These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Mechanical Characteristics of Heavy vs. Light Load Ballistic Resistance Training in Older Adults.
    Author: Rodriguez-Lopez C, Alcazar J, Sánchez-Martín C, Ara I, Csapo R, Alegre LM.
    Journal: J Strength Cond Res; 2022 Aug 01; 36(8):2094-2101. PubMed ID: 32947572.
    Abstract:
    Rodriguez-Lopez, C, Alcazar, J, Sánchez-Martín, C, Ara, I, Csapo, R, and Alegre, LM. Mechanical characteristics in heavy vs. light load ballistic resistance training in older adults. J Strength Cond Res 36(8): 2094-2101, 2022-Although power-oriented resistance training (RT) is strongly recommended to counter age-related neuromuscular function declines, there is still controversy about which intensities of load should be used to elicit optimal training adaptations. Knowledge of the mechanical characteristics of power-oriented RT performed at different intensities might help to better understand the training stimulus that triggers load-dependent adaptations in older adults. Using a cross-over design, 15 well-functioning older volunteers (9 men and 6 women; 73.6 ± 3.8 years) completed 2 volume × load-matched ballistic RT sessions with heavy (HL: 6 × 6 × 80% 1-repetition maximum [1RM]) and light-load (LL: 6 × 12 × 40% 1RM) on a horizontal leg press exercise. Electromyographic (EMG) and mechanical variables (work, force, velocity, and power) as well as intraset neuromuscular fatigue (i.e., relative losses in force, velocity, and power) were analyzed. More concentric mechanical work was performed in the LL training session, compared with HL (36.2 ± 11.2%; p < 0.001). Despite the higher mean EMG activity of the quadriceps femoris muscle (13.2 ± 21.1%; p = 0.038) and greater concentric force (35.2 ± 7.6%; p < 0.001) during HL, higher concentric velocity (41.0 ± 12.7%, p < 0.001) and a trend toward higher concentric power (7.2 ± 18.9%, p = 0.075) were found for LL. Relative velocity losses were similar in both sessions (≈10%); however, relative force losses were only found in LL (7.4 ± 6.5%, p = 0.003). Considering the greater mechanical work performed and concentric power generated, ballistic RT using LL may, therefore, represent a stronger stimulus driving training adaptations as compared with volume × load-matched heavy-load training. Relative losses in force and power should be monitored in addition to velocity losses during ballistic RT.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]