Full text of this article is available at http://www.medicinasportiva.pl/new/pliki/ms_2011_03_08_Fisher.pdf

'Disuse' and 'Deconditioning' in relation to low back pain (LBP) are terms often used interchangeably. Discussions of 'disuse' refer to general physical inactivity, which evidence suggests does not differ between symptomatic and asymptomatic persons. 'Deconditioning' refers to a decrease in function, commonly both cardiovascular/aerobic fitness and muscular strength/endurance, again noting little difference. However, examination of decreased function relating specifically to lumbar extensor musculature deconditioning has yet to be examined, corroborating all possible methods. Thus, this review attempts to reappraise the deconditioning hypothesis in LBP, specifically considering lumbar extensor deconditioning. A literature review was conducted examining both cross-sectional and prospective data on specific lumbar extensor deconditioning and LBP. A narrative approach and 'snowballing' style literature search was used involving initial use of PubMed and Google Scholar databases searching up to December 2012. Included were studies utilizing the following three research methods, allowing specific induction of the role of such deconditioning; (1) strength/endurance testing of the isolated lumbar extensor musculature, (2) imaging and histochemical examination of the lumbar extensor musculature, and (3) fatigue testing of the lumbar extensor musculature using electromyography. Despite issues interpreting individual studies due to methods, the majority of evidence suggests LBP is associated with decreased strength/endurance, atrophy, and excessive fatigability of the lumbar extensors. Prospective studies also suggest lumbar extensor deconditioning may be a common risk factor predicting acute low back injury and LBP. The hypothesis of specific lumbar extensor deconditioning as being a causal factor in LBP is presently well supported. It is by no means the only causative factor and further research should more rigorously test this hypothesis addressing the methodological issues highlighted regarding previous studies. However, its role suggests specific exercise may be a worthwhile preventative and rehabilitative approach.

Hypertrophy can be operationally defined as an increase in the axial cross-sectional area of a muscle fiber or whole muscle, and is due to increases in the size of pre-existing muscle fibers. Hypertrophy is a desired outcome in many sports. For some athletes, muscular bulk and, conceivably, the accompanying increase in strength/power, are desirable attributes for optimal performance. Moreover, bodybuilders and other physique athletes are judged in part on their muscular size, with placings predicated on the overall magnitude of lean mass. In some cases, even relatively small improvements in hypertrophy might be the difference between winning and losing in competition for these athletes. This position stand of leading experts in the field synthesizes the current body of research to provide guidelines for maximizing skeletal muscle hypertrophy in an athletic population. The recommendations represent a consensus of a consortium of experts in the field, based on the best available current evidence. Specific sections of the paper are devoted to elucidating the constructs of hypertrophy, reconciliation of acute vs long-term evidence, and the relationship between strength and hypertrophy to provide context to our recommendations.

It is well known that physical activity and exercise is associated with a lower risk of a range of morbidities and all-cause mortality. Further, it appears that risk reductions are greater when physical activity and/or exercise is performed at a higher intensity of effort. Why this may be the case is perhaps explained by the accumulating evidence linking physical fitness and performance outcomes (e.g. cardiorespiratory fitness, strength, and muscle mass) also to morbidity and mortality risk. Current guidelines about the performance of moderate/vigorous physical activity using aerobic exercise modes focuses upon the accumulation of a minimum volume of physical activity and/or exercise, and have thus far produced disappointing outcomes. As such there has been increased interest in the use of higher effort physical activity and exercise as being potentially more efficacious. Though there is currently debate as to the effectiveness of public health prescription based around higher effort physical activity and exercise, most discussion around this has focused upon modes considered to be traditionally ‘aerobic’ (e.g. running, cycling, rowing, swimming etc.). A mode customarily performed to a relatively high intensity of effort that we believe has been overlooked is resistance training. Current guidelines do include recommendations to engage in ‘muscle strengthening activities’ though there has been very little emphasis upon these modes in either research or public health effort. As such the purpose of this debate article is to discuss the emerging higher effort paradigm in physical activity and exercise for public health and to make a case for why there should be a greater emphasis placed upon resistance training as a mode in this paradigm shift.

The maximal number of repetitions that can be completed at various percentages of the one repetition maximum (1RM) [REPS ~ %1RM relationship] is foundational knowledge in resistance exercise programming. The current REPS ~ %1RM relationship is based on few studies and has not incorporated uncertainty into estimations or accounted for between-individuals variation. Therefore, we conducted a meta-regression to estimate the mean and between-individuals standard deviation of the number of repetitions that can be completed at various percentages of 1RM. We also explored if the REPS ~ %1RM relationship is moderated by sex, age, training status, and/or exercise. A total of 952 repetitions-to-failure tests, completed by 7289 individuals in 452 groups from 269 studies, were identified. Study groups were predominantly male (66%), healthy (97%), < 59 years of age (92%), and resistance trained (60%). The bench press (42%) and leg press (14%) were the most commonly studied exercises. The REPS ~ %1RM relationship for mean repetitions and standard deviation of repetitions were best described using natural cubic splines and a linear model, respectively, with mean and standard deviation for repetitions decreasing with increasing %1RM. More repetitions were evident in the leg press than bench press across the loading spectrum, thus separate REPS ~ %1RM tables were developed for these two exercises. Analysis of moderators suggested little influences of sex, age, or training status on the REPS ~ %1RM relationship, thus the general main model REPS ~ %1RM table can be applied to all individuals and to all exercises other than the bench press and leg press. More data are needed to develop REPS ~ %1RM tables for other exercises.