Background: Effective hypertrophy-oriented resistance training (RT) should comprise a combination of mechanical tension and metabolic stress. Regarding training variables, the most effective values are widely described in the literature. However, there is still a lack of consensus regarding the efficiency of advanced RT techniques and methods in comparison to traditional approaches. Methods: MEDLINE and SPORTDiscus databases were searched from 1996 to September 2019 for all studies investigating the effects of advanced RT techniques and methods on muscle hypertrophy and training variables. Thirty articles met the inclusion criteria and were consequently included for the quality assessment and data extraction. Results: Concerning the time-efficiency of training, the use of agonist–antagonist, upper–lower body supersets, drop and cluster sets, sarcoplasma stimulating training, employment of fast, but controlled duration of eccentric contractions (~2s), and high-load RT supplemented with low-load RT under blood flow restriction may provide an additional stimulus and an advantage to traditional training protocols. With regard to the higher degree of mechanical tension, the use of accentuated eccentric loading in RT should be considered. Implementation of drop sets, sarcoplasma stimulating training, low-load RT in conjunction with low-load RT under blood flow restriction could provide time-efficient solutions to increased metabolic stress. Conclusions: Due to insufficient evidence, it is difficult to provide specific guidelines for volume, intensity of effort, and frequency of previously mentioned RT techniques and methods. However, well-trained athletes may integrate advanced RT techniques and methods into their routines as an additional stimulus to break through plateaus and to prevent training monotony.

Caffeine is the most popular psychoactive substance in the world, and data suggests that it is widely used by athletes before competition to enhance physical and mental performance. The high number of athletes that regularly use caffeine suggests the need to investigate the effect of acute caffeine ingestion in athletes habituated to caffeine. However, most of the studies supporting this claim have used samples of athletes who do not consume caffeine on a regular basis, and with caffeine intake withdrawal prior to the experiments. A search through 19 databases conducted on habitual caffeine users was performed. The results of the studies regarding the ergogenic effect of caffeine in naïve vs. habitual caffeine consumers are contradictory. The diversity of results are likely associated with the use of different thresholds to categorize individuals as naïve or high caffeine consumers. There are no valid and standardized methods to accurately estimate the amount of caffeine ingested per day in athletes. We proposed a classification of athletes that habitually consume caffeine by using dietary questionnaires, and ultimately, to reduce the likelihood of discrepancies caused by the improper qualification of daily caffeine intake in studies directed at the assessment of acute caffeine intake in habitual caffeine consumers.

Background: Mechanical power output is recognized as a critical characteristic of an athlete with regard to superior performance during a competition. It seems fully justified that ballistic exercises, in which the external load is projected into a flight phase, as in the bench press throw (BPT), are the most commonly prescribed exercises for the development of power output. In addition, the muscular phenomenon known as post-activation performance enhancement (PAPE), which is an acute improvement in strength and power performance as a result of recent voluntary contractile history, has become the focus of many strength and conditioning training programs. Although the PAPE phenomenon is widely used in the upper-body training regimens, there are still several issues regarding training variables that facilitate the greatest increase in power output and need to be resolved.Objective: The purposes of this meta-analysis were to determine the effect of performing a conditioning activity (CA) on subsequent BPT performances and the influence of different types of CA, intra-complex rest intervals, and intensities during the CA on the upper-body PAPE effect in resistance-trained men.Methods: A search of electronic databases (MEDLINE, PubMed, and SPORTDiscus) was conducted to identify all studies that investigated the PAPE in the BPT up to August 2020. Eleven articles, which met the inclusion criteria, were consequently included for quality assessment and data extraction. All studies included 174 resistance-trained men [age: 25.2 ± 2.1 years; weight: 88.4 ± 7.5 kg; height: 1.82 ± 0.03 m; bench press (BP) relative strength: 1.31 ± 0.14 kg ± kg⁻¹] as participants. Meta-analyses of standardized mean effect size (ES) between pre-CA mean and post-CA mean from individual studies were conducted using the random-effects model.Results: The effect of PAPE in the BPT was small (ES = 0.33; p < 0.01). The BP exercise as a CA at an intensity of 60–84% one-repetition maximum (1RM) (ES = 0.43) induced slightly greater PAPE effect than a ballistic–plyometric (ES = 0.29) and a BP exercise at ≥85% 1RM and at >100% 1RM as well as a concentric-only BP (ES = 0.23 and 0.22; ES = 0.11, respectively). A single set (ES = 0.37) of the CA resulted in a slightly greater effect than a multiple set (ES = 0.29). Moderate rest intervals induced a slightly greater PAPE effect for intensity below 85% 1RM (5–7 min, ES = 0.48) than shorter (0.15–4 min, ES = 0.4) and longer (≥8 min, ES = 0.36) intra-complex rest intervals. Considering an intensity above 85% 1RM during the CA, a moderate rest interval resulted in a similar PAPE effect (5–7 min, ES = 0.3) compared with longer (8 min, ES = 0.29) intra-complex rest interval, whereas shorter rest intervals resulted in a negative effect on BPT performance (0.15–4 min, ES = −0.13).Conclusion: The presented meta-analysis shows that performing a CA induces a small PAPE effect for the BPT performance in resistance-trained men. Individuals seeking to improve their BPT performance should consider preceding them with a single set of the BP exercise at moderate intensity (60–84% 1RM), performed 5–7 min before the explosive activity.

Volume and intensity of exercise are the basic components of training loads, having a direct impact on adaptive patterns. Exercise volume during resistance training has been conventionally evaluated as a total number of repetitions performed in each set, regardless of the time and speed of performing individual exercises. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of varied tempos i.e. regular (REG) 2/0/2/0, medium (MED) 5/0/3/0 and slow (SLO) 6/0/4/0 during resistance exercise on training volume, based on the total number of performed repetitions (REP_sum1-5) and time under tension (TUT_sum1-5). Significant differences in TUT (s) were found in particular sets for each tempo of 2/0/2/0, 5/0/3/0 and 6/0/4/0 (p < 0.001). The ANOVA also revealed substantial differences in the REP for individual sets (p < 0.001). Post-hoc analyses showed that TUT for each set and total TUTsum1-5 were significantly higher in the 5/0/3/0 and 6/0/4/0 tempos compared to 2/0/2/0 (p < 0.001). REP was significantly higher for the 2/0/2/0 tempo compared to 5/0/3/0 and 6/0/4/0 tempo in each set. Total REP_sum1-5, TUT_sum1-5 between 5/0/3/0 and 6/0/4/0 tempos were not significantly different. The main finding of this study is that the movement tempo in strength training impacts training volume, both in terms of repetitions and total time under tension.

Different tempos of movement can be used during resistance training, but programming them is often a trial-and-error practice, as changing the speed at which the exercise is performed does not always correspond with the tempo at which the 1-repetition-maximum occurred. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine the effect of different movement tempos during the bench press (BP) exercise on the one-repetition maximum (1RM) load. Ninety men (age = 25.8 ± 5.3 years, body mass = 80.2 ± 14.9 kg), with a minimum one year of resistance training experience took part in the study. Using a randomized crossover design, each participant completed the BP 1RM test with five different movement tempos: V/0/V/0, 2/0/V/0, 5/0/V/0, 8/0/V/0 and 10/0/V/0. Repeated measures ANOVA compared the differences between the 1RM at each tempo. The 1RM load was significantly greater during V/0/V/0 and 2/0/V/0 compared to 5/0/V/0, 8/0/V/0, and 10/0/V/0 (p < 0.01). Furthermore, the 1RM load was significantly greater during 5/0/V/0 compared to 8/0/V/0 and 10/0/V/0 (p < 0.01), but there were no differences between either V/0/V/0 and 2/0/V/0 (p = 0.92) or between 8/0/V/0 and 10/0/V/0 (p = 0.08). Therefore, different movement tempos used during training should be accompanied by their own tempo-specific 1RM testing, as slower eccentric phases significantly decrease maximal concentric performance. Furthermore, 1RM test procedures should include information about the movement tempo used during the test protocol. In addition, the standardization of the tempo should be taken into account in investigations that use the 1 RM test to assess the effects of any treatment on maximal muscle strength.

Background: The main goal of this study was to assess the acute effects of the intake of 9 and 11 mg/kg/ body mass (b.m.) of caffeine (CAF) on maximal strength and muscle endurance in athletes habituated to caffeine. Methods: The study included 16 healthy strength-trained male athletes (age = 24.2 ± 4.2 years, body mass = 79.5 ± 8.5 kg, body mass index (BMI) = 24.5 ± 1.9, bench press 1RM = 118.3 ± 14.5 kg). All participants were habitual caffeine consumers (4.9 ± 1.1 mg/kg/b.m., 411 ± 136 mg of caffeine per day). This study had a randomized, crossover, double-blind design, where each participant performed three experimental sessions after ingesting either a placebo (PLAC) or 9 mg/kg/b.m. (CAF-9) and 11 mg/kg/b.m. (CAF-11) of caffeine. In each experimental session, participants underwent a 1RM strength test and a muscle endurance test in the bench press exercise at 50% 1RM while power output and bar velocity were measured in each test. Results: A one-way repeated measures ANOVA revealed a significant difference between PLAC, CAF-9, and CAF-11 groups in peak velocity (PV) (p = 0.04). Post-hoc tests showed a significant decrease for PV (p = 0.04) in the CAF-11 compared to the PLAC group. No other changes were found in the 1RM or muscle endurance tests with the ingestion of caffeine. Conclusion: The results of the present study indicate that high acute doses of CAF (9 and 11 mg/kg/b.m.) did not improve muscle strength nor muscle endurance in athletes habituated to this substance.