Objective: To (1) compare the 1-repetition-maximum (1RM) performance between the push press, push jerk, and split jerk and (2) explore these differences between weightlifters, CrossFit athletes, and a mixed group of athletes. Methods: Forty-six resistance-trained males (age 28.8 [6.4] y; height 180.0 [6.0] cm; body mass 84.1 [10.2] kg; weightlifting training experience 3.64 [3.14] y) participated in this study. The 1RM performance of the push press, push jerk, and split jerk was assessed during the same session in a sequential order (ie, combined 1RM assessment method). Thirty-six participants were retested to determine between-sessions reliability of the 1RM values. Results: Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) showed a high between-sessions reliability for the push press (ICC = .98; 95% CI, .95–.99), push jerk (ICC = .99; 95% CI, .98–1.00), and split jerk (ICC = .99; 95% CI, .98–1.00). There was a significant main effect of exercise (η 2 = .101) and exercise × group interaction (η 2 = .012) on 1RM performance (P < .001), whereas the main effect of group did not reach statistical significance (P = .175). Conclusions: This study provides evidence that the weightlifting overhead press derivatives affect 1RM performance. In addition, the interaction of exercise and sport group was caused by the higher differences in 1RM performance between exercises for weightlifters compared with CrossFit and a mixed group of athletes. Therefore, strength and conditioning professionals should be aware that the differences in 1RM performance between weightlifting overhead-press derivatives may be affected by sport group.
Marcos A. Soriano, Amador García-Ramos, Antonio Torres-González, Joaquín Castillo-Palencia, Pedro J. Marín, Pilar Sainz de Baranda and Paul Comfort
Jose Ignacio Priego-Quesada, Alejandro Pérez-Guarner, Alexis Gandia-Soriano, Fran Oficial-Casado, Carlos Galindo, Rosa M. Cibrián Ortiz de Anda, José David Piñeiro-Ramos, Ángel Sánchez-Illana, Julia Kuligowski, Marco A. Gomes Barbosa, Máximo Vento and Rosario Salvador Palmer
Context: Although skin-temperature assessment has received much attention in recent years as a possible internal-load measurement, scientific evidence is scarce. Purpose: To analyze baseline skin temperature and its rewarming through means of a cold-stress test before and after performing a marathon and to study the association between skin temperature and internal/external-load measurements. Methods: A total of 16 runners were measured 48 and 24 h before and 24 and 48 h after completing a marathon. The measurements on each day of testing included urine biomarkers of oxidative stress, pain and fatigue perception, skin temperature (at baseline and after a cold-stress test), and jump performance. Results: Reduced jump performance (P < .01 and effect size [ES] = 0.5) and higher fatigue and pain perception were observed 24 h after the marathon (P < .01 and ES > 0.8). Although no differences in baseline skin temperature were observed between the 4 measuring days, posterior legs presented lower constant (P < .01 and ES = 1.4) and higher slope (P = .04 and ES = 1.1) parameters in the algorithmic equations fitted for skin-temperature recovery after the cold-stress test 24 h after the marathon than on the day before the marathon. Regressions showed that skin-temperature parameters could be predicted by the ratio of ortho-tyrosine isomer to phenylalanine (oxidative stress biomarker) and body fat composition, among others. Conclusions: Although baseline skin temperature was not altered 24 or 48 h after a marathon, the application of cold stress after the marathon would appear to be a good method for providing information on vasoconstriction and a runner’s state of stress.