We used the framework of the uncontrolled manifold hypothesis to explore the relations between anticipatory synergy adjustments (ASAs) and anticipatory postural adjustments (APAs) during feedforward control of vertical posture. ASAs represent a drop in the index of a multimuscle-mode synergy stabilizing the coordinate of the center of pressure in preparation to an action. ASAs reflect early changes of an index of covariation among variables reflecting muscle activation, whereas APAs reflect early changes in muscle activation levels averaged across trials. The assumed purpose of ASAs is to modify stability of performance variables, whereas the purpose of APAs is to change magnitudes of those variables. We hypothesized that ASAs would be seen before APAs and that this finding would be consistent with regard to the muscle-mode composition defined on the basis of different tasks and phases of action. Subjects performed a voluntary body sway task and a quick, bilateral shoulder flexion task under self-paced and reaction time conditions. Surface muscle activity of 12 leg and trunk muscles was analyzed to identify sets of 4 muscle modes for each task and for different phases within the shoulder flexion task. Variance components in the muscle-mode space and indexes of multimuscle-mode synergy stabilizing shift of the center of pressure were computed. ASAs were seen ∼100–150 ms prior to the task initiation, before APAs. The results were consistent with respect to different sets of muscle modes defined over the two tasks and different shoulder flexion phases. We conclude that the preparation for a self-triggered postural perturbation is associated with two types of anticipatory adjustments, ASAs and APAs. They reflect different feedforward processes within the hypothetical hierarchical control scheme, resulting in changes in patterns of covariation of elemental variables and in their patterns averaged across trials, respectively. The results show that synergies quantified using dissimilar sets of muscle modes show similar feedforward changes in preparation to action.

The goal of this randomized, double‐blind, cross‐over study was to assess the acute effects of caffeine ingestion on muscular strength and power, muscular endurance, rate of perceived exertion (RPE), and pain perception (PP) in resistance‐trained men. Seventeen volunteers (mean ± SD: age = 26 ± 6 years, stature = 182 ± 9 cm, body mass = 84 ± 9 kg, resistance training experience = 7 ± 3 years) consumed placebo or 6 mg kg⁻¹ of anhydrous caffeine 1 h before testing. Muscular power was assessed with seated medicine ball throw and vertical jump exercises, muscular strength with one‐repetition maximum (1RM) barbell back squat and bench press exercises, and muscular endurance with repetitions of back squat and bench press exercises (load corresponding to 60% of 1RM) to momentary muscular failure. RPE and PP were assessed immediately after the completion of the back squat and bench press exercises. Compared to placebo, caffeine intake enhanced 1RM back squat performance (+2.8%; effect size [ES] = 0.19; p = .016), which was accompanied by a reduced RPE (+7%; ES = 0.53; p = .037), and seated medicine ball throw performance (+4.3%, ES = 0.32; p = .009). Improvements in 1RM bench press were not noted although there were significant (p = .029) decreases in PP related to this exercise when participants ingested caffeine. The results point to an acute benefit of caffeine intake in enhancing lower‐body strength, likely due to a decrease in RPE; upper‐, but not lower‐body power; and no effects on muscular endurance, in resistance‐trained men. Individuals competing in events in which strength and power are important performance‐related factors may consider taking 6 mg kg⁻¹ of caffeine pre‐training/competition for performance enhancement.

Although the effects of short versus long inter‐set rest intervals in resistance training on measures of muscle hypertrophy have been investigated in several studies, the findings are equivocal and the practical implications remain unclear. In an attempt to provide clarity on the topic, we performed a systematic literature search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) electronic databases. Six studies were found to have met the inclusion criteria: (a) an experimental trial published in an English‐language peer‐reviewed journal; (b) the study compared the use of short (≤60 s) to long (>60 s) inter‐set rest intervals in a traditional dynamic resistance exercise using both concentric and eccentric muscle actions, with the only difference in resistance training among groups being the inter‐set rest interval duration; (c) at least one method of measuring changes in muscle mass was used in the study; (d) the study lasted for a minimum of four weeks, employed a training frequency of ≥2 resistance training days per week, and (e) used human participants without known chronic disease or injury. Current evidence indicates that both short and long inter‐set rest intervals may be useful when training for achieving gains in muscle hypertrophy. Novel findings involving trained participants using measures sensitive to detect changes in muscle hypertrophy suggest a possible advantage for the use of long rest intervals to elicit hypertrophic effects. However, due to the paucity of studies with similar designs, further research is needed to provide a clear differentiation between these two approaches.