Options
Dr. Ulloa-Díaz, David
Research Outputs
Efecto de la manipulación de las variables que configuran el estímulo del entrenamiento de fuerza sobre los síntomas motores en personas con enfermedad de Parkinson: una revisión sistemática
2025, Andrades-Ramírez, Oscar Andrés, Dr. Ulloa-Díaz, David, García-Ramos, Amador, Martínez-García, Darío, Muñoz-Bustos, Gustavo Alejandro, Chirosa-Ríos, Luis Javier
Introducción: La enfermedad de Parkinson (EP) es una enfermedad neurodegenerativa multisistémica que afecta al sistema nervioso central. Las personas con enfermedad de Parkinson (PEP) tienen síntomas tanto motores como no motores. El ejercicio físico es una de las intervenciones no farmacológicas más prometedoras para complementar el tratamiento médico en la PEP. Objetivo: Realizar una revisión sistemática para analizar el efecto del entrenamiento de fuerza (EF) muscular sobre los síntomas motores y describir cómo se manipularon las variables que configuran el EF en estudios realizados con PEP. Métodos: Se realizó una revisión sistemática de la literatura de acuerdo con las pautas del Manual Cochrane para Revisiones Sistemáticas. Los estudios se identificaron mediante búsquedas en cuatro bases de datos electrónicas: Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed y EBSCOhost. La calidad metodológica de los artículos seleccionados se evaluó mediante la lista de verificación de la escala PEDro. Los estudios incluidos obtuvieron una puntuación a≥ 6. La investigación fue registrada en Revisiones Sistemáticas (INPLASY). Número de registro: INPLASY2022110079. Resultados: La búsqueda preliminar arrojó 2830 estudios. Se consideraron veinte artículos, después de revisar el resumen y el texto completo. Siete estudios fueron rechazados por no registrar algunas de las variables de entrenamiento de fuerza requeridas y tres fueron rechazados por utilizar entrenamiento suplementario al entrenamiento de fuerza. Un total de diez estudios cumplieron los criterios de inclusión. Los programas de entrenamiento de fuerza se implementaron 2 - 3 veces por semana, con intensidades entre 30 % - 90 % 1RM, un volumen de entrenamiento de 1 - 3 series y 4 - 20 repeticiones, sesiones de entre 35 - 90 minutos con mejoras significativas en el temblor en reposo, medidas de la marcha, bradicinesia y equilibrio. Conclusiones: Independientemente de cómo se configuró el estímulo del EF, existen mejoras significativas de los síntomas motores en la PEP. Estos resultados promueven la implementación del entrenamiento de fuerza en PEP, pero, debido al bajo número de estudios (10) y la alta variabilidad en la manipulación de las variables que configuran el estímulo del entrenamiento de fuerza, es difícil saber cuál es la prescripción óptima para mejorar los síntomas motores de la PEP.
Assessment of the load-velocity profile in the free-weight prone bench pull exercise through different velocity variables and regression models
2019, García-Ramos, Amador, Dr. Ulloa-Díaz, David, Barboza González, Paola, Rodríguez Perea, Ángela, Martínez García, Darío, Quidel Catrilelbún, Mauricio, Guede Rojas, Francisco, Dr. Cuevas-Aburto, Jesualdo, Janicijevic, Danica, Weakley, Jonathon
This aims of this study were (I) to determine the velocity variable and regression model which best fit the load-velocity relationship during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise, (II) to compare the reliability of the velocity attained at each percentage of the one-repetition maximum (1RM) between different velocity variables and regression models, and (III) to compare the within- and between-subject variability of the velocity attained at each %1RM. Eighteen men (14 rowers and four weightlifters) performed an incremental test during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise in two different sessions. General and individual load-velocity relationships were modelled through three velocity variables (mean velocity [MV], mean propulsive velocity [MPV] and peak velocity [PV]) and two regression models (linear and second-order polynomial). The main findings revealed that (I) the general (Pearson’s correlation coefficient [r] range = 0.964–0.973) and individual (median r = 0.986 for MV, 0.989 for MPV, and 0.984 for PV) load-velocity relationships were highly linear, (II) the reliability of the velocity attained at each %1RM did not meaningfully differ between the velocity variables (coefficient of variation [CV] range = 2.55–7.61% for MV, 2.84–7.72% for MPV and 3.50–6.03% for PV) neither between the regression models (CV range = 2.55–7.72% and 2.73–5.25% for the linear and polynomial regressions, respectively), and (III) the within-subject variability of the velocity attained at each %1RM was lower than the between-subject variability for the light-moderate loads. No meaningful differences between the within- and between-subject CVs were observed for the MV of the 1RM trial (6.02% vs. 6.60%; CV ratio = 1.10), while the within-subject CV was lower for PV (6.36% vs. 7.56%; CV ratio = 1.19). These results suggest that the individual load-MV relationship should be determined with a linear regression model to obtain the most accurate prescription of the relative load during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise.
Reliability of throwing velocity during non-specific and specific handball throwing tests
2021, Dr. Cuevas-Aburto, Jesualdo, Dr. Ulloa-Díaz, David, García-Ramos, Amador, Chirosa-Rios, Luis, Martínez-García, Dario, Andrades-Ramírez, Oscar, Martinez-Martin, Isidoro
Throwing velocity is one of the most important factors for scoring goals in handball. This study aimed to identify the type of throw and procedure for selecting the final test outcome that provide throwing velocity with the greatest reliability. Fifteen experienced handball players and 33 non-experienced participants were tested in two sessions. Each session consisted of 4 trials of 3 different throwing tests (unspecific, 7-meters, and 3-steps). The maximum value of 4 trials, average value of 4 trials, and average value of the 3 best trials were considered. Throwing velocity was highly reliable (coefficient of variation [CV]≤3.3%, intraclass correlation coefficient≥0.89) with the exception of the unspecific throw for the non-experienced group (CV≥5.9%, intraclass correlation coefficient≤0.56). The 3-steps throw (CV=1.7%) was more reliable than the 7-meters throw (CV=2.1%) (CVratio=1.19) and unspecific throw (CV = 3.8%) (CVratio=2.18), the 3 procedures provided a comparable reliability (CV range=2.4−2.6%; CVratio≤1.07), and the experienced group (CV=1.0%) presented a higher reliability than the non-experienced group (CV=4.0%) (CVratio=3.83). These results support the 3-steps throw to maximise the reliability of throwing velocity performance.
The addition of very light loads into the routine testing of the bench press increases the reliability of the force–velocity relationship
2018, Dr. Cuevas-Aburto, Jesualdo, Dr. Ulloa-Díaz, David, Barboza González, Paola, Chirosa Ríos, Luis Javier, García-Ramos, Amador
Background: The aim of this study was to examine whether the addition of very light loads for modeling the force–velocity (F–V) relationship during the bench press (BP) exercise can confirm its experimental linearity as well as to increase the reliability and concurrent validity of the F–V relationship parameters (maximum force (F0), maximum velocity (V0), F–V slope, and maximum power (Pmax)). Method: The F–V relationship of 19 healthy men were determined using three different methods: (I) 6-loads free method: six loads performed during the traditional free-weight BP exercise (≈ 1–8–29–39–49–59 kg), (II) 4-loads free method: four loads performed during the traditional free-weight BP exercise (≈ 29–39–49–59 kg), and (III) 4-loads Smith method: four loads performed during the ballistic bench press throw exercise in a Smith machine (≈ 29–39–49–59 kg). Results: The linearity of the F–V relationship was very high and comparable for the three F–V methods (p = 0.204; median Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) = 0.99). The three methods were ranked from the most to the least reliable as follows: 6-loads free (coefficient of variation (CV) range = 3.6–6.7%) > 4-loads Smith (CV range = 4.6–12.4%) > 4-loads free (CV range = 3.8–14.5%). The higher reliability of the 6-loads free method was especially pronounced for F–V slope (CVratio ≥ 1.85) and V0 (CVratio ≥ 1.49) parameters, while the lowest difference in reliability was observed for F0 (CVratio ≤ 1.27). The 6-loads free and 4-loads free methods showed a very high concurrent validity respect to the 4-loads Smith method for F0 and Pmax (r ≥ 0.89), a moderate validity for the F–V slope (r = 0.66–0.82), and a low validity for V0 (r ≤ 0.37). Discussion: The routine testing of the F–V relationship of upper-body muscles through the BP exercise should include trials with very light loading conditions to enhance the reliability of the F–V relationship.
Reliability and validity of different methods of estimating the one-repetition maximum during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise
2019, García-Ramos, Amador, Barboza González, Paola, Dr. Ulloa-Díaz, David, Rodriguez Perea, Angela, Martinez Garcia, Darío, Guede Rojas, Francisco, Hinojosa Riveros, Hans, Chirosa Ríos, Luis Javier, Dr. Cuevas-Aburto, Jesualdo, Janicijevic, Danica, Weakley, Jonathon
This study examined the reliability and validity of three methods of estimating the one-repetition maximum (1RM) during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise. Twenty-six men (22 rowers and four weightlifters) performed an incremental loading test until reaching their 1RM, followed by a set of repetitions-to-failure. Eighteen participants were re-tested to conduct the reliability analysis. The 1RM was estimated through the lifts-to-failure equations proposed by Lombardi and O'Connor, general load-velocity (L-V) relationships proposed by Sánchez-Medina and Loturco and the individual L-V relationships modelled using four (multiple-point method) or only two loads (two-point method). The direct method provided the highest reliability (coefficient of variation [CV] = 2.45% and intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.97), followed by the Lombardi's equation (CV = 3.44% and ICC = 0.94), and no meaningful differences were observed between the remaining methods (CV range = 4.95-6.89% and ICC range = 0.81-0.91). The lifts-to-failure equations overestimated the 1RM (3.43-4.08%), the general L-V relationship proposed by Sánchez-Medina underestimated the 1RM (-3.77%), and no significant differences were observed for the remaining prediction methods (-0.40-0.86%). The individual L-V relationship could be recommended as the most accurate method for predicting the 1RM during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise.