Development of Specific Motor Skills through System Wall Bouldering Training: A Pilot Study.

This study evaluated the effects of a five-week period of practicing specific climbing movements using a system wall on motor skills and bouldering performance compared to self-regulated, conventional bouldering. Thirteen advanced female boulderers (age: 24.5 ± 3.6 years, height: 166.9 ± 3.4 cm, and body mass: 63.4 ± 8.0 kg) were divided into an experimental group (n = 7) and a control group (n = 6). Both groups continued their normal training routines during the intervention, but the experimental group dedicated 30 minutes of their climbing time twice per week to practicing specific motor skills on a system climbing wall. Before and after the intervention, the participants attempted two boulder problems on the same wall. The performance was registered as the number of attempts to complete the boulder problems and as the highest hold reached within four attempts. Video recordings of climbers' best attempts, capturing the highest hold reached from a perspective directly behind them, were analyzed by three independent experts. The analysis was conducted using a five-point scale across six categories of movement quality. Modest enhancements in certain motor skills and performance were evident in both groups, revealing no significant distinction between them. The results underscore the efficacy of incorporating system walls into the training routines of advanced female boulder climbers, but the absence of between-group differences highlights the significance of individual preferences when choosing between conventional and system wall bouldering.

Comparison of resistance training vs static stretching on flexibility and maximal strength in healthy physically active adults, a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the present study was to compare the effects of resistance training through full range of motion and static stretching (SS) of the hip and lower back extensors on flexibility and strength in healthy, physically active, adults. METHODS: Eighteen participants (age: 24.2 ± 3.0 years, body mass: 71.3 ± 8.9 kg, height: 172.8 ± 7.5 cm) were randomly assigned to either a Resistance Training (RT) (n = 6), SS (n = 6), or control (CON) group (n = 6). The sit & reach (S&R) flexibility test and maximum isometric straight legged deadlift (ISLDL) at 95% and 50% range of motion (ROM) were tested pre- and post-intervention with significance set at p < 0.05. Both groups conducted four to eight sets per session. Within each set, the RT group performed eight repetitions each lasting four seconds, while the SS group stretched continuously for 32 s. The rest periods between each set were 60-90 s. Consequently training volume and rest times were matched between the groups. RESULTS: The RT and SS groups achieved significant, large magnitude improvements in the S&R test compared to the CON group (p < 0.01 g = 2.53 and p = 0.01, g = 2.44), but no differences were observed between the RT and SS groups (p = 1.00). Furthermore, the RT group demonstrated a larger improvement in 50% and 95% ROM ISLDL compared to SS (p < 0.01, g = 2.69-3.36) and CON (p < 0.01, g = 2.44-2.57). CONCLUSION: Resistance training through a full ROM was equally effective as SS for improving S&R flexibility, but improved hip- and lower back extensor strength more than SS and the CON. The authors recommend using large ROM resistance training to improve hip and lower back extensor flexibility and muscle strength. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN88839251, registered 24. April 2024, Retrospectively registered.

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 low volume of blood flow restricted to high-intensity resistance training of the finger flexors to maintain climbing-specific strength and endurance: a crossover study.

Introduction: It is acknowledged that training during recovery periods after injury involves reducing both volume and intensity, often resulting in losses of sport-specific fitness. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the effects of high-intensity training (HIT) and low-intensity training with blood flow restriction (LIT + BFR) of the finger flexors in order to preserve climbing-specific strength and endurance. Methods: In a crossover design, thirteen intermediate climbers completed two 5-week periods of isometric finger flexors training on a hangboard. The trainings consisted of ten LIT + BFR (30% of max) or HIT sessions (60% of max without BFR) and were undertaken in a randomized order. The training session consisted of 6 unilateral sets of 1 min intermittent hanging at a 7:3 work relief ratio for both hands. Maximal voluntary contraction (MVC), force impulse from the 4 min all out test (W), critical force (CF) and force impulse above the critical force (W') of the finger flexors were assessed before, after the first, and after the second training period, using a climbing-specific dynamometer. Forearm muscle oxidative capacity was estimated from an occlusion test using near-infrared spectroscopy at the same time points. Results: Both training methods led to maintaining strength and endurance indicators, however, no interaction (P > 0.05) was found between the training methods for any strength or endurance variable. A significant increase (P = 0.002) was found for W, primarily driven by the HIT group (pretest-25078 ± 7584 N.s, post-test-27327 ± 8051 N.s, P = 0.012, Cohen's d = 0.29). There were no significant (P > 0.05) pre- post-test changes for MVC (HIT: Cohen's d = 0.13; LIT + BFR: Cohen's d = -0.10), CF (HIT: Cohen's d = 0.36; LIT + BFR = 0.05), W` (HIT: Cohen's d = -0.03, LIT + BFR = 0.12), and forearm muscle oxidative capacity (HIT: Cohen's d = -0.23; LIT + BFR: Cohen's d = -0.07). Conclusions: Low volume of BFR and HIT led to similar results, maintaining climbing-specific strength and endurance in lower grade and intermediate climbers. It appears that using BFR training may be an alternative approach after finger injury as low mechanical impact occurs during training.

Comparison of finger flexor resistance training, with and without blood flow restriction, on perceptional and physiological responses in advanced climbers.

This study compared perceptional and physiological responses of finger flexor exercise performed with free flow and blood flow restriction (BFR). Thirteen male advanced climbers completed three sessions of finger flexor resistance exercise at (1) 40% of MVC (Low) and (2) 75% of MVC (High) and (3) BFR at 40% of MVC (Low + BFR) in a randomized and counterbalanced order. Rate of perceived exertion for effort (RPE) and discomfort (RPD), session pleasure/displeasure (sPDF), exercise enjoyment (EES), lactate concentration and oxygen saturation were recorded after the last set. Both low-intensity sessions induced higher RPD than High (p = 0.018-0.022, ES = 1.01-1.09) and High was perceived as more enjoyable than Low-BFR (p = 0.031, ES = 1.08). No differences were found for RPE or sPDF (p = 0.132-0.804). Lactate was elevated more after High than the Low-sessions (p < 0.001, ES = 1.88-2.08). Capillary oxygen saturation was lower after Low + BFR compared to the other sessions (p = 0.031, ES = 1.04-1.27). Finally, the exercise volume was greater in Low compared to High (p = 0.022, ES = 1.14) and Low + BFR (p = 0.020, ES = 0.77). In conclusion, among advanced male climbers, performing Low + BFR led to a similar exercise volume but was perceived as more discomforting and less enjoyable compared to High. The Low session yielded similar responses as the Low + BFR but required a much greater exercise volume.

Does relative strength influence bench press kinematics in resistance-trained men?

The aim of the present study was to examine whether relative strength influences lifting kinematics (e.g., lifting time, barbell velocity, vertical displacement) during the bench press (BP) exercise with healthy men. Loaded BP 6-repetition maximum normalized to body mass (i.e., relative strength) was examined in 110 resistance-trained men (age: 22.9 ± 2.5 years, height: 180.9 ± 6.9 cm, body mass: 80.3 ± 7.9 kg), by analysing lifting kinematics using a linear encoder. According to relative BP strength, subjects were classified as beginners, recreationally trained, intermediate, and advanced. Results showed that in the intermediate (p = 0.004, ES = 0.85) and advanced (p = 0.016, ES = 0.81) groups barbell velocity was lower in the sticking region of the BP action, compared with beginners, however there were no significant differences between groups for vertical displacement (p = 0.122-1.000) and lifting time (p = 0.052-1.000). These findings suggest that greater relative strength improves the capacity to perform the eccentric but not the concentric phase of BP. Enhanced barbell lowering indicates that the sticking region is caused by a high demand for eccentric force production during biomechanically disadvantageous conditions.

Effects of one long vs. two short resistance training sessions on training volume and affective responses in resistance-trained women.

The aim of this study was to compare the acute effects of performing a lower body resistance training program in one long or two shorter sessions in 1 day on training volume and affective measures. Employing a randomized-crossover design, 23 resistance-trained women (22 ± 2 years, 166 ± 6 cm, and 66.4 ± 7.5 kg) performed two training days consisting of (i) one long (46 min) or (ii) two short sessions (total of 43 min) separated by 3.5-5 h. Each training day was separated by 4-6 days and consisted of three sets to failure for six exercises. Training volume (number of repetitions lifted) were recorded during the sessions. Rating of perceived exertion for effort (RPE), rating of perceived exertion for discomfort (RPD), session displeasure/pleasure (sPDF) and exercise enjoyment (EES) were measured 10 min after each session. Participants also completed a readiness to train questionnaire (7 questions), 24 h after each session, and which training protocol they preferred, 48 h after the last session. The long session led to higher RPE (+1 point, p < 0.001, ES = 1.07), RPD (+1 point, p = 0.043, ES = 0.53) and sPDF (p = 0.010, ES = 0.59) compared to the short sessions. There was no difference in EES (p = 0.118, ES = 0.33). The short sessions had 3% higher training volume than the long session (p = 0.002, ES = 0.42). There were no differences in perceived readiness to train 24 h after the sessions (range: p = 0.166-0.856 and ES = 0.08-0.32). Twenty-two participants preferred the long session, while one preferred the short sessions. In conclusion, performing a longer, lower body, resistance training session led to greater perceptions of effort, discomfort and session pleasure than splitting the same program into two shorter sessions among resistance-trained women. However, two shorter sessions led to a greater training volume.

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.

Differences in Upper-Body Peak Force and Rate of Force Development in Male Intermediate, Advanced, and Elite Sport Climbers.

The aim of this study was to investigate the difference in climbing-specific strength and rate of force development (RFD) between intermediate, advanced, and elite male sport climbers. Seventy-eight male climbers were recruited and divided into groups based on the International Rock Climbing Research Association (IRCRA) numerical (1-32) grading system (intermediate (10-17) group (IG; n = 28)), advanced (18-23) group (AG; n = 30) and elite (24-27) group (EG; n = 20). Peak force (F peak) and average force (F avg) were measured while performing an isometric pull-up on a 23 mm thick campus rung. RFD was calculated from the onset of force to maximal peak force. The elite group performed better in all test parameters than the advanced (F peak: 39.7%, ES = 1.40, p < 0.001; F avg: 45.6%, ES = 4.60, p < 0.001; RFD: 74.9%, ES = 1.42, p = 0.001) and intermediate group (F peak: 95.7%, ES = 2.54, p < 0.001, F avg: 131.1%, ES = 5.84, p < 0.001, RFD: 154.4%, ES = 2.21, p = 0.001). Moreover, the advanced group demonstrated greater F peak (40.1%, ES = 1.24, p < 0.001), F avg (59.1%, ES = 1.57, p < 0.001) and RFD (45.5%, ES = 1.42, p = 0.046), than the intermediate group. Finally, climbing performance displayed strong correlations with F peak (r = 0.73, p < 0.001) and F avg (r = 0.77, p < 0.001), and a moderate correlation with RFD (r = 0.64, p < 0.001). In conclusion, maximal force and RFD in a climbing specific test are greater among climbers on higher performance levels. Independent of climbing level there is a moderate-to-strong association between maximal and rapid force production and climbing performance.

The Acute Effects of Attaching Chains to the Barbell on Kinematics and Muscle Activation in Bench Press in Resistance-Trained Men.

The aim of the study was to investigate the acute effects of attaching chains on barbell kinematics and muscle activation in the bench press. Twelve resistance-trained men (height: 1.79 ± 0.05 m, weight: 84.3 ± 13.5 kg, one repetition maximum (1-RM) bench press of 105 ± 17.1 kg) lifted three repetitions of bench press in three conditions: (1) conventional bench press at 85% of 1-RM and bench press with chains that were (2) top-matched and (3) bottom-matched with the resistance from the conventional resistance lift. Barbell kinematics and the muscle activity of eight muscles were measured at different heights during lowering and lifting in the three conditions of the bench press. The main findings were that barbell kinematics were altered using the chains, especially the 85% bottom-matched condition that resulted in lower peak velocities and longer lifting times compared with the conventional 85% condition (p ≤ 0.043). However, muscle activity was mainly only affected during the lowering phase. Based upon the findings, it was concluded that using chains during the bench press alters barbell kinematics, especially when the resistance is matched in the bottom position. Furthermore, muscle activation was only altered during the lowering phase when adding chains to the barbell.

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.

A randomized trial on the efficacy of split-body versus full-body resistance training in non-resistance trained women.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of a 12-week upper/lower split- versus a full-body resistance training program on maximal strength, muscle mass and explosive characteristics. Fifty resistance untrained women were pair-matched according to baseline strength and randomized to either a full-body (FB) routine that trained all of the major muscle groups in one session twice per week, or a split-body program (SPLIT) that performed 4 weekly sessions (2 upper body and 2 lower body). Both groups performed the same exercises and weekly number of sets and repetitions. Each exercise was performed with three sets and 8-12 repetition maximum (RM) loading. Study outcomes included maximal strength, muscle mass, jump height and maximal power output. RESULTS: No between-group differences were found in any of the variables. However, both FB and SPLIT increased mean 1-RM from pre- to post-test in the bench press by 25.5% versus 30.0%, lat pulldown by 27.2% versus 26.0% and leg press by 29.2% versus 28.3%, respectively. Moreover, both FB and SPLIT increased jump height by 12.5% versus 12.5%, upper-body power by 20.3% versus 16.7% and muscle mass by 1.9% versus 1.7%, p < 0.01, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study did not show any benefits for split-body resistance-training program compared to full-body resistance training program on measures of maximal- and explosive muscle strength, and muscle mass. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN81548172, registered 15. February 2022.

Muscle Strength Is Associated With Physical Function in Community-Dwelling Older Adults Receiving Home Care. A Cross-Sectional Study.

Background: Higher maximal- and explosive strength is associated with better physical function among older adults. Although the relationship between isometric maximal strength and physical function has been examined, few studies have included measures of isometric rate of force development (RFD) as a measure of explosive strength. Furthermore, little is known about the oldest old (>80 years), especially individuals who receive home care and use mobility devices. Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine the association between maximal- and explosive muscle strength with physical function in community-dwelling older adults receiving home care. Methods: An exploratory cross-sectional analysis including 107 (63 females and 43 males) community-dwelling older adults [median age 86 (interquartile range 80-90) years] receiving home care was conducted. Physical function was measured with five times sit-to-stand (5TSTS), timed 8-feet-up-and-go (TUG-8ft), preferred-, and maximal gait speed. Maximal strength was assessed as maximal isometric voluntary contraction (MVC) and explosive strength as RFD of the knee extensors. We used linear regression to examine the associations, with physical function as dependent variables and muscle strength (MVC and RFD) as independent variables. Results: MVC was significantly associated with 5TSST [standardized regression coefficient ß = -0.26 95% CI (-0.45, -0.06)], TUG-8ft [-0.6 (-0.54, -0.17)], preferred gait speed [0.39 (0.22, 0.57)], and maximal gait speed [0.45 (0.27, 0.62)]. RFD was significantly associated with 5TSST [-0.35 (-0.54, -0.17)], TUG-8ft [-0.43 (-0.60, -0.27)], preferred gait speed [0.40 (0.22, 0.57)], and maximal gait speed [0.48 (0.31, 0.66)]. Conclusions: Higher maximal- and explosive muscle strength was associated with better physical function in older adults receiving home care. Thus, maintaining and/or improving muscle strength is important for perseverance of physical function into old age and should be a priority.

Tests and Procedures for Measuring Endurance, Strength, and Power in Climbing-A Mini-Review.

The interest in climbing is rapidly growing among professional and recreational athletes and will for the first time be included in the 2021 Tokyo Olympics. The sport has also gained increased scientific attention in the past decades. Still, recommendations for testing procedures to predict climbing performance and measure training effects are limited. Therefore, the aim of this mini-review is to provide an overview of the climbing-specific tests, procedures and outcomes used to examine climbing performance. The available literature presents a variety of tests and procedures. While the reliability of some tests has been examined, measures of validity are scarce, especially for climbing-specific endurance tests. Moreover, considering the possible combinations of climbing performance levels, disciplines, and tests, substantial gaps in the literature exist. Vague descriptions of the participants in many studies (e.g., not specifying preferred discipline, performance level, experience, and regular climbing and training volume) further limit the current knowledge and challenge comparisons across studies. Regarding contraction types, dynamic strength- and power-tests are underrepresented in the literature compared to isometric tests. Studies exploring and reporting the validity and reliability of climbing-specific tests are warranted, and researchers should strive to provide a detailed description of the study populations in future research.

The effects of assisted and resisted plyometric training on jump height and sprint performance among physically active females.

The aim of the present study was to compare the effects of assisted and resisted plyometric jump training on jump height, sprint performance (acceleration (0-20m), maximum speed (30-40m) and 40m sprint time) among physically active females. Fifty-six participants (age: 21.1 ± 1.7 years; body mass: 64.2 ± 7.0 kg; height: 168.0 ± 5.6 cm) were randomly allocated to either an assisted (n = 16) or resisted training group (n = 17), or a control group (n = 14). Nine participants dropped out during the intervention. The training sessions consisted of three different plyometric jump exercises over an eight-week period, while the control group continued their normal training routine. The results revealed a significant between-group difference in jump height and maximal speed. The resisted training group achieved a significantly greater improvement in jump height compared to the active control group (p = .04, ES=1.06), and a significantly greater improvement in maximal speed (p = .02, ES = 0.93) when compared to the assisted training group. No other group differences were observed for jump height, acceleration or in maximal speed (p = .31-.53). The resisted training group improved jump height (p = .01, ES = 0.62) and maximum speed (p = .03, ES = 0.48) from pre- to post-test, while the control group improved maximal speed (p = .04, ES = 0.37) and acceleration (p = .01, ES = 0.68). All three groups improved their 40m sprint time from pre- to post-test (p = .01-.04, ES = 0.38-0.45). In conclusion, resisted plyometric training was more effective than assisted plyometric training for improving the maximal speed and more effective than the active control condition for increasing jump height.

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.

Pain Neuroscience Education Combined with Therapeutic Exercises Provides Added Benefit in the Treatment of Chronic Neck Pain.

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.