.68 ± 0.61) and Session RPE (3.10 ± 1.18) during the 4 weeks of training (p < .05). There was no significant change in session RPE over the 4 weeks of training. The correlation coefficient between average and session RPE values was significant (r = .88, p < .05). The findings of the current study indicate that the RPE values are higher when OMNI-RES measures are obtained following the whole training session than when obtained following every single set of exercise. This suggests that in children the session RPE provides different information to the average RPE across the entire session.

Restricted access

Christos K. Argus, Nicholas D. Gill, Justin W.L. Keogh, Michael R. McGuigan and Will G. Hopkins

Purpose:

There is little literature comparing contrast training programs typically performed by team-sport athletes within a competitive phase. We compared the effects of two contrast training programs on a range of measures in high-level rugby union players during the competition season.

Methods:

The programs consisted of a higher volume-load (strength-power) or lower volume-load (speed-power) resistance training; each included a tapering of loading (higher force early in the week, higher velocity later in the week) and was performed twice a week for 4 wk. Eighteen players were assessed for peak power during a bodyweight countermovement jump (BWCMJ), bodyweight squat jump (BWSJ), 50 kg countermovement jump (50CMJ), 50 kg squat jump (50SJ), broad jump (BJ), and reactive strength index (RSI; jump height divided by contact time during a depth jump). Players were then randomized to either training group and were reassessed following the intervention. Inferences were based on uncertainty in outcomes relative to thresholds for standardized changes.

Results:

There were small between-group differences in favor of strength-power training for mean changes in the 50CMJ (8%; 90% confidence limits, ±8%), 50SJ (8%; ±10%), and BJ (2%; ±3%). Differences between groups for BWCMJ, BWSJ, and reactive strength index were unclear. For most measures there were smaller individual differences in changes with strength-power training.

Conclusion:

Our findings suggest that high-level rugby union athletes should be exposed to higher volume-load contrast training which includes one heavy lifting session each week for larger and more uniform adaptation to occur in explosive power throughout a competitive phase of the season.

Restricted access

Stuart J. Cormack, Robert U. Newton, Michael R. McGuigan and Tim L.A. Doyle

Purpose:

To establish the reliability of various measures obtained during single and repeated countermovement jump (CMJ) performance in an elite athlete population.

Methods:

Two studies, each involving 15 elite Australian Rules Football (ARF) players were conducted where subjects performed two days, separated by one week, of AM and PM trials of either a single (CMJ1) or 5 repeated CMJ (CMJ5). Each trial was conducted on a portable force-plate. The intraday, interday, and overall typical error (TE) and coefficient of variation (CV%) were calculated for numerous variables in each jump type.

Results:

A number of CMJ1 and CMJ5 variables displayed high intraday, interday, and overall reliability. In the CMJ1 condition, mean force (CV 1.08%) was the most reliable variable. In the CMJ5, fight time and relative mean force displayed the highest repeatability with CV of 1.88% and 1.57% respectively. CMJ1Mean force was the only variable with an overall TE < smallest worthwhile change (SWC).

Conclusion:

Selected variables obtained during CMJ1 and CMJ5 performance can be used to assess the impact of both acute and chronic training and competition. Variables derived from the CMJ5 may respond differently than their CMJ1 counterparts and should provide insights into differential mechanisms of response and adaptation.

Restricted access

Irineu Loturco, Timothy Suchomel, Chris Bishop, Ronaldo Kobal, Lucas A. Pereira and Michael R. McGuigan

Purpose: To identify the bar velocities that optimize power output in the barbell hip thrust exercise. Methods: A total of 40 athletes from 2 sports disciplines (30 track-and-field sprinters and jumpers and 10 rugby union players) participated in this study. Maximum bar-power outputs and their respective bar velocities were assessed in the barbell hip thrust exercise. Athletes were divided, using a median split analysis, into 2 groups according to their bar-power outputs in the barbell hip thrust exercise (“higher” and “lower” power groups). The magnitude-based inferences method was used to analyze the differences between groups in the power and velocity outcomes. To assess the precision of the bar velocities for determining the maximum power values, the coefficient of variation (CV%) was also calculated. Results: Athletes achieved the maximum power outputs at a mean velocity, mean propulsive velocity, and peak velocity of 0.92 (0.04) m·s−1 (CV: 4.1%), 1.02 (0.05) m·s−1 (CV: 4.4%), and 1.72 (0.14) m·s−1 (CV: 8.4%), respectively. No meaningful differences were observed in the optimum bar velocities between higher and lower power groups. Conclusions: Independent of the athletes’ power output and bar-velocity variable, the optimum power loads frequently occur at very close bar velocities.

Restricted access

William J. Kraemer, Ana L. Gómez, Nicholas A. Ratamess, Jay R. Hoffman, Jeff S. Volek, Martyn R. Rubin, Timothy P. Scheett, Michael R. McGuigan, Duncan French, Jaci L. VanHeest, Robbin B. Wickham, Brandon Doan, Scott A. Mazzetti, Robert U. Newton and Carl M. Maresh

Objective:

To determine the effects of Vicoprofen®, ibuprofen, and placebo on anaerobic performance and pain relief after resistance-exercise-induced muscle damage.

De-sign:

Randomized, controlled clinical study.

Setting:

University human-performance/sports-medicine laboratory.

Participants:

36 healthy men.

Methods and Measures:

After baseline testing (72 h), participants performed an eccentric-exercise protocol. Each was evaluated for pain 24 h later and randomly assigned to a Vicoprofen (VIC), ibuprofen (IBU), or placebo (P) group. Postexercise testing was performed every 24 h for 4 d.

Results:

Significantly greater muscle force, power, and total work were observed in VIC than in P (P < .05) for most time points and for IBU at 48 h.

Conclusions:

Anaerobic performance is enhanced with VIC, especially within the first 24 h after significant muscle-tissue damage. The greater performances observed at 48 h might be a result of less damage at this time point with VIC treatment.