Background: The role of trunk muscle training (TMT) for physical fitness (e.g., muscle power) and sport-specific performance measures (e.g., swimming time) in athletic populations has been extensively examined over the last decades. However, a recent systematic review and meta-analysis on the effects of TMT on measures of physical fitness and sport-specific performance in young and adult athletes is lacking.Objective: To aggregate the effects of TMT on measures of physical fitness and sport-specific performance in young and adult athletes and identify potential subject-related moderator variables (e.g., age, sex, expertise level) and training-related programming parameters (e.g., frequency, study length, session duration, and number of training sessions) for TMT effects.Data Sources: A systematic literature search was conducted with PubMed, Web of Science, and SPORTDiscus, with no date restrictions, up to June 2021.Study Eligibility Criteria: Only controlled trials with baseline and follow-up measures were included if they examined the effects of TMT on at least one measure of physical fitness (e.g., maximal muscle strength, change-of-direction speed (CODS)/agility, linear sprint speed) and sport-specific performance (e.g., throwing velocity, swimming time) in young or adult competitive athletes at a regional, national, or international level. The expertise level was classified as either elite (competing at national and/or international level) or regional (i.e., recreational and sub-elite).Study Appraisal and Synthesis Methods: The methodological quality of TMT studies was assessed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale. A random-effects model was used to calculate weighted standardized mean differences (SMDs) between intervention and active control groups. Additionally, univariate sub-group analyses were independently computed for subject-related moderator variables and training-related programming parameters.Results: Overall, 31 studies with 693 participants aged 11–37 years were eligible for inclusion. The methodological quality of the included studies was 5 on the PEDro scale. In terms of physical fitness, there were significant, small-to-large effects of TMT on maximal muscle strength (SMD = 0.39), local muscular endurance (SMD = 1.29), lower limb muscle power (SMD = 0.30), linear sprint speed (SMD = 0.66), and CODS/agility (SMD = 0.70). Furthermore, a significant and moderate TMT effect was found for sport-specific performance (SMD = 0.64). Univariate sub-group analyses for subject-related moderator variables revealed significant effects of age on CODS/agility (p = 0.04), with significantly large effects for children (SMD = 1.53,p = 0.002). Further, there was a significant effect of number of training sessions on muscle power and linear sprint speed (p ≤ 0.03), with significant, small-to-large effects of TMT for > 18 sessions compared to ≤ 18 sessions (0.45 ≤ SMD ≤ 0.84,p ≤ 0.003). Additionally, session duration significantly modulated TMT effects on linear sprint speed, CODS/agility, and sport-specific performance (p ≤ 0.05). TMT with session durations ≤ 30 min resulted in significant, large effects on linear sprint speed and CODS/agility (1.66 ≤ SMD ≤ 2.42,p ≤ 0.002), whereas session durations > 30 min resulted in significant, large effects on sport-specific performance (SMD = 1.22,p = 0.008).Conclusions: Our findings indicate that TMT is an effective means to improve selected measures of physical fitness and sport-specific performance in young and adult athletes. Independent sub-group analyses suggest that TMT has the potential to improve CODS/agility, but only in children. Additionally, more (> 18) and/or shorter duration (≤ 30 min) TMT sessions appear to be more effective for improving lower limb muscle power, linear sprint speed, and CODS/agility in young or adult competitive athletes.

Background: Chronic neck pain is common in the adult general population. Although the etiology of chronic neck pain is under debate, it is clear that chronic neck pain is multifactorial, with both physical and psychosocial contributors. Objective: To determine whether adding pain neuroscience education (PNE) to therapeutic exercises improved their pain–disability index, pain catastrophizing, fear–avoidance beliefs, and pain self-efficacy in subjects with chronic nonspecific neck pain. Methods: This study was a three-arm randomized control trial. Seventy-two patients with chronic nonspecific neck pain were allocated to three groups: therapeutic exercises alone (n = 24), combined (therapeutic exercises + PNE; (n = 24), and a control group (n = 24). Each program took place three times a week, lasting for six weeks. The disability index, pain catastrophizing, fear–avoidance beliefs, and pain self-efficacy measured by the Neck Pain and Disability Scale (NPAD), Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS), Fear–Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ), and Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (PSEQ), respectively. Participants were assessed before and after the six-week intervention, and there was no further follow-up. Results: For the outcomes NPAD, PSC, and FABQ, combined intervention demonstrated more significant improvements than therapeutic exercises alone (p ≤ 0.05), whereas no differences were observed between the two intervention groups for PSEQ (p = 0.99). In addition, significant differences were favoring experimental groups versus control for all outcomes (p ≤ 0.001). Conclusion: Therapeutic exercises combined with pain neuroscience education reduced the pain–disability index, pain catastrophizing, and fear–avoidance beliefs more than therapeutic exercises alone in patients with chronic neck pain. For pain self-efficacy, there was no statistically significant difference between the two intervention groups; however, the combined group had a more significant effect than therapeutic exercises alone. Further studies with longer periods and follow-up are required.

Albeit differences in climbing-specific strength of the forearms have been demonstrated between lead and boulder climbers, little is known about the potential differences in force and power output of the upper body pulling-apparatus between disciplines. The aim of this study was to compare the climbing-specific upper-body strength and finger flexor endurance between lead and boulder climbers, as well as to examine the relative utilization of force when testing on a ledge hold compared to a jug hold. Sixteen boulder climbers (red-point climbing grade 17.9 ± 3.3) and fifteen lead climbers (red-point climbing grade 20.5 ± 3.5) performing on an advanced level volunteered for the study. Peak force, average force and rate of force development (RFD) were measured during an isometric pull-up, average velocity in dynamic pull-up, and finger flexor endurance in an intermittent test to fatigue. The isometric pull-up was performed on a ledge hold (high finger strength requirements) and on a jug hold (very low finger strength requirements). Boulder climbers demonstrated a higher maximal and explosive strength in all strength and power measurements (26.2–52.9%, ES = 0.90–1.12, p = 0.006–0.023), whereas the finger flexor endurance test showed no significant difference between the groups (p = 0.088). Both groups were able to utilize 57–69% of peak force, average force and RFD in the ledge condition compared to the jug condition, but the relative utilization was not different between the groups (p = 0.290–0.996). In conclusion, boulder climbers were stronger and more explosive compared to lead climbers, whereas no differences in finger flexor endurance were observed. Performing climbing-specific tests on a smaller hold appears to limit the force and power output equally between the two groups.

Background: Aging is associated with reduced muscle mass and strength leading to impaired physical function. Resistance training programs incorporated into older adults’ real-life settings may have the potential to counteract these changes. We evaluated the effectiveness of 8 months resistance training using easily available, low cost equipment compared to physical activity counselling on physical function, muscle strength, and body composition in community-dwelling older adults receiving home care. Methods: This open label, two-armed, parallel group, cluster randomized trial recruited older adults above 70 years (median age 86.0 (Interquartile range 80–90) years) receiving home care. Participants were randomized at cluster level to the resistance training group (RTG) or the control group (CG). The RTG trained twice a week while the CG were informed about the national recommendations for physical activity and received a motivational talk every 6th week. Outcomes were assessed at participant level at baseline, after four, and 8 months and included tests of physical function (chair rise, 8 ft-up-and-go, preferred- and maximal gait speed, and stair climb), maximal strength, rate of force development, and body composition. Results: Twelve clusters were allocated to RTG (7 clusters, 60 participants) or CG (5 clusters, 44 participants). The number of participants analyzed was 56–64 (6–7 clusters) in RTG and 20–42 (5 clusters) in CG. After 8 months, multilevel linear mixed models showed that RTG improved in all tests of physical function and maximal leg strength (9–24%, p = 0.01–0.03) compared to CG. No effects were seen for rate of force development or body composition. Conclusion: This study show that resistance training using easily available, low cost equipment is more effective than physical activity counselling for improving physical function and maximal strength in community-dwelling older adults receiving home care. Trial registration: ISRCTN1067873

Background: Climbing is an intricate sport composed of various disciplines, holds, styles, distances between holds, and levels of difficulty. In highly skilled climbers the potential for further strength-specific adaptations to increase performance may be marginal in elite climbers. With an eye on the upcoming 2024 Paris Olympics, more climbers are trying to maximize performance and improve training strategies. The relationships between muscular strength and climbing performance, as well as the role of strength in injury prevention, remain to be fully elucidated. This narrative review seeks to discuss the current literature regarding the effect of resistance training in improving maximal strength, muscle hypertrophy, muscular power, and local muscular endurance on climbing performance, and as a strategy to prevent injuries. Main Body: Since sport climbing requires exerting forces against gravity to maintain grip and move the body along the route, it is generally accepted that a climber`s absolute and relative muscular strength are important for climbing performance. Performance characteristics of forearm flexor muscles (hang-time on ledge, force output, rate of force development, and oxidative capacity) discriminate between climbing performance level, climbing styles, and between climbers and non-climbers. Strength of the hand and wrist flexors, shoulders and upper limbs has gained much attention in the scientific literature, and it has been suggested that both general and specific strength training should be part of a climber`s training program. Furthermore, the ability to generate sub-maximal force in different work-rest ratios has proved useful, in examining finger flexor endurance capacity while trying to mimic real-world climbing demands. Importantly, fingers and shoulders are the most frequent injury locations in climbing. Due to the high mechanical stress and load on the finger flexors, fingerboard and campus board training should be limited in lower-graded climbers. Coaches should address, acknowledge, and screen for amenorrhea and disordered eating in climbers. Conclusion: Structured low-volume high-resistance training, twice per week hanging from small ledges or a fingerboard, is a feasible approach for climbers. The current injury prevention training aims to increase the level of performance through building tolerance to performance-relevant load exposure and promoting this approach in the climbing field.

Introduction: Biological maturity level has shown to affect sport performance in youths. However, most previous studies have used noninvasive methods to estimate maturity level. Thus, the main aim of the present study was to investigate the association between skeletal age (SA) as a measure of biological maturation level, match locomotion, and physical capacity in male youth soccer players.Method: Thirty‐eight Norwegian players were followed during two consecutive seasons (U14 and U15). Match locomotion was assessed with GPS‐tracking in matches. SA, assessed by x‐ray, physical capacities (speed, strength and endurance) and anthropometrics were measured in the middle of each season. Analysis of associations between SA, match locomotion, and physical capacities were adjusted for the potential confounding effect of body height and weight.Results: In matches, positive associations were found between SA and maximal speed and running distance in the highest speed zones. Further, SA was associated with 40 m sprint time and countermovement jump (CMJ) height, and with intermittent‐endurance capacity after adjusting for body height (U14). Associations between SA and leg strength and power, and between SA and absolute VO_2max were not significant after adjusting for body weight. There was no association between SA and total distance covered in matches.Conclusion: Biological maturity level influence match locomotion and performance on physical capacity tests. It is important that players, parents and coaches are aware of the advantages more mature players have during puberty, and that less mature players also are given attention, appropriate training and match competition to ensure proper development.