Smartphone and Tablet Software Apps to Collect Data in Sport and Exercise Settings: Cross-sectional International Survey.

BACKGROUND: Advances in smartphone technology have facilitated an increase in the number of commercially available smartphone and tablet apps that enable the collection of physiological and biomechanical variables typically monitored in sport and exercise settings. Currently, it is not fully understood whether individuals collect data using mobile devices and tablets, independent of additional hardware, in their practice. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to explore the use of smartphone and tablet software apps to collect data by individuals working in various sport and exercise settings, such as sports coaching, strength and conditioning, and personal training. METHODS: A total of 335 practitioners completed an electronic questionnaire that surveyed their current training practices, with a focus on 2 areas: type of data collection and perceptions of reliability and validity regarding app use. An 18-item questionnaire, using a 5-point Likert scale, evaluated the perception of app use. RESULTS: A total of 204 respondents reported using apps to directly collect data, with most of them (196/335, 58.5%) collecting biomechanical data, and 41.2% (138/335) respondents reported using at least one evidence-based app. A binomial general linear model determined that evidence accessibility (ß=.35, 95% CI 0.04-0.67; P=.03) was significantly related to evidence-based app use. Age (ß=-.03, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.00; P=.03) had a significant negative effect on evidence-based app use. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that practitioners show a greater preference for using smartphones and tablet devices to collect biomechanical data such as sprint velocity and jump performance variables. When it is easier to access information on the quality of apps, practitioners are more likely to use evidence-based apps. App developers should seek independent research to validate their apps. In addition, app developers should seek to provide clear signposting to the scientific support of their software in alternative ways.

Upper body rate of force development and maximal strength discriminates performance levels in sport climbing.

The aim of this study was to assess and compare the maximal force and rate of force development (RFD) between intermediate, advanced and elite climbers using several different methods for calculating RFD. Fifty-seven male climbers (17 intermediate, 25 advanced, and 15 elite) performed isometric pull-ups on a climbing-specific hold while the RFD was calculated using several absolute (50, 100, 150, 200, and 250 ms from onset of force) and relative time periods (25, 50, 75, 95, and 100% of time to peak force). The maximal force was higher among elite climbers compared to advanced (ES = 1.78, p < 0.001) and intermediate climbers (ES = 1.77, p < 0.001), while no difference was observed between intermediate and advanced climbers (P = 0.898). The elite group also showed higher RFD than the other two groups at all relative time periods (ES = 1.02-1.58, p < 0.001-0.002), whereas the absolute time periods only revealed differences between the elite vs. the other groups at 50, 100 and 150 ms from the onset of force (ES = 0.72-0.84, p = 0.032-0.040). No differences in RFD were observed between the intermediate and advanced groups at any time period (p = 0.942-1.000). Maximal force and RFD, especially calculated using the longer periods of the force curve, may be used to distinguish elite climbers from advanced and intermediate climbers. The authors suggest using relative rather than absolute time periods when analyzing the RFD of climbers.

Letter to the Editor-Changes in Muscle Pattern Activity during the Asymmetric Flat Bench Press.

In June 2020, the paper "Changes in Muscle Pattern Activity during the Asymmetric Flat Bench Press" was published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health [...].

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.

Muscle activity in asymmetric bench press among resistance-trained individuals.

PURPOSE: To determine the effects of asymmetric loads on muscle activity with the bench press. METHOD: Seventeen resistance-trained men performed one familiarization session including testing one repetition maximum (1RM) and three 5 repetition maximum (RM) lifts; using symmetric loads, 5% asymmetric loads, and 10% asymmetric loads. The asymmetric loading (i.e., reduced load on one side) was calculated as 5% and 10% of the subject`s 1RM load. In the experimental session, the three conditions of 5RM were conducted with electromyographic activity from the pectoralis major, triceps brachii, biceps brachii, anterior deltoid, posterior deltoid, and external oblique on both sides of the body. RESULTS: On the loaded side, asymmetric loads reduced triceps brachii activation compared to symmetric loads, whereas the other muscles demonstrated similar muscle activity between the three conditions. On the de-loaded side, 10% asymmetry in loading resulted in lower pectoralis major, anterior deltoid, and biceps brachii activation compared to 5% asymmetric and symmetric loading. On the de-loaded side, only pectoralis major demonstrated lower muscle activation than symmetric loads. Furthermore, asymmetric loads increased external oblique activation on both sides compared to symmetric loads. CONCLUSIONS: Asymmetric bench press loads reduced chest and shoulder muscle activity on the de-loaded side while maintaining the muscle activity for the loaded side. The authors recommend resistance-trained participants struggling with strength imbalances between sides, or activities require asymmetric force generation (i.e., alpine skiing or martial arts), to implement asymmetric training as a supplement to the traditional resistance training.

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.