Dr. Cuevas-Aburto, Jesualdo

Background: This study aimed to compare the effect of two upper-body resistance training programs (strength-oriented vs. ballistic) on bench press (BP) performance and handball throwing velocity (HTV). Methods: Thirty resistance-trained males were randomly assigned to a strength-oriented training group (STG) or a ballistic training group (BTG). The study consisted of 11 sessions: 2 pre-tests (week 1), 8 training sessions (weeks 2-5), and 1 post-test (week 6). The STG performed the BP at the 70-90% of the one-repetition maximum (1RM), and the BTG the BP throw at the 40% of 1RM. BP performance (BP 1RM and maximum velocity achieved against 20 kg [BP20]) and HTV were assessed before and after training. Results: The STG enhanced BP 1RM (effect size [ES]=0.24) but not BP20 (ES=0.21) or HTV (ES=0.10). The BTG enhanced BP20 (ES=0.63) but not BP1RM (ES=0.27) or HTV (ES=0.02). HTV was not significantly correlated with the BP 1RM (r≤0.181) or BP20 (r≤0.220). Conclusions: These results indicate that a short-term RT program based exclusively on the BP exercise performed against either heavy (strength-oriented) or light loads (ballistic) is not effective to increase HTV in resistance-trained men with little handball experience.

This study aimed to compare the acute effect of traditional (TR), cluster (CL), and rest redistribution (RR) set configurations on neuromuscular and perceptual measures of fatigue. Thirty-one resistance-trained men randomly performed a Control session and 3 experimental sessions consisting of the squat (SQ) and bench press (BP) exercises performed against the 10 repetition maximum load using TR (3 sets of 6 repetitions; 3 minutes of interset rest), CL (3 sets of 6 repetitions; 30 seconds of intraset rest every 2 repetitions; 3 minutes of interset rest), and RR (9 sets of 2 repetitions; 45 seconds of interset rest) set configurations. A significant effect of “set configuration” (p = 0.002) was observed for barbell velocity. The average velocity of the training session was lower for TR compared with CL (% difference = 5.09% in SQ and 5.68% in BP) and RR (% difference = 5.92% in SQ and 2.71% in BP). The 3 set configurations induced comparable decrements in countermovement jump height (% difference from −6.0% to −8.1%) and throwing velocity (% difference from −0.6% to −1.2%). Ratings of perceived exertion (RPE-10) values collected after the sets were higher for TR (SQ: 6.9 ± 0.7 a.u.; BP: 6.8 ± 0.8 a.u.) compared with CL (SQ: 6.2 ± 0.8 a.u.; BP: 6.4 ± 0.7 a.u.) and RR (SQ: 6.2 ± 0.8 a.u.; BP: 6.6 ± 0.9 a.u.), while the session RPE did not differ between the set configurations (p = 0.595). CL and RR set configurations allow for higher velocities and lower RPE values during resistance training sessions not performed to failure in comparison with a TR set configuration.