Movement Velocity as an Indicator of Mechanical Fatigue and Resistance Exercise Intensity in Cross Modalities.

Purpose: This study analyzed the acute mechanical response to three workouts of the day (WOD) protocols in as many repetitions as possible (AMRAP), every minute on the minute (EMOM), and for time (FT) models by quantifying the degree of mechanical fatigue induced by popular resistance exercises in the Cross modalities, front squat (FS), and shoulder press (SP). We also analyzed whether the exercises' fastest velocity (Vfastest) could be an objective indicator of relative intensity (%1RM). Methods: Nine trained men performed three FS and SP exercises protocols. The degree of fatigue was quantified by the velocity loss (VL) achieved in both exercises and the velocity loss achieved in the WOD (VLWOD). Results: The VLWOD in the AMRAP, EMOM, and FT protocols was 73.2 ± 10.9%, 61.6 ± 15.1%, and 76.1 ± 8.8%, respectively. In the AMRAP and FT protocol, the Vfastest showed very strong relationships with the %1RM for FS and SP (r = -0.83, -0.75, respectively, p < .01); while in the EMOM protocol, there was a strong relationship between these variables, only for the SP (r = -0.61, p < .05). In the FT protocol, we observed an extremely strong relationship for FS (r = -0.91, p < .001) and very strong (r = -0.71, p < .05) for SP between these variables. Conclusion: Therefore, the AMRAP and FT training models induce the highest degrees of mechanical fatigue in the FS and SP exercises, and the Vfastest is a reliable tool for estimating relative intensity in resistance exercises of Cross modalities.

Different types of functional training on the functionality and quality of life in postmenopausal women: a randomized and controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Physical exercise is widely recommended for improving physical fitness. However, the most effective training method in improving the daily life of postmenopausal women is not clear. Therefore, this study compares different ways of functional training, focused on the task, and directed to the physical abilities on the functionality and quality of life of the postmenopausal women. METHODS: Forty-seven participants were randomly assigned into three groups: element-based functional training (EBFT); task-specific-based functional training (TSBFT); and the control group (CG). The intervention lasted fourteen weeks, with three weekly sessions stimulating several physical valences in the same session. The global functionality, functional reach, gait speed, handgrip strength, jumping ability, and quality of life before and after the intervention were evaluated. RESULTS: A similar increase was detected in both experimental groups for the variables-analyzed when compared to the initial moment (P<0.05), except in the dynamic postural control (P>0.05), which showed no difference. However, in the tests of rising from the floor and handgrip strength, only the task-specific-based functional training showed difference over time (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Functional training protocols improve the performance in daily activities of postmenopausal women. However, task-specific-based functional training is more effective when compared to the control group in the analyzed variables.

Functional Training Induces Greater Variety and Magnitude of Training Improvements than Traditional Resistance Training in Elderly Women.

The objective was to investigate the effects of functional (FT) and traditional (TT) training on trunk muscles maximal isometric strength, rate of force development and endurance with trained elderly women. Forty-five elderly women were directed into three groups: FT (n =1 6), TT (n = 14) and Control (n = 15). The FT (multi-planar, and multi-articular movements) and TT (primarily machine-based resistance exercises) performed mobility, muscle strength and power exercises. Both training groups also performed intermittent cardiometabolic activities. The maximum strength and endurance of the trunk muscles were verified, both at baseline and after 12 weeks of training (3xweek for 50 min each). Data were analyzed using a 2-way ANCOVA with contrast of adjusted mean values. FT significantly increased all variables: maximum trunk flexor strength (p = 0.002, 22%); rate of flexor force development (p = 0.001, 84%); trunk extensors maximal strength (p = 0.003, 17%); trunk extensor rate of force development (p = 0.05, 16%); trunk flexors (p = 0.001, 19%) and extensors (p = 0.017, 13%) endurance compared to baseline. TT showed an increase only in RFD of trunk extensors (p = 0.003, 53%), and flexors (p = 0.033, 42%), and trunk flexors endurance (p = 0.008, 11%). However, there was no statistically significant difference between groups. FT promoted improvement in all variables; strength, endurance and rate of force development of the trunk flexors and extensors of the elderly. On the other hand, TT improved only the rate of force development of trunk flexors and extensors and endurance of the trunk flexors. FT is recommended for elderly women as it improves a broader array of physiological parameters.

The effects of functional and traditional strength training on different strength parameters of elderly women: a randomized and controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Physical exercise is the main strategy for improving physical fitness in elderly population. However, it is not clear which training method lead to greater adaptations on maximal dynamic strength, muscle power, muscle endurance and isometric strength in this population. Thus, our aim was to compare the effects of functional and traditional training on these variables in the elderly. METHODS: This study lasted twelve weeks, where 44 elderly women were randomly divided into three groups: functional training (FT; N.=18), traditional training (TT; N.=15), and control group (CG; N.=11). Maximal dynamic strength and muscle power tests were performed in pushing (Chest Press), pulling (Seated Row), and squatting (Leg Press 45°) actions. In addition, isometric strength with hand grip test (HG) and isometric dead lift test (ID) and muscle endurance with 30-s chair stand (CS) and 30-s arm curl (AC) tests were used. RESULTS: Both experimental groups improved significantly in strength (FT: Chest Press 24.9%, Leg Press 45° 38.4%, Seated Row 21.6%; TT: Chest Press 27.6%, Leg Press 45° 40.9%, Seated Row 24.5%), power (FT: Chest Press 13.6%, Leg Press 45° 11.6%, Seated Row 13.6%; TT: Chest Press 18.2%, Leg Press 45° 9.8%, Seated Row 19.2%) isometric strength (FT: HG=14.7%, ID=13.6%; TT: HG=19.1%), and endurance (TF: CS=19.6%, AC=23.8%; TT: AC=15.5%) with P≤0.05, except TT in ID (4.4%) and SL (4.6%). There was no difference between experimental groups; however, both experimental groups were statistically superior to CG. CONCLUSIONS: Both training protocols were equally effective in improving different strength manifestations in the elderly.