Muscular Strength and Power in 3- to 7-Year-Old Children

2015 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 345-354 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew C. Fry ◽  
Carol C. Irwin ◽  
Justin X. Nicoll ◽  
David E. Ferebee
Keyword(s):  
Sex Differences ◽  
Body Mass ◽  
Muscular Strength ◽  
Bench Press ◽  
Mean Power ◽  
Mean Velocity ◽  
Adult Weight ◽  
Stage Of Development ◽  
Resistance Exercises ◽  
Body Resistance

To determine absolute and relative (adjusted for body mass) strength, mean power, and mean velocity for upper and lower body resistance exercises, forty-seven young boys and girls participated in maximal strength testing. Healthy young boys and girls, ages 3- to 7-years old, were tested for one-repetition maximum (1-RM) strength, and 70% of 1-RM to determine mean power and mean velocity on the chest press and leg press exercises. Adult weight machines were modified to accommodate the smaller size and lower strength levels of the children. A 2 × 4 (sex × age) ANOVA was used to determine age and sex differences in performance. No interaction or sex differences were observed for any variable at any age. 1-RM strength, mean power, and mean velocity significantly increased across ages (p ≤ .05). When adjusted for body mass, the changes were insignificant, with one exception. Relative mean power for the bench press increased with age. Data indicated children from 3-7 years of age are capable of performing strength and power tests, but may require more attempts at maximal loads compared with adults. It appears that muscular strength and velocity during this stage of development are primarily dependent on increasing body mass, whereas power is influenced by additional variable(s).

scholarly journals Enhancement of Countermovement Jump Performance Using a Heavy Load with Velocity-Loss Repetition Control in Female Volleyball Players

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (21) ◽  
pp. 11530
Author(s):  
Michal Krzysztofik ◽  
Rafal Kalinowski ◽  
Robert Trybulski ◽  
Aleksandra Filip-Stachnik ◽  
Petr Stastny
Keyword(s):  
Body Mass ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Performance Enhancement ◽  
Countermovement Jump ◽  
Mean Power ◽  
Mean Velocity ◽  
Heavy Load ◽  
Jump Performance ◽  
Volleyball Players ◽  
Post Hoc

Although velocity control in resistance training is widely studied, its utilization in eliciting post-activation performance enhancement (PAPE) responses receives little attention. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of heavy-loaded barbell squats (BS) with velocity loss control conditioning activity (CA) on PAPE in subsequent countermovement jump (CMJ) performance. Sixteen resistance-trained female volleyball players participated in this study (age: 24 ± 5 yrs.; body mass: 63.5 ± 5.2 kg; height: 170 ± 6 cm; relative BS one-repetition maximum (1RM): 1.45 ± 0.19 kg/body mass). Each participant performed two different conditions: a set of the BS at 80% 1 RM with repetitions performed until a mean velocity loss of 10% as the CA or a control condition without CA (CNTRL). To assess changes in jump height (JH) and relative mean power output (MP), the CMJ was performed 5 min before and throughout the 10 min after the CA. The two-way analysis of variance with repeated measures showed a significant main effect of condition (p = 0.008; η2 = 0.387) and time (p < 0.0001; η2 = 0.257) for JH. The post hoc test showed a significant decrease in the 10th min in comparison to the value from baseline (p < 0.006) for the CNTRL condition. For the MP, a significant interaction (p = 0.045; η2 = 0.138) was found. The post hoc test showed a significant decrease in the 10th min in comparison to the values from baseline (p < 0.006) for the CNTRL condition. No significant differences were found between all of the time points and the baseline value for the CA condition. The CA used in the current study fails to enhance subsequent countermovement jump performance in female volleyball players. However, the individual analysis showed that 9 out of the 16 participants (56%) responded positively to the applied CA, suggesting that the PAPE effect may be individually dependent and should be carefully verified before implementation in a training program.

Prediction of the Maximum Number of Repetitions and Repetitions in Reserve From Barbell Velocity

2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 353-359 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amador García-Ramos ◽  
Alejandro Torrejón ◽  
Belén Feriche ◽  
Antonio J. Morales-Artacho ◽  
Alejandro Pérez-Castilla ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Body Mass ◽  
General Equation ◽  
Bench Press ◽  
Body Height ◽  
Strong Relationship ◽  
Training Set ◽  
Mean Velocity ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Acceptable Reliability

Purpose: To provide 2 general equations to estimate the maximum possible number of repetitions (XRM) from the mean velocity (MV) of the barbell and the MV associated with a given number of repetitions in reserve, as well as to determine the between-sessions reliability of the MV associated with each XRM. Methods: After determination of the bench-press 1-repetition maximum (1RM; 1.15 ± 0.21 kg/kg body mass), 21 men (age 23.0 ± 2.7 y, body mass 72.7 ± 8.3 kg, body height 1.77 ± 0.07 m) completed 4 sets of as many repetitions as possible against relative loads of 60%1RM, 70%1RM, 80%1RM, and 90%1RM over 2 separate sessions. The different loads were tested in a randomized order with 10 min of rest between them. All repetitions were performed at the maximum intended velocity. Results: Both the general equation to predict the XRM from the fastest MV of the set (CV = 15.8–18.5%) and the general equation to predict MV associated with a given number of repetitions in reserve (CV = 14.6–28.8%) failed to provide data with acceptable between-subjects variability. However, a strong relationship (median r2 = .984) and acceptable reliability (CV < 10% and ICC > .85) were observed between the fastest MV of the set and the XRM when considering individual data. Conclusions: These results indicate that generalized group equations are not acceptable methods for estimating the XRM–MV relationship or the number of repetitions in reserve. When attempting to estimate the XRM–MV relationship, one must use individualized relationships to objectively estimate the exact number of repetitions that can be performed in a training set.

The Influence of Body Mass on Calculation of Power During Lower-Body Resistance Exercises

2007 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 1042 ◽  
Author(s):  
Prue Cormie ◽  
Jeffrey M. McBride ◽  
Grant O. McCaulley
Keyword(s):  
Body Mass ◽  
Lower Body ◽  
Resistance Exercises ◽  
Body Resistance

Analysis of Factors That Influence the Maximum Number of Repetitions in Two Upper-Body Resistance Exercises: Curl Biceps and Bench Press

2010 ◽  
Vol 24 (6) ◽  
pp. 1566-1572 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eliseo Iglesias ◽  
Daniel A Boullosa ◽  
Xurxo Dopico ◽  
Eduardo Carballeira
Keyword(s):  
Bench Press ◽  
Upper Body ◽  
Resistance Exercises ◽  
Body Resistance

THE INFLUENCE OF BODY MASS ON CALCULATION OF POWER DURING LOWER-BODY RESISTANCE EXERCISES

2007 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 1042-1049 ◽  
Author(s):  
PRUE CORMIE ◽  
JEFFREY M. MCBRIDE ◽  
GRANT O. McCAULLEY
Keyword(s):  
Body Mass ◽  
Lower Body ◽  
Resistance Exercises ◽  
Body Resistance

Power– and velocity–load relationships to improve resistance exercise performance

2018 ◽  
Vol 232 (4) ◽  
pp. 349-359 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manuel V Garnacho-Castaño ◽  
Arturo Muñoz-González ◽  
María A Garnacho-Castaño ◽  
José L Maté-Muñoz
Keyword(s):  
Power Output ◽  
Peak Power ◽  
Bench Press ◽  
Peak Velocity ◽  
Peak Power Output ◽  
Mean Power ◽  
Mean Velocity ◽  
Maximal Power Output ◽  
Power Load ◽  
The Military

Knowledge of the power– and velocity–load relationships is a key factor to guide loads during resistance training and optimize sports performance. This study compares mean velocity–, peak velocity– and power–load relationships, and determines the load which elicits maximal power output in the military press and bench press. Fifty-seven healthy, active men were randomly assigned to a bench press (n = 28) or military press (n = 29) group. In separate test sessions, concentric-only or eccentric-concentric sequences of each exercise were performed in random order as incremental isoinertial load tests. Both mean velocity and peak velocity were highly related with the load lifted (% 1RM) in both bench press and military press (mean velocity: R2 = 0.94 and 0.95; peak velocity: R2 = 0.93 and 0.93, respectively). The loads maximizing mean power and peak power output were similar for the eccentric-concentric versus concentric sequences in bench press and military press. The loads maximizing mean power and peak power were between 54% and 57.5% 1RM for the bench press and 59.8%–63.1% 1RM for the military press. For the bench press, no significant differences were observed in mean power from 30% to 80% 1RM and peak power from 30% to 95% 1RM. For the military press, no significant differences were observed in mean power from 40% to 80% 1RM and peak power from 30% to 90%/95% 1RM. The close relationship detected between mean velocity or peak velocity and load means that the % 1RM can be estimated according to mean velocity and peak velocity. In both exercises, a broad range of relative intensities could be used at which power output is not significantly different than that at maximized power output (mean = 30%/40%–80% 1RM; peak = 30%–90%/95%). Mean velocity lower than approximately 0.33 m s−1 for bench press and 0.4 m s−1 for military press, as well as peak velocity lower than approximately 0.4 m s−1 for bench press and 0.5 m s−1 for military press do not optimize power output responses. The eccentric action was a determining factor for increasing power output only in bench press.

scholarly journals Muscle Mass and Training Status Do Not Affect the Maximum Number of Repetitions in Different Upper-Body Resistance Exercises

2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 81-86
Author(s):  
Rodrigo Ferrari ◽  
Gabriela Kothe ◽  
Martim Bottaro ◽  
Eduardo Lusa Cadore ◽  
Luiz Fernando Martins Kruel
Keyword(s):  
Muscle Mass ◽  
Bench Press ◽  
Elbow Flexion ◽  
Upper Body ◽  
Movement Velocity ◽  
Free Weight ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Resistance Exercises ◽  
Body Resistance ◽  
The Relationship

Background: Data investigating the factors that influence the relationship between different percentages of one repetition maximum (1RM) and the maximum number of repetitions (RM’s) performed are scarce when the movement velocity of each repetition is controlled during the RM’s test. Objective: To evaluate the RM’s performed at 60, 75, and 90% of 1RM in 4 different upper-body free weight exercises: bench press, barbell triceps extension, unilateral dumbbell elbow flexion, unilateral bent knee dumbbell row. Method: Thirty participants, 15 trained (T) and 15 untrained (UT) men, volunteered to participate in this study and attended six separate occasions, each separated by at least 48 h. In the first three sessions, familiarization and 1RM tests were evaluated. The last three sessions were designed to assess the performance of the RM’s at 60%, 75%, and 90% 1RM. The exercise order and intensities performed in each session were randomized. Muscle action velocity for each repetition was controlled by an electronic metronome. Results: There was no significant difference between T and UT in any of the exercises at a given exercise intensity. Moreover, there was no significant difference in the number of repetitions performed when exercises with different muscle mass (i.e., bench press vs. triceps extension, and dumbbell row vs. elbow flexion) at different intensities (i.e., 60%, 75%, and 90%) were compared. Conclusion: Using the same percentage of 1RM, the participants performed a similar number of repetitions in the four free weight upper-body exercises evaluated.

scholarly journals An analysis of the perceived causes leading to task-failure in resistance-exercises

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aviv Emanuel ◽  
Itzhak Rozen Smukas ◽  
Israel Halperin
Keyword(s):  
Logistic Regression ◽  
Muscular Strength ◽  
Bench Press ◽  
Limiting Factors ◽  
Trained Subjects ◽  
Repetition Maximum ◽  
Task Failure ◽  
Reaching Task ◽  
Resistance Exercises ◽  
Cardiovascular Strain

Background: While reaching task-failure in resistance-exercises is a topic that attracts scientific and applied interest, the underlying reasons leading to task-failure remain underexplored. Here, we examined the reasons subjects attribute to task-failure as they performed resistance-exercises using different loads.Methods: First, twenty-two resistance-trained subjects (11-females) completed one Repetition-Maximum (RM) tests in the barbell squat and bench-press. In the next two sessions, subjects performed two sets to task-failure in both exercises, using either 70% or 83% of 1RM. Immediately after set-completion, subjects verbally reported the reasons they perceived to cause task-failure. Their answers were recorded, transcribed, and thematically analyzed. The differences between the frequencies of the identified categories were then tested using a mixed logistic regression model.Results: The most commonly reported reason was muscle fatigue (54%, p&lt;.001), mostly of the target muscles involved in each exercise. However, remote muscles involved to a lesser extent in each exercise were also reported. Approximately half of the remaining reasons included general fatigue (26%), pain (12%), cardiovascular strain (11%), and negative affect (10%), with the latter reported more often in the squat (p=.022).Conclusions: In contrast to our expectations, task-failure was perceived to be caused by a range of limiting factors other than fatigue of the target muscles. It now remains to be established whether different perceived limiting factors of resistance-exercises lead to different adaptations, such as muscular strength and hypertrophy.

scholarly journals An analysis of the perceived causes leading to task-failure in resistance-exercises

PeerJ ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. e9611
Author(s):  
Aviv Emanuel ◽  
Isaac Isur Rozen Smukas ◽  
Israel Halperin
Keyword(s):  
Muscular Strength ◽  
Logistic Regression Model ◽  
Bench Press ◽  
Limiting Factors ◽  
Trained Subjects ◽  
Task Failure ◽  
Reaching Task ◽  
Resistance Exercises ◽  
Perceived Reasons ◽  
Cardiovascular Strain

Background While reaching task-failure in resistance-exercises is a topic that attracts scientific and applied interest, the underlying perceived reasons leading to task-failure remain underexplored. Here, we examined the reasons subjects attribute to task-failure as they performed resistance-exercises using different loads. Methods Twenty-two resistance-trained subjects (11-females) completed one Repetition-Maximum (RM) tests in the barbell squat and bench-press. Then, in the next two counterbalanced sessions, subjects performed two sets to task-failure in both exercises, using either 70% or 83% of 1RM. Approximately 30 seconds after set-completion, subjects verbally reported the reasons they perceived to have caused them to reach task-failure. Their answers were recorded, transcribed, and thematically analyzed. The differences between the frequencies of the identified categories were then tested using a mixed logistic regression model. Results The most commonly reported reason was muscle fatigue (54%, p < 0.001), mostly of the target muscles involved in each exercise. However, remote muscles involved to a lesser extent in each exercise were also reported. Approximately half of the remaining reasons included general fatigue (26%), pain (12%), cardiovascular strain (11%), and negative affect (10%), with the latter three reported more often in the squat (p = 0.022). Conclusions In contrast to our expectations, task-failure was perceived to be caused by a range of limiting factors other than fatigue of the target muscles. It now remains to be establishedwhether different perceived limiting factors of resistance-exercises lead to different adaptations, such as muscular strength and hypertrophy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document