The neuromechanical determinants of sprint running performance have been investigated in team sports athletes and non-elite sprinters. The aim of this study was to quantify the relationships between kinetic and performance parameters, obtained in loaded and unloaded vertical and horizontal jumps, and sprinting in elite athletes. Twenty-two sprinters performed squat jumps, countermovement jumps, horizontal jumps, and jump squats with different loads on a force platform, in addition to a 50-m sprint. Results indicated that jumping height and distance in vertical and horizontal jumps are more strongly correlated (R ≈ 0.81) to sprinting speed than the respective peak forces (R ≈ 0.36). Furthermore, the optimum load generating the maximum power in the jump squat is also highly correlated to sprint performance (R ≈ 0.72). These results reveal that vertical and horizontal jump tests may be used by coaches for assessing and monitoring qualities related to sprinting performance in elite sprinters.

The jump squat is one of the exercises most frequently used to improve lower body power production, which influences sports performance. However, the traditional determination of the specific workload at which power production is maximized (i.e., optimum power load) is time-consuming and requires one-repetition maximum tests. Therefore, the aim of this study was to verify whether elite athletes from different sports would produce maximum mean propulsive power values at a narrow range of mean propulsive velocities, resulting in similar jump heights. One hundred and nine elite athletes from several individual/team sport disciplines underwent repetitions at maximal velocity with progressive loads, starting at 40% of their body mass with increments of 10% to determine the individual optimum power zone. Results indicated that regardless of sport discipline, the athletes’ optimum mean propulsive power was achieved at a mean propulsive velocity close to 1.0 m.s⁻¹ (1.01 ± 0.07 m.s⁻¹) and at a jump height close to 20 cm (20.47 ± 1.42 cm). Data were narrowly scattered around these values. Therefore, jump squat optimum power load can be determined simply by means of mean propulsive velocity or jump height determination in training/testing settings, allowing it to be implemented quickly in strength/power training.

The purpose of this study was to test which specific type of exercise (i.e., jump squat (JS) or half-squat (HS)) is more effective at maintaining speed and power abilities throughout a preseason in soccer players. Twenty-three male soccer players were randomly allocated into two groups: JS and HS. The mean propulsive power, vertical jumping ability, and sprinting performance were evaluated before and after 4 weeks of a preseason period. The optimum power loads for the JS and HS exercises were assessed and were used as load-references. The soccer players performed 10 power oriented training sessions in total. Both JS and HS maintained power in JS and speed abilities (P > 0.05, for main effects and interaction effect) as indicated by ANCOVA. Both groups demonstrated reduced power during HS (ES = −0.76 vs. −0.78, for JS and HS, respectively); both groups improved acceleration (ACC) from 5 to 10 m (ES = 0.52). JS was more effective at reducing the ACC decrements over 0–5 m (ES = −0.38 vs. −0.58, for JS and HS, respectively). The HS group increased squat jump height (ES = 0.76 vs. 0.11, for HS and JS, respectively). In summary, JS is more effective in reducing the ACC capacity over very short sprints while HS is more effective in improving squat jump performance. Both strategies improve ACC over longer distances. New training strategies should be implemented/developed to avoid concurrent training effects between power and endurance adaptations during professional soccer preseasons.

It is unknown whether traditional periodization of strength-power training involving accumulation, transformation and realization blocks is superior to other simpler and more practical training schemes. The purpose of this study was thus to investigate changes in strength/power/speed characteristics of elite soccer players in response to either classic strength-power periodization (TSP) or optimum power load (OPL). 23 professional soccer players were randomly assigned to TSP or OPL for 6 weeks in-season regular training (3 times per week). TSP involved half squats or jump squats, depending on the respective training block, while OPL involved only jump squats at the optimum power load. Results revealed that both groups presented similar significant (P<0.05) improvements in squat one repetition maximum, squat and countermovement jump heights and change of direction speed. In addition, although both groups reported significant increases in sprinting speed (P<0.05); delta change scores demonstrated a superior effect of OPL to improve 10- and 20-m speed. Similarly, OPL presented greater delta change in mean propulsive power in the jump squat. Therefore, training continuously at the optimum power zone resulted in superior performance improvements compared to training under classic strength-power periodization.

Purpose: To determine whether athletes from different sport disciplines present similar mean propulsive velocity (MPV) in the half-squat (HS) during submaximal and maximal tests, enabling prediction of 1-repetition maximum (1-RM) from MPV at any given submaximal load.Methods: Sixty-four male athletes, comprising American football, rugby, and soccer players; sprinters and jumpers; and combat-sport strikers attended 2 testing sessions separated by 2–4 wk. On the first visit, a standardized 1-RM test was performed. On the second, athletes performed HSs on Smith-machine equipment, using relative percentages of 1-RM to determine the respective MPV of submaximal and maximal loads. Linear regression established the relationship between MPV and percentage of 1-RM.Results: A very strong linear relationship (R² ≈ .96) was observed between the MPV and the percentages of HS 1-RM, resulting in the following equation: %HS 1-RM = −105.05 × MPV + 131.75. The MPV at HS 1-RM was ~0.3 m/s.Conclusion: This equation can be used to predict HS 1-RM on a Smith machine with a high degree of accuracy.

Background Long-lasting effects of COVID-19 may include cardiovascular, respiratory, skeletal muscle, metabolic, psychological disorders and persistent symptoms that can impair health-related quality of life (HRQoL). We investigated the effects of a home-based exercise training (HBET) programme on HRQoL and health-related outcomes in survivors of severe/critical COVID-19. Methods This was a single-centre, single-blinded, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial. Fifty survivors of severe/critical COVID-19 (5±1 months after intensive care unit discharge) were randomly allocated (1:1) to either a 3 times a week (~60–80 min/session), semi-supervised, individualised, HBET programme or standard of care (CONTROL). Changes in HRQoL were evaluated through the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey, and physical component summary was predetermined as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included cardiorespiratory fitness, pulmonary function, functional capacity, body composition and persistent symptoms. Assessments were performed at baseline and after 16 weeks of intervention. Statistical analysis followed intention-to-treat principles. Results After the intervention, HBET showed greater HRQoL score than CONTROL in the physical component summary (estimated mean difference, EMD: 16.8 points; 95% CI 5.8 to 27.9; effect size, ES: 0.74), physical functioning (EMD: 22.5 points, 95% CI 6.1 to 42.9, ES: 0.83), general health (EMD: 17.4 points, 95% CI 1.8 to 33.1, ES: 0.73) and vitality (EMD: 15.1 points, 95% CI 0.2 to 30.1, ES: 0.49) domains. 30-second sit-to-stand (EMD: 2.38 reps, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.76, ES: 0.86), and muscle weakness and myalgia were also improved in HBET compared with CONTROL (p<0.05). No significant differences were seen in the remaining variables. There were no adverse events. Conclusion HBET is an effective and safe intervention to improve physical domains of HRQoL, functional capacity and persistent symptoms in survivors of severe/critical COVID-19. Trial registration number NCT04615052.