The countermovement jump (CMJ) is one of the most used performance assessments in strength and conditioning. Although numerous studies discuss the usability of different metrics in this test, this is often performed within the context of a specific aim. However, to our knowledge, no information currently exists providing practitioners with some over-arching recommendations on which metrics to choose when the purpose of using the test differs. This article discusses how the metrics selected to monitor during CMJ testing may differ when aiming to use it as a proxy for athletic performance, as part of neuromuscular fatigue monitoring, or as part of a test battery for return to performance in injured athletes.

This article provides the first academic history of the barbell back squat and its evolution from a bodyweight exercise in the 19th century to a loaded exercise used for a variety of purposes in the present age. In doing so, the article highlights three key drivers in the evolution of the back squat—changes in equipment, the diversification of strength sports, and scientific communication concerning the safety and efficacy of the movement. The goal of this article was not to provide a dry and irrelevant history but rather to stress the complexity of the squat’s prominence within fitness programs and the need to hold a nuanced view toward the “optimal” way to approach this movement. It examines how the movement evolved from being primarily done on the tips of one’s toes, to a loaded movement on tippy toes, to a flat-footed movement. By contextualizing the back squat’s history, this article challenges rigid notions of “correct” squatting technique and encourages a more nuanced understanding of exercise selection in strength and conditioning practice. It concludes by highlighting the importance of critically examining the social construction of knowledge in fitness and sport, and the value of historical perspective in informing contemporary training practices

Taurine is a well-known free amino acid that has gained prominence in recent years despite its little or no role in protein formation. Few studies on the ergogenic effect of taurine exist with inconsistent results. The answer to the question of whether performance markers demonstrate the benefit of taurine remains unclear. This study aimed to reach a consensus about whether taurine supplementation is effective on aerobic (time to exhaustion [TTE], maximal oxygen uptake [V̇O2max], and rating of perceived exertion) and anaerobic (power outputs, fatigue index, jumping, and blood lactate level) performance outputs. Google Scholar, PubMed databases, clinical trial websites, and gray literature were reviewed until November 2021. Mean differences (MDs) were pooled using random or fixed-effects models according to the heterogeneity degree of the related output. Although 18 studies were detected for the meta-analysis between 2001 and 2021, 16 studies were grouped. Only randomized controlled trials (single or double-blind) were considered. Taurine supplementation had a significant effect on vertical (MD 5 3.60; 95% confidence interval [CI] [2.32 to 4.89], p , 0.00001) and countermovement (MD 5 8.50; 95% CI [4.78 to 12.22], p , 0.00001) jump performance when compared with a placebo group. Taurine supplementation had no significant effect on the V̇O2max level and rate of perceived exertion (respectively, MD 5 20.54 mL/kg/min; 95% CI [26.84 to 5.75], p 5 0.87; MD 5 20.24; 95% CI [20.74 to 0.27], p 5 0.35) when compared with a placebo group. Overall, it looks to be effective for jumping performance and TTE. Taurine supplementation may be useful for people who want to improve these performance outputs.

The use of exercise interventions to maximize athletes’ performance is a common practice in competitions. This systematic review aimed to compile research that explored the effectiveness of priming strategies to maximize physical performance in track and field. The literature search was conducted from PubMed and Scopus. One hundred eighty-two studies were assessed against the inclusion criteria: (a) minimum 1-year participation/competition experience; (b) randomized controlled trials with pre-post intervention outcomes; and (c) studies involving exercise interventions applied #6 hours before outcome measures were collected. Fifteen studies satisfied the criteria and were categorized according to the exercise interventions used (i.e., resistance training, plyometric/ ballistic training, resisted sprints, and modified warm-ups). Heavy-loaded resistance training (i.e., .85% 1 repetition maximum) and resisted sprints increased subsequent sprint performance. Plyometrics/ballistic training also positively impacted subsequent jumping (i.e., long jump) and throwing performance (i.e., shot put). Modified warm-ups (i.e., high-intensity sprints and heavier throwing implements) also improved subsequent running and throwing performance. Overall, exercise interventions performed at high intensity and low volume augment subsequent physical performance as close to 4 minutes before the event. However, a sufficient recovery interval must be considered for a positive performance response.

The NSCA automatically records many of your CEUs, but also offer convenient online CEU reporting through your My Account page. Read on for more information on how to report your CEUs and stay on top of recording your continuning education achievements.

Resistance training (RT) is a nonpharmacological complement to cancer treatments due to its effectiveness in attenuating sarcopenia, cardiotoxicity, fatigue, and emotional disorders common in oncology patients. To adequately program and evaluate the acute or long-term effects of this type of training, a proper evaluation of the patients’ strength levels is necessary. Strength evaluations traditionally applied to this population required reaching muscle or technical failure, which could increase their discomfort levels, risk of injury, or other complications associated with the disease. In this regard, this manuscript described different dynamic and isometric evaluations recommended to accurately and safely evaluate the strength of the oncology population. Concerning dynamic evaluations, the velocity based method is recommended to determine the capacity of the patient to apply force against maximal (i.e., 1 repetition maximum) and submaximal loads. The sit-to-stand or vertical jump tests are also proposed as alternatives to evaluate dynamic strength using body weight. For isometric assessments, the knee extension and handgrip tests could complement dynamic evaluations or replace them for patients with very low strength levels. Besides describing in depth the aforementioned evaluations, the current review proposes important methodological aspects to ensure their accurate, reliable, and safe implementation.

Access free continuing education opportunities as an NSCA member.

Click on a link below to access a reference copy of the associated quiz.