The Connection Between Resistance Training, Climbing Performance, and Injury Prevention.

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.

Comparing the effects of variable and traditional resistance training on maximal strength and muscle power in healthy adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to aggregate different effects between variable resistance training and traditional resistance training on maximal muscle strength and muscle power and identify potential sex- and training program-related moderator variables. DESIGN: Meta-analysis. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in SPORTDiscus, PubMed, and Web of Science. Interventions were included if they compared variable resistance training and traditional resistance training in healthy adults and examined the effects on measures of maximal muscle strength and/or muscle power of the lower and/or upper body. A random-effects model was used to calculate weighted and averaged standardized mean differences. Additionally, univariate sub-group analyses were independently computed for sex and training-related moderator variables. RESULTS: Seventeen studies comprising a total of 491 participants (341 men and 150 women, age 18-37 years) were included in the analyses. In terms of maximal muscle strength, there were no statistically significant differences between variable resistance training and traditional resistance training for the lower (p = 0.46, standardized mean difference = -0.10) or the upper body (p = 0.14, standardized mean difference = -0.17). Additionally, there were no significant training-related differences in muscle power for the lower (p = 0.16, standardized mean difference = 0.21) or upper body (p = 0.81, standardized mean difference = 0.05). Sub-group analyses showed a significant moderator effect for training period and repetitions per set for maximal muscle strength in the lower body (p = 0.03-0.04) with larger strength gains following traditional resistance training when performing more repetitions per set (p = 0.02, standardized mean difference = 0.43). No other significant sub-group effects were found (p = 0.18-0.82). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that variable resistance training and traditional resistance training are equally effective in improving maximal muscle strength and muscle power in healthy adults.

A Comparison of Affective Responses Between Time Efficient and Traditional Resistance Training.

The aim of the study was to compare the acute effects of traditional resistance training and superset training on training duration, training volume and different perceptive measures. Twenty-nine resistance-trained participants (27 ± 7 years, 173 ± 9 cm, and 70 ± 14 kg) performed a whole-body workout (i) traditionally and (ii) as supersets of exercises targeting different muscle groups, in a randomized-crossover design. Each session was separated by 4-7 days, and consisted of eight exercises and three sets to failure. Training duration and number of repetitions lifted were recorded during the sessions. Rate of perceived exertion for effort (RPE), rate of perceived exertion for discomfort (RPD), session displeasure/pleasure (sPDF), and exercise enjoyment (EES) were measured 15 min after each session. Forty-eight hours after the final session participants reported which session they preferred. The superset session led to significantly higher values for RPE (1.3 points, p < 0.001, ES = 0.96) and RPD (1.0 points, p = 0.008, ES = 0.47) and tended to be higher for sPDF, i.e., more pleasurable, (p = 0.059, ES = 0.25) compared to the traditional session. There was no difference in EES (p = 0.661, ES = 0.05). The traditional session led to significantly increased training volume (4.2%, p = 0.011, ES = 0.34) and lasted 23 min (66%, p < 0.001, ES = 7.78) longer than the superset session. Eighteen of the participants preferred the superset session, while 11 preferred the traditional session. In conclusion, performing a whole-body workout as a superset session was more time-efficient, but reduced the training volume and was perceived with greater exertion for effort and discomfort than a traditional workout.

Acute Effects of Barbell Bouncing and External Cueing on Power Output in Bench Press Throw in Resistance-Trained Men.

The aims of this study were to compare power output during a bench press throw (BPT) executed with (BPTbounce) and without (BPT) the barbell bounce technique, and examine the effect of cueing different barbell descent velocities on BPT power output in resistance-trained males. In total, 27 males (age 23.1 ± 2.1 years; body mass 79.4 ± 7.4 kg; height 178.8 ± 5.5 cm; and 4.6 ± 1.9 years of resistance training experience) were recruited and attended one familiarization session and two experimental sessions (EXP 1 and EXP 2). The force-velocity profile during maximal BPT and BPTbounce (randomized order) under different loads (30-60 kg) was established (EXP 1), and the effect of varying external barbell descent velocity cues "slow, medium, and as fast as possible" (i.e., "fast") on the power output for each technique (BPT and BPTbounce) was examined (EXP 2). Comparing two BPT techniques (EXP 1), BPTbounce demonstrated 7.9-14.1% greater average power (p ≤ 0.001, ES = 0.48-0.90), 6.5-12.1% greater average velocity (p ≤ 0.001, ES = 0.48-0.91), and 11.9-31.3% shorter time to peak power (p ≤ 0.001-0.05, ES = 0.33-0.83) across the loads 30-60 kg than BPT. The cueing condition "fast" (EXP 2) resulted in greater power outcomes for both BPT and BPTbounce than "slow." No statistically significant differences in any of the power outcomes were observed between "medium" and "slow" cuing conditions for BPT (p = 0.097-1.000), whereas BPTbounce demonstrated increased average power and velocity under the "medium" cuing condition, compared to "slow" (p = 0.006-0.007, ES = 0.25-0.28). No statistically significant differences were observed in barbell throw height comparing BPT and BPTbounce under each cuing condition (p = 0.225-1.000). Overall, results indicate that both bouncing the barbell and emphasizing barbell descent velocity be considered to improve upper body power in athlete and non-athlete resistance-training programs.

Effects of bouncing the barbell in bench press on throwing velocity and strength among handball players.

Bench press is a popular training-exercise in throw related sports such as javelin, baseball and handball. Athletes in these sports often use bouncing (i.e., letting the barbell collide with the chest) to create an increased momentum to accelerate the barbell upwards before completing the movement by throwing the barbell. Importantly, the effects of the bouncing technique in bench press have not been examined. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the effects of bench press throw with (BPTbounce) or without bounce (BPT) on throwing velocity (penalty and 3-step), 1-repetition maximum (1-RM) and average power output (20-60kg) in bench press among handball players. Sixteen male amateur handball players (7.1±1.9 years of handball experience) were randomly allocated to an eight-week supplementary power training program (2 x week-1) with either the BPT or BPTbounce. Except for the bounce technique, the training programs were identical and consisted of 3 sets with 3-5 repetitions at 40-60% of 1-RM with maximal effort in free-weight barbell bench press throw. The results revealed no significant differences between the groups in any of the tests (p = 0.109-0.957). However, both groups improved penalty throw (BPT; 4.6%, p<0.001, ES = 0.57; BPTbounce; 5.1%, p = 0.008, ES = 0.91) and 1-RM (BPT; 9.7%, p<0.001, ES = 0.49; BPTbounce; 8.7%, p = 0.018, ES = 0.60), but only the BPT improved the 3-step throw (BPT; 2.9%, p = 0.060, ES = 0.38; BPTbounce; 2.3%, p = 0.216, ES = 0.40). The BPT improved power output only at 20kg and 30kg loads (9.1% and 12.7%; p = 0.018-0.048, ES = 0.43-0.51) whereas BPTbounce demonstrated no significant differences across the loads (p = 0.252-0.806). In conclusion, the bounce technique demonstrated similar effects on throwing velocity, muscle strength and muscle power output as conventional bench press throw without the bounce technique.

The Effect of Grip Width on Muscle Strength and Electromyographic Activity in Bench Press among Novice- and Resistance-Trained Men.

BACKGROUND: This study compared the muscle activity and six repetition maximum (6-RM) loads in bench press with narrow, medium, and wide grip widths with sub-group comparisons of resistance-trained (RT) and novice-trained (NT) men. METHODS: After two familiarization sessions, twenty-eight subjects lifted their 6-RM loads with the different grip widths with measurement of electromyographic activity. RESULTS: Biceps brachii activity increased with increasing grip width, whereas wide grip displayed lower triceps brachii activation than medium and narrow. In the anterior deltoid, greater activity was observed using a medium compared to narrow grip. Similar muscle activities were observed between the grip widths for the other muscles. For the RT group, greater biceps brachii activity with increasing grip width was observed, but only greater activity was observed in the NT group between narrow and wide. Comparing wide and medium grip width, the RT group showed lower triceps activation using a wide grip, whereas the NT group showed lower anterior deltoid activation using a narrow compared to medium grip. Both groups demonstrated lower 6-RM loads using a narrow grip compared to the other grips. CONCLUSION: Grip widths affect both 6-RM loads and triceps brachii, biceps brachii, and anterior deltoid activity especially between wide and narrow grip widths.

The Role of Trunk Training for Physical Fitness and Sport-Specific Performance. Protocol for a Meta-Analysis.

The trunk (core) muscles are involved in daily functions (i. e., stabilizing the body in everyday tasks) and force generation of the limbs during athletic tasks such as kicking, throwing, or running. Even though trunk training is a popular means for improving physical fitness and athletic performance, the direct relationship of improved trunk function (i.e., stability, strength, or endurance), fitness and sport-specific performance is not conclusive. The aim of this proposed review is to evaluate the effects of trunk training on physical fitness and sport-specific performance, and to examine potential subject-related (e.g., age, sex) and trunk training-related moderator variables (e.g., training period, training frequency) for performance changes. We will conduct a systematic literature search in Web of Science, MEDLINE (via EBSCO) and SportDiscus. Relevant papers will be screened independently by two reviewers in two stages: (1) title and abstracts and (2) the full text of the remaining papers. A third reviewer will resolve possible disagreements. Data extraction and risk of bias of the included studies will be performed in addition to the PEDro scoring to judge the quality of the studies. A meta-analysis will be conducted to determine the efficacy of trunk training to increase physical fitness and sport-specific performance measures. In addition, subgroup univariate analyses were computed for subject-related (i.e., age, sex, performance level) and training-related moderator variables (i.e., training period, training frequency, training sessions, session duration). The results of this proposed systematic review and meta-analysis will assess the effects of trunk training on physical fitness and sport-specific and identify which subject-related and training-related moderate variables of trunk training modality might be beneficial for performance gains. This knowledge has potential importance for athletes and coaches in sports.

Comparison of Muscle Activity in Three Single-Joint, Hip Extension Exercises in Resistance-Trained Women.

The aim of the study was to compare neuromuscular activation in the gluteus maximus, the biceps femoris and the erector spinae from the Romanian deadlift, the 45-degree Roman chair back extension and the seated machine back extension. Fifteen resistance-trained females performed three repetitions with 6-RM loading in all exercises in a randomized and counterbalanced order. The activation in the whole movement as well as its lower and upper parts were analyzed. The results showed that the Romanian deadlift and the Roman chair back extension activated the gluteus maximus more than the seated machine back extension (94-140%, p < 0.01). For the biceps femoris the Roman chair elicited higher activation compared to both the Romanian deadlift and the seated machine back extension (71-174%). Further, the Romanian deadlift activated the biceps femoris more compared to the seated machine back extension (61%, p < 0.01). The analyses of the different parts of the movement showed that the Roman chair produced higher levels of activation in the upper part for both the gluteus maximus and the biceps femoris, compared to the other exercises. There were no differences in activation of the erector spinae between the three exercises (p = 1.00). In conclusion, both the Roman deadlift and the Roman chair back extension would be preferable to the seated machine back extension in regards to gluteus maximus activation. The Roman chair was superior in activating the biceps femoris compared to the two other exercises. All three exercises are appropriate selections for activating the lower back muscles. For overall lower limb activation, the Roman chair was the best exercise.

Acute Effects of Elastic Bands as Resistance or Assistance on EMG, Kinetics, and Kinematics During Deadlift in Resistance-Trained Men.

The aim of the study was to compare neuromuscular activation, kinetics and kinematics in three variations of the deadlift: (1) free weights, (2) free weights with elastic bands as resistance (bands anchored to the ground) and (3) free weights with elastic bands as assistance (bands attached above the bar). Sixteen resistance-trained men performed one repetition of the three variations as fast as possible using a 2-repetition maximum load in randomized and counterbalanced order. Muscle activation (gluteus maximus, semitendinosus, biceps femoris, erector spinae, vastus lateralis, and vastus medialis), kinematics (average-, peak-, and time to peak velocity), and kinetics (average-, peak,-and time to peak force) were measured during the ascending movement. Resisted and assisted deadlifts led to higher average and peak force outputs (p < 0.001-0.037, ES = 0.29-0.58), and time to peak velocity was shorter when compared to the free weights deadlift (p = 0.005-0.010, ES = 0.83-1.01). However, peak force was achieved faster when using free weights (p < 0.001, ES = 1.58-2.10) and assisted deadlifts had a lower peak velocity compared to resisted and free weights deadlift (p = 0.004-0.046, ES = 0.43-0.60). There were no significant differences in muscle activation between the different conditions (p = 0.082-1.000). In conclusion, the assisted and resisted deadlift produced higher force when compared to free weights. However, free weight and resisted deadlift seem more favorable for the barbell velocity. These findings are of importance for athletes and coaches which should select exercise depending on the goal of the session.

Muscle activation with swinging loads in bench press.

The aim of the study was to compare the EMG amplitude in bench press (stable loads) to bench press using loads moving in anteroposterior and mediolateral directions. Seventeen resistance-trained men, with 9.4±4.7 years of resistance training experience were recruited. After a familiarization session assessing 1 repetition maximum (RM) in the bench press, participants performed: 1) bench press with traditional stable loading 2) bench press with loads (2x5kg) attached as pendulums swinging forward/backwards and 3) left/right in randomized order. The total load was 70% of the 1RM load. Electromyography was measured in the pectoralis major, anterior- and posterior deltoid, biceps brachii, triceps brachii and external obliques. Using stable loads, the pectoralis major demonstrated lower EMG amplitude compared to the two unstable conditions. In the external obliques, the stable conditions demonstrated lower EMG amplitude than the swing in the mediolateral direction, but not the anteroposterior direction. There were no differences between two swinging loads or the three conditions for the triceps brachii, biceps brachii, anterior deltoid or posterior deltoid. In conclusion, swinging in bench press resulted in similar EMG amplitude in the shoulder- and arm muscles, but greater pectoralis and external oblique (only mediolateral swing) activity compared to bench press.

The effects of ten weeks resistance training on sticking region in chest-press exercises.

The aim of the study was to compare the effects of a 10-week chest-press resistance training on lifting regions in a trained exercise and a none-trained exercise; the barbell bench press (BBP). Thirty-five resistance trained men with 4.2 (± 2.3) years of resistance training experience were recruited. The participants were randomized to attend a resistance program, performing the chest-press, twice per week using either, Smith machine, dumbbells or laying on Swiss ball using a barbell. A six-repetitions maximum (6RM) test was conducted pre- and post-training in the trained chest-press exercise and non-trained BBP to examine lifting velocity, load displacement and the time of the pre-sticking, sticking and post-sticking regions. Additionally, the muscle activity in pectoralis major, triceps brachii, biceps brachii and deltoid anterior was examined. In the post-test, all three chest-press groups decreased lifting velocity and increased the time to reach the sticking- and post-sticking region. Independent of the type of chest-press exercise trained, no differences were observed in vertical displacement or in the muscle activity for the three lifting regions. In general, similar changes in kinematics in trained exercise and those observed in the BBP were observed for all three groups. This indicates that none of the three chest-press exercises (Swiss ball, Smith machine or dumbbells) were specific regarding the lifting regions but displaced a transferability towards the non-trained BBP. However, improved strength altered the sticking region among resistance trained men.

Dose-response of resistance training for neck-and shoulder pain relief: a workplace intervention study.

BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal disorders are highly prevalent among office workers, with strong evidence suggesting that workplace-based resistance training programs can prevent several upper extremity musculoskeletal disorders. The aim of the present study was to examine the dose-response relationship between resistance training frequency and pain relief among office workers with neck- and shoulder pain. METHODS: Thirty participants with mild to moderate neck- and shoulder pain attended a 16-week intervention starting with an eight-week control period followed by an eight-week training period. After the control period, the participants were randomized into either a 10 min (TG10) or 2 × 10 min (TG2) workplace-based, high-intensity neck- and shoulder specific resistance training program that was executed 5 days per week and consisting of four exercises. The participants were tested pre and post each period for mean and worst pain using the 0-100 mm visual analog scale (VAS), 0-100 mm health-related quality of life and isometric strength of the neck-and shoulder region. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Friedman with Bonferroni post hoc corrections were used to assess differences in between and within groups for the three testing times pre, mid and post intervention. RESULTS: No differences were observed between the groups in any of the variables in the control period (p = 0.27-0.97) or training period (p = 0.37-0.68). When merging the two groups, the mean and worst pain was reduced by 25 and 43% (p = 0.05 and < 0.01, ES = 0.41 and 0.55) in the training period in addition to 10.6% increase in health-related quality of life (p = 0.01, ES = 0.52). No difference in strength was observed (p = 0.29-0.85). CONCLUSION: Daily bouts of specific high-intensity resistance training of the shoulder and neck region at the workplace reduced neck- and shoulder pain and improved quality of life of office workers. However, 10 min bouts were equally effective as 2 × 10 min bouts per day. The authors recommend office workers to perform daily neck- and shoulder resistance training to possibly prevent and/or decrease pain in the neck- and shoulder area. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN69968888, retrospectively registered (24/09/2019).