We examined the neuromuscular adaptations following 3 and 6 weeks of 80 vs. 30% one repetition maximum (1RM) resistance training to failure in the leg extensors. Twenty-six men (age = 23.1 ± 4.7 years) were randomly assigned to a high- (80% 1RM; n = 13) or low-load (30% 1RM; n = 13) resistance training group and completed leg extension resistance training to failure 3 times per week for 6 weeks. Testing was completed at baseline, 3, and 6 weeks of training. During each testing session, ultrasound muscle thickness and echo intensity, 1RM strength, maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) strength, and contractile properties of the quadriceps femoris were measured. Percent voluntary activation (VA) and electromyographic (EMG) amplitude were measured during MVIC, and during randomly ordered isometric step muscle actions at 10–100% of baseline MVIC. There were similar increases in muscle thickness from Baseline to Week 3 and 6 in the 80 and 30% 1RM groups. However, both 1RM and MVIC strength increased from Baseline to Week 3 and 6 to a greater degree in the 80% than 30% 1RM group. VA during MVIC was also greater in the 80 vs. 30% 1RM group at Week 6, and only training at 80% 1RM elicited a significant increase in EMG amplitude during MVIC. The peak twitch torque to MVIC ratio was also significantly reduced in the 80%, but not 30% 1RM group, at Week 3 and 6. Finally, VA and EMG amplitude were reduced during submaximal torque production as a result of training at 80% 1RM, but not 30% 1RM. Despite eliciting similar hypertrophy, 80% 1RM improved muscle strength more than 30% 1RM, and was accompanied by increases in VA and EMG amplitude during maximal force production. Furthermore, training at 80% 1RM resulted in a decreased neural cost to produce the same relative submaximal torques after training, whereas training at 30% 1RM did not. Therefore, our data suggest that high-load training results in greater neural adaptations that may explain the disparate increases in muscle strength despite similar hypertrophy following high- and low-load training programs.

Sleep deficiency is a ubiquitous phenomenon among Americans. In fact, in the United States, ∼78% of teens and 35% of adults currently get less sleep than recommended for their age‐group, and the quality of sleep appears to be getting worse for many. The consequences of sleep disruption manifest in a myriad of ways, including insulin resistance and disrupted nutrient metabolism, dysregulation of hunger and satiety, and potentially increased body weight and adiposity. Consequently, inadequate sleep is related to an increased risk of various cardiometabolic diseases, including obesity, diabetes, and heart disease. Exercise has the potential to be an effective therapeutic to counteract the deleterious effects of sleep disruption listed above, whereas chronic psychosocial stress may causally promote sleep disruption and cardiometabolic risk. Here, we provide a narrative review of the current evidence on the consequences of short sleep duration and poor sleep quality on substrate metabolism, circulating appetite hormones, hunger and satiety, and weight gain. Secondly, we provide a brief overview of chronic psychosocial stress and its impact on sleep and metabolic health. Finally, we summarise the current evidence regarding the ability of exercise to counteract the adverse metabolic health effects of sleep disruption. Throughout the review, we highlight areas where additional interrogation and future exploration are necessary.

Colquhoun, RJ, Gai, CM, Aguilar, D, Bove, D, Dolan, J, Vargas, A, Couvillion, K, Jenkins, NDM, and Campbell, BI. Training volume, not frequency, indicative of maximal strength adaptations to resistance training. J Strength Cond Res 32(5): 1207–1213, 2018—To compare the effects of a high versus a moderate training frequency on maximal strength and body composition. Twenty-eight young, healthy resistance-trained men were randomly assigned to either: 3× per week (3×; n = 16) or 6× per week (6×; n = 12). Dependent variables (DVs) assessed at baseline and after the 6-week training intervention included: squat 1 repetition maximum (SQ1RM), bench press 1RM (BP1RM), deadlift 1RM (DL1RM), powerlifting total (PLT), Wilk's coefficient (WC), fat-free mass (FFM), and fat mass. Data for each DV were analyzed using a 2 × 2 between-within factorial repeated-measures analysis of variance. There was a main effect for time (p < 0.001) for SQ1RM (3×: +16.8 kg; 6×: +16.7 kg), BP1RM (3×: +7.8 kg; 6×: +8.8 kg), DL1RM (3×: +19 kg; 6×: +21 kg), PLT (3×: +43.6 kg; 6×: +46.5 kg), WC (3×: +27; 6×: +27.1), and FFM (3×: +1.7 kg; 6×: +2.6 kg). There were no group × time interactions or main effects for group. The primary finding was that 6 weeks of resistance training led to significant increases in maximal strength and FFM. In addition, it seems that increased training frequency does not lead to additional strength improvements when volume and intensity are equated. High-frequency (6× per week) resistance training does not seem to offer additional strength and hypertrophy benefits over lower frequency (3× per week) when volume and intensity are equated. Coaches and practitioners can therefore expect similar increases in strength and lean body mass with both 3 and 6 weekly sessions.

Background: Elbow injury rates among baseball pitchers are rapidly rising. However, this increase has been most dramatic among high school (HS) pitchers. Purpose: To examine pitch velocity and the kinetic and kinematic characteristics of HS versus professional (PRO) pitchers to identify potential differences that may play a role in the increased risk of ulnar collateral ligament injury in youth pitchers. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: A total of 37 HS (mean ± SD: age, 16 ± 1 years) and 40 PRO (age, 21 ± 2 years) baseball pitchers completed maximal-effort baseball pitches during a single testing session, from which pitch velocity (PV), absolute and normalized elbow varus torque (EVT_A and EVT_N, respectively) during arm cocking and at maximum shoulder external rotation (MER), and 8 other elbow and shoulder torques or forces and rotational kinematics of the pelvis and trunk were analyzed, recorded, and compared. Results: PV was greater in PRO than HS athletes; EVT_A was greater in PRO than HS athletes during arm cocking and at MER; but EVT_N was similar during arm cocking and greater in HS than PRO athletes at MER. In PRO athletes, PV was not related to EVT_A during arm cocking or MER ( r = 0.01-0.05). Furthermore, in PRO athletes, EVT_A during arm cocking and at MER were inversely related to upper trunk rotation at hand separation and foot contact and to pelvis rotation at elbow extension ( r = –0.30 to –0.33). In contrast, in HS athletes, PV was strongly related to EVT_A during arm cocking and MER ( r = 0.76-0.77). Furthermore, in HS athletes, PV and EVT_A during arm cocking and at MER were moderately or strongly related to the other elbow and shoulder torques and forces ( r = 0.424-0.991), and EVT_A was not related to upper trunk rotation or pelvis rotation throughout the throwing motion ( r = –0.16 to 0.15). Conclusion: The kinetic and rotational kinematic differences observed between PRO and HS pitchers in this study may help explain the greater performance of PRO pitchers while allowing them to minimize EVT during pitching. HS pitchers, however, do not appear to be as capable of utilizing the forces generated by rotation of their trunk and pelvis to aid in pitching, and those who throw the hardest generate the greatest forces at the shoulder and elbow. As a result, they experience higher EVTs relative to their body size, which may place them at an increased risk of injury. Clinical Relevance: HS pitchers throw harder primarily by generating larger forces in the arm and shoulder. Thus, owing to the relative physical immaturity of HS versus PRO pitchers, these factors may place them at an increased risk of injury. Coaches may first wish to focus on improving the rotational kinematics of HS pitchers rather than first focusing on achieving greater pitch velocities.