Effects of rest interval during high-repetition resistance training on strength, aerobic fitness, and repeated-sprint ability

The effect of altering the rest period on adaptations to high-repetition resistance training is not well known. Eighteen active females were matched according to leg strength and repeated-sprint ability and randomly allocated to one of two groups. One group performed resistance training with 20-s rest intervals between sets, while the other group employed 80-s rest intervals between sets. Both groups performed the same total training volume and load. Each group trained 3 days a week for 5 weeks [15- to 20-repetition maximum (RM), 2 - 5 sets]. Repeated-sprint ability (5x6-s maximal cycle sprints), 3-RM leg press strength, and anthropometry were determined before and after each training programme. There was a greater improvement in repeated-sprint ability after training with 20-s rest intervals (12.5%) than after training with 80-s rest intervals (5.4%) (P = 0.030). In contrast, there were greater improvements in strength after training with 80-s rest intervals (45.9%) than after training with 20-s rest intervals (19.6%) (P = 0.010). There were no changes in anthropometry for either group following training. These results suggest that when training volume and load are matched, despite a smaller increase in strength, 5 weeks of training with short rest periods results in greater improvements in repeated-sprint ability than the same training with long rest periods.     

Helsen, Gilis and Weston (2006) err in testing the optical error hypothesis

In this commentary, we react to the recent study by Helsen, Gilis and Weston (2006) on judging offside in football. Helsen et al. claim that their data falsify the optical error hypothesis presented by Oudejans et al. (2000). However, as we will elucidate here, they misinterpret this hypothesis and present a data set that is seriously flawed, and hence not suited to test it. Therefore, their conclusions regarding the optical error hypothesis are in error.     

Validation of an integrated experimental set-up for kinetic and kinematic three-dimensional analyses in a training environment

Biomechanical analyses using synchronized tools [electromyography (EMG), motion capture, force sensors, force platform, and digital camera] are classically performed in a laboratory environment that could influence the performance. We present a system for studying the running sprint start that synchronizes motion capture, EMG, and ground reaction force data. To maximize motion capture (Vicon 612 with six cameras), a special dim environment was created in the stadium. "Classical" tools were combined with "purpose-built" tools intended to analyse the different aspects of movement. For example, a synchronization system was built to create a common time-base for all data recordings and a portable EMG system was synchronized by a cable that was "disconnected" by the athlete's movement out of the blocks. This disconnection represented an independent event recorded by different tools. A "gap" was measured for some sprint start events between kinetic and kinematic (motion capture) data. Calibration results, measurements of time "gap", and duration of the independent event were used to validate the accuracy of motion capture and the synchronization system. The results validate the entire experimental set-up and suggest adjustment values for motion capture data. This environment can be used to study other movements and can easily be applied to several sports.