Physical activity would bring in plenty of health benefits, especially recreational physical activity (RPA). Previous studies have suggested that built environment would affect older people’s recreational walking (RW) and RPA, but how the effects exist in a small-scale Chinese city remains unclear. Two hundred and fifty-two older participants were recruited in the city of Yiwu using cross-sectional survey of random samples in 2019. RW and RPA level of participants and perceived scores of built environments were collected using the International Physical Activity Questionnaire and Neighborhood Environment Walkability Scale, respectively. Linear regression analysis was conducted to investigate the association of built environment with older people’s RW and RPA. The results showed that two main factors affecting older people’s RW and RPA were residential density and aesthetics. Additionally, access to services was related to RW, and street connectivity was correlated with RPA. The associations of RW with built environment varied slightly with demographic variables included in the regression model. All the results suggested that lower residential density, better aesthetics environment, and higher street connectivity would motivate older people to engage more in RW and RPA. The better access to services encourages only RW, not RPA, in older people. These findings would be helpful for policy decision makers in the urban construction process in Yiwu. More studies are needed to enlarge the scientific evidence base about small-scale cities in China.

(1) Background: To explore the influence on post-activation potentiation (PAP) when combining different degrees of blood flow restriction (BFR) with multi-levels of resistance training intensity of activation. (2) Purpose: To provide competitive athletes with a more efficient and feasible warm-up program. (3) Study Design: The same batch of subjects performed the vertical jump test of the warm-up procedure under different conditions, one traditional and six BFR procedures. (4) Methods: Participants performed seven counter movement jump (CMJ) tests in random order, including 90% one repetition maximum (1RM) without BFR (CON), and three levels of BFR (30%, 50%, 70%) combined with (30% and 50% 1RM) (BFR-30-30, BFR-30-50, BFR-50-30, BFR-50-50, BFR-70-30 and BFR-70-50). Jump height (H), mean power output (P), peak vertical ground reaction force (vGRF), and the mean rate of force development (RFD) were recorded and measured. (5) Results: Significantly increasing results were observed in: jump height: CON (8 min), BFR-30-30 (0, 4 min), BFR-30-50 (4, 8 min), BFR-50-30 (8 min), BFR-50-50 (4, 8 min), BFR-70-30 (8 min), (p < 0.05); and power output: CON (8 min), BFR-30-30 (0, 4 min), BFR-30-50 (4 min), BFR-50-30 (8 min), BFR-50-50 (4, 8 min) (p < 0.05); vGRF: CON (8 min), BFR-30-30 (0, 4 min), BFR-30-50 (4, 8 min), BFR-50-30 (4 min), BFR-50-50 (4, 8 min) (p < 0.05); RFD: CON (8 min), BFR-30-30 (0, 4 min), BFR-30-50 (4 min), BFR-50-30 (4 min), BFR-50-50 (4 min) (p < 0.05). (5) Conclusions: low to moderate degrees of BFR procedures produced a similar PAP to traditional activation. Additionally, BFR-30-30, BFR-30-50, and BFR-50-50 were longer at PAP duration in comparison with CON.

This meta-analysis assessed the impact of three induction methods on athletes’ jump and sprint performances. Experimental research on the acute effects of exercise intervention on the Post-Activation Performance Enhancement (PAPE) of jumping and sprinting performances in athletes was searched using the Web of Science, PubMed, and Embase databases. The meta-analysis results show that, when employing resistance exercises as Conditioning Activities (CAs) for enhancing jumping performance, there are statistically significant differences in favor of utilizing resistance exercises as CAs (Hedges’s g = 0.2, 0.2, and 0.23; 95%Cl: (0.05, 0.34), (0.02, 0.39), and (0.05, 0.41); p < 0.05). In contrast, no significant differences were detected when plyometric exercises or mixed exercises were compared pre-intervention (p > 0.05). In terms of sprint performance, when employing resistance exercises as CAs, the effect sizes were −0.11, −0.44, and −0.32, respectively. Their corresponding 95%Cls were (−0.22, 0.00), (−0.63, 0.25), and (−0.50, −0.13), with all p-values < 0.05, indicating statistically significant differences favoring the utilization of resistance exercises as CAs. However, no significant differences were noted when comparing plyometric or mixed exercises to pre-intervention (p > 0.05). In conclusion, compared with plyometric exercises and mixed exercises, resistance exercises had a more significant effect on athletes’ jumping and sprinting performances.

This investigation involved examining whether Rest-Redistribution Set (RR) and Traditional-Set (TS) resistance priming (RP) protocols could induce a Delayed Potentiation Effect (DPE). Additionally, it was analyzed whether the RR protocol demonstrated significant advantages over the TS protocol in various performance parameters across different testing time points following the RP. Twenty-four male collegiate Physical Education majors participated in this study, each completing two resistance protocols involving the back squat exercise: (1) a RR protocol incorporating a 30-s intra-set rest and a 200-s inter-set rest, and (2) a TS protocol without intra-set rest and with a 240-s inter-set rest. Both protocols comprised four sets of five repetitions performed at 85 % of one-repetition maximum (1RM). Performance outcomes, including countermovement jump (CMJ), sprint time, Y-balance test scores, change of direction (COD) ability, and agility, were evaluated at three time points: baseline (Pre), 6 h post-exercise (Post-6h), and 24 h post-exercise (Post-24h). Data were analyzed using a two-way repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) with factors for protocol (RR vs. TS) and time (Pre, Post-6h, Post-24h). When significant main effects or interaction effects were identified, Bonferroni-adjusted post hoc pairwise comparisons were conducted. (1) A significant interaction between RP protocols and testing time points was observed for CMJ, sprint, and agility performance (P < 0.05). Simple effects of time: At Post-6h, both RP protocols elicited significant DPE across most metrics. Specifically, the TS protocol improved sprint (P < 0.001) and agility (P < 0.001) compared to Pre, whereas the RR protocol enhanced CMJ (P = 0.003), sprint (P < 0.001), and agility (P < 0.001). By Post-24h, TS showed significant declines in CMJ (P = 0.007) and sprint (P < 0.001) relative to Pre, while RR maintained improvements in agility (P = 0.001). Simple effects of RP protocol: At Post-6h, RR outperformed TS in CMJ (P = 0.005), sprint (P = 0.013), and agility (P = 0.005). At Post-24h, RR demonstrated significantly superior CMJ performance versus TS (P = 0.014). (2) No significant interaction effects between RP and testing time points were observed in COD or Y-balance tests (P > 0.05). However, time-dependent effects emerged: COD improved at Post-6h compared to Pre (P = 0.005), while Y-balance performance showed enhancements at both Post-6h and Post-24h compared to Pre (P < 0.001), with Post-24h values exceeding Post-6h (P < 0.001). Both the RR and TS protocols induced DPE at the Post-6h mark. The RR protocol improved CMJ, sprint, and agility performance, while the TS protocol only enhanced sprint and agility metrics. In comparative terms, RR demonstrated a significantly greater DPE than TS across CMJ, sprint, and agility metrics. At the Post-24h mark, DPE diminished for most measures (with the exception of Y-balance), with RR maintaining CMJ and sprint performance levels close to baseline and demonstrating a significantly enhanced agility performance compared to baseline. Furthermore, RR outperformed TS in CMJ performance. The RP protocol also produced DPE in COD and Y-balance performance, with Y-balance achieving its highest recorded value at Post-24h. Although RR exhibited stronger overall efficacy, its effects were specific to certain performance parameters, indicating a need for further validation.