Unrestrained Versus Vertically Restrained Loaded Countermovement Jumps: Are There Any Differences in the Components of Force Application?

The objective of this study was to compare a number of variables derived from the vertical and horizontal force components between loaded countermovement jumps performed in a Smith machine (SM modality; vertically restrained jumps) and with free weights (FW modality; unrestrained jumps). Twenty-three recreationally trained individuals, 6 women and 17 men, performed on a 3D force platform 5 maximal countermovement jump trials against 3 external loads (30%, 50%, and 70% of the SM 1-repetition maximum) using the SM and FW jumping modalities on separate sessions. The SM modality promoted greater values for virtually all the variables derived from the vertical force component (maximal force, maximal and minimum velocity, and impulse) and also shorter durations of the braking and propulsive phases. Regardless of the countermovement jump phase (braking or propulsive), the impulse directed toward the backward direction was always considerably greater for the SM compared with the FW modality. These results evidence that for recreationally trained individuals, the SM modality could be more effective to increase the general force capacity of the leg muscles due to increased external stability, while the FW modality is preferable when the orientation of force application is a crucial consideration, as it reduces the horizontal force component.

Chronic Functional Adaptations Induced by the Application of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Combined with Exercise Programs: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.

The present systematic review aimed to determine the chronic effects of the combination of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and exercise on motor function and performance outcomes. We performed a systematic literature review in the databases MEDLINE and Web of Science. Only randomized control trials that measured the chronic effect of combining exercise (comprising gross motor tasks) with tDCS during at least five sessions and measured any type of motor function or performance outcome were included. A total of 22 interventions met the inclusion criteria. Only outcomes related to motor function or performance were collected. Studies were divided into three groups: (a) healthy population (n = 4), (b) neurological disorder population (n = 14), and (c) musculoskeletal disorder population (n = 4). The studies exhibited considerable variability in terms of tDCS protocols, exercise programs, and outcome measures. Chronic use of tDCS in combination with strength training does not enhance motor function in healthy adults. In neurological disorders, the results suggest no additive effect if the exercise program includes the movements pretending to be improved (i.e., tested). However, although evidence is scarce, tDCS may enhance exercise-induced adaptations in musculoskeletal conditions characterized by pain as a limiting factor of motor function.

Knowledge of results during vertical jump testing: an effective method to increase the performance but not the consistency of vertical jumps.

This study aimed to determine whether the provision of jump height feedback (knowledge of result; KR) can increase the performance and the consistency of output variables. In a randomised order, sixteen participants performed six squat or countermovement jumps (three from a 90º knee angle and three from a self-preferred knee angle) with or without KR over four sessions. The provision of KR significantly increased peak force (p = 0.046, 1.83%), mean force (p = 0.037, 1.45%), peak velocity (p < 0.001, 3.71%), mean velocity (p = 0.004, 3.44%), peak power (p < 0.001, 4.22%) and mean power (p = 0.001, 4.69%). A high within-session reliability was observed for all variables (coefficient of variation [CV] ≤ 5.62%, intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] ≥ 0.95). No systematic differences in reliability were detected between the jumps performed without KR (CV = 3.00 ± 1.38%, ICC = 0.97 ± 0.03) and with KR (CV = 3.04 ± 1.49%, ICC = 0.97 ± 0.04). These results suggest that the provision of jump height feedback during vertical jump testing is effective to enhance vertical jump performance but it does not reduce the variability between jumps.