This study investigated the inter-day and intra-device reliability, and criterion validity of six devices for measuring barbell velocity in the free-weight back squat and power clean. In total, 10 competitive weightlifters completed an initial one repetition maximum (1RM) assessment followed by three load-velocity profiles (40–100% 1RM) in both exercises on four separate occasions. Mean and peak velocity was measured simultaneously on each device and compared to 3D motion capture for all repetitions. Reliability was assessed via coefficient of variation (CV) and typical error (TE). Least products regression (LPR) (R²) and limits of agreement (LOA) assessed the validity of the devices. The Gymaware was the most reliable for both exercises (CV < 10%; TE < 0.11 m·s⁻¹, except 100% 1RM (mean velocity) and 90‒100% 1RM (peak velocity)), with MyLift and PUSH following a similar trend. Poorer reliability was observed for Beast Sensor and Bar Sensei (CV = 5.1–119.9%; TE = 0.08–0.48 m·s⁻¹). The Gymaware was the most valid device, with small systematic bias and no proportional or fixed bias evident across both exercises (R² > 0.42–0.99 LOA = −0.03–0.03 m·s⁻¹). Comparable validity data was observed for MyLift in the back squat. Both PUSH devices produced some fixed and proportional bias, with Beast Sensor and Bar Sensei being the least valid devices across both exercises (R² > 0.00–0.96, LOA = −0.36–0.46 m·s⁻¹). Linear position transducers and smartphone applications could be used to obtain velocity-based data, with inertial measurement units demonstrating poorer reliability and validity.

Background: Optimal prescription of resistance exercise load (kg) is essential for the development of maximal strength. Two methods are commonly used in practice with no clear consensus on the most effective approach for the improvement of maximal strength.Objective: The primary aim of this review was to compare the effectiveness of percentage 1RM (% 1RM) and repetition maximum targets (RM) as load prescription methods for the development of maximal strength.Methods: Electronic database searches of MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus, Scopus, and CINAHL Complete were conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Studies were eligible for inclusion if a direct measure of maximal strength was used, a non-training control group was a comparator, the training intervention was > 4 weeks in duration and was replicable, and participants were defined as healthy and between the ages of 18–40. Methodological quality of the studies was evaluated using a modified Downs and Black checklist. Percentage change (%) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for all strength-based training groups were calculated. Statistical significance (p < 0.05) was reported from each study.Results: Twenty-two studies comprising a total of 761 participants (585 males and 176 females) were found to meet the inclusion criteria. 12 studies were returned for % 1RM, with 10 for RM. All studies showed statistically significant improvements in maximal strength in the training groups (31.3 ± 21.9%; 95% CI 33.1–29.5%). The mean quality rating for all studies was 17.7 ± 2.3. Four studies achieved a good methodological rating, with the remainder classified as moderate.Conclusions: Both % 1RM and RM are effective tools for improving maximal strength. % 1RM appears to be a better prescriptive method than RM potentially due to a more sophisticated management of residual fatigue. However, large heterogeneity was present within this data. Lower body and multi-joint exercises appear to be more appropriate for developing maximal strength. Greater consensus is required in defining optimal training prescriptions, physiological adaptations, and training status.

To date, little is known about overreaching (OR) and the overtraining syndrome (OTS) in strength sports and resistance training (RT) populations. However, the available literature may elucidate the...

Background Performing exercise in thermally stressful environments impairs exercise capacity and performance. Cooling during exercise has the potential to attenuate detrimental increases in body temperature and improve exercise capacity and performance. Objective The objective of this review was to assess the effectiveness of practical cooling strategies applied during continuous exercise in hot environments on body temperature, heart rate, whole body sweat production, rating of perceived exertion (RPE), thermal perception and exercise performance. Methods Electronic database searches of MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus, Scopus and Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) were conducted using medical subject headings, indexing terms and keywords. Studies were eligible if participants were defined as ‘healthy’, the exercise task was conducted in an environment ≥25 °C, it used a cooling strategy that would be practical for athletes to use during competition, cooling was applied during a self-paced or fixed-intensity trial, participants exercised continuously, and the study was a randomised controlled trial with the comparator either a thermoneutral equivalent or no cooling. Data for experimental and comparator groups were meta-analysed and expressed as a standardised mean difference and 95 % confidence interval. Results Fourteen studies including 135 participants met the eligibility criteria. Confidence intervals for meta-analysed data included beneficial and detrimental effects for cooling during exercise on core temperature, mean skin temperature, heart rate and sweat production during fixed-intensity exercise. Cooling benefited RPE and thermal perception during fixed-intensity exercise and improved self-paced exercise performance. Conclusion Cooling during fixed-intensity exercise, particularly before a self-paced exercise trial, improves endurance performance in hot environments by benefiting RPE and thermal perception, but does not appear to attenuate increases in body temperature.

(2016). Jumping depends on impulse not power. Journal of Sports Sciences: Vol. 34, Science and Medicine in Football, pp. 584-585.