Browsing Sport and Exercise Sciences by Authors
Aging and Recovery After Resistance-Exercise-Induced Muscle Damage: Current Evidence and Implications for Future ResearchFernandes, John F. T.; Lamb, Kevin L; Norris, Jonathan P; Moran, Jason; Drury, Benjamin; Borges, Nattai; Twist, Craig; University of Chester; Hartpury University; University of Essex; The University of Newcastle (Australia); Derbyshire County Cricket ClubAging is anecdotally associated with a prolonged recovery from resistance training, though current literature remains equivocal. This brief review considers the effects of resistance training on indirect markers of muscle damage and recovery (i.e., muscle soreness, blood markers, and muscle strength) in older males. With no date restrictions, four databases were searched for articles relating to aging, muscle damage, and recovery. Data from 11 studies were extracted for review. Of these, four reported worse symptoms in older compared with younger populations, while two have observed the opposite, and the remaining studies (n = 6) proposed no differences between age groups. It appears that resistance training can be practiced in older populations without concern for impaired recovery. To improve current knowledge, researchers are urged to utilize more ecologically valid muscle-damaging bouts and investigate the mechanisms which underpin the recovery of muscle soreness and strength after exercise in older populations.
A comparison of the FitroDyne and GymAware rotary encoders for quantifying peak and mean velocity during traditional multi-jointed exercisesFernandes, John; Lamb, Kevin L.; Clark, Cain; Moran, Jason; Drury, Ben; Garcia-Ramos, Amador; Twist, Craig; University of Chester & Hartpury University (Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, 2018-11-05)The FitroDyne and GymAware rotary encoders are being increasingly used in resistance training to monitor movement velocity, but how closely their velocity outcomes agree is unknown. Consequently, this study aimed to determine the level of agreement between the FitroDyne and GymAware for the assessment of movement velocity in three resistance training exercises. Fifteen males performed three repetitions of bench press, back squat and bent-over-row exercises at 10% one repetition maximum increments (from 20 to 80%). For each repetition, the FitroDyne and GymAware recorded peak and mean barbell velocity (cm.s-1). Though strongly correlated (r = 0.79 to 1.00), peak velocity values for the GymAware were significantly lower than the FitroDyne for all exercises and loads. Importantly, the random errors between the devices, quantified via Bland and Altman's 95% limits of agreement, were unacceptable, ranging from ± 3.8 to 25.9 cm.s-1. Differences in mean velocity were smaller (and non-significant for most comparisons) and highly correlated (r = 0.86 to 1.00) between devices. Notwithstanding smaller random errors than for the peak values, mean values still reflected poor agreement (random errors between ± 2.1 to 12.0 cm.s-1). These findings suggest that the FitroDyne and GymAware cannot record peak or mean velocity with acceptable agreement, and should neither be employed interchangeably nor their data compared.