What is the traditional method of resistance training: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Many resistance studies state that they used the traditional method of resistance training in the intervention. However, there is a wide difference on the characteristics of the training protocols used even though they are labeled as "the traditional method." There is no clear definition and characteristics for the traditional method of resistance training. The aim of this study was to describe the most common definitions and references, and also the main characteristics of the training variables of the studies using the traditional training method for strengthening. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Searches were carried out in Pubmed, Embase, SPORTDiscus and Web of Science. We included randomized controlled trials that included a strengthening program using the "traditional method" and that evaluated hypertrophy and/or maximum strength in healthy individuals. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The initial search resulted in 26,057 studies, but only 39 studies were eligible and included in this review. The common characteristics of the traditional training protocol were frequency of 3 sessions/week, 3 sets of 9 repetitions, with weight =75% 1RM. The movement time was 2±1 seconds for the concentric and for the eccentric phases. Resting time between sets was 2±1 minutes. The concepts used to define the method as traditional and the characteristics of the intervention protocols were different. The American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) was the most cited reference. CONCLUSIONS: The "traditional method of resistance training" can be defined as: "Three (±1) sets of 9±6 repetitions of concentric and eccentric exercises using an external load of 75±20% of one maximum repetition, completed 3±1 times/week.

[Spatial distribution of Tenuipalpus heveae Baker (Acari: Tenuipalpidae) on rubber tree plantations]. / Distribuição espacial de Tenuipalpus heveae Baker (Acari: Tenuipalpidae) na cultura da seringueira.

The objective of this work was to study the spatial distribution of Tenuipalpus heveae Baker in rubber tree plantations. The experimental area was located in Marinópolis, State of São Paulo, and corresponded to a total of 1,000 plants (clone RRIM 600) divided in 100 plots of ten plants each. A total of 16 samplings were conducted, approximately once every 10 days, between December 2007 and June 2008. On each date, samples were taken from two plants per plot, each sample corresponding to the top 30 cm of a branch randomly taken from the median region of the canopy of each plant. The number of T. heveae was evaluated on three leaflets randomly taken from each sample, using a 20x power pocket magnifying glass. The number of mites was evaluated in two areas of 1 cm² delimited on the lower surface of each leaflet, being one along the midrib and the other along a lateral vein. The calculated dispersion indexes were: variance/mean relationship (I), index of Morisita (I´), coefficient of Green (Cx) and k exponent of negative binomial distribution. Tenuipalpus heveae showed aggregate distribution. The negative binomial distribution model was the most appropriate to represent the spatial distribution of the mite in the rubber tree plantation.

Distribuição espacial de Tenuipalpus heveae Baker (Acari: Tenuipalpidae) na cultura da seringueira / Spatial distribution of Tenuipalpus heveae Baker (Acari: Tenuipalpidae) on rubber tree plantations

The objective of this work was to study the spatial distribution of Tenuipalpus heveae Baker in rubber tree plantations. The experimental area was located in Marinópolis, State of São Paulo, and corresponded to a total of 1,000 plants (clone RRIM 600) divided in 100 plots of ten plants each. A total of 16 samplings were conducted, approximately once every 10 days, between December 2007 and June 2008. On each date, samples were taken from two plants per plot, each sample corresponding to the top 30 cm of a branch randomly taken from the median region of the canopy of each plant. The number of T. heveae was evaluated on three leaflets randomly taken from each sample, using a 20x power pocket magnifying glass. The number of mites was evaluated in two areas of 1 cm² delimited on the lower surface of each leaflet, being one along the midrib and the other along a lateral vein. The calculated dispersion indexes were: variance/mean relationship (I), index of Morisita (I´), coefficient of Green (Cx) and k exponent of negative binomial distribution. Tenuipalpus heveae showed aggregate distribution. The negative binomial distribution model was the most appropriate to represent the spatial distribution of the mite in the rubber tree plantation.