Here are more reasons why award-winning Certified Strength and Conditioning Coach Scott Sahli is happy when kids are involved in multiple sports programs and supervised by certified strength coaches.

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.

The primary aim of this study was to systematically compare the effectiveness of blood flow restriction training (BFR) versus traditional resistance training (TRT) to improve muscle size in healthy adults. Secondary outcomes were improvements in muscle strength and endurance. We performed a systematic searchwithmeta-analysis. Using predetermined criteria, 541 unique articles were identified through databases and bibliographies. After screening titles, abstracts, and full texts, 20 articles were included in the review. All 20 articles evaluated muscle hypertrophy, 19 evaluated strength, and 1 evaluated endurance in response to BFR and TRT. Data from 10 articles were included in the meta-analysis. In the qualitative analysis, TRT and BFR increased muscle size without differences between conditions for at least 1 hypertrophy outcome in 13 studies, and TRT or BFR differentially improved hypertrophy in 5 studies. TRT and BFR increased strength without differences between conditions for at least 1 outcome in 15 studies, and TRT or BFR differentially improved strength in 9 studies. Results from the meta-analysis indicate no differences in muscle size (ES 5 0.045, 95% CI [20.278 to 0.367]) or strength (ES520.149, 95% CI [20.439 to 0.141]) improvements with BFR versus TRT. Practitioners can implement BFR training to increase muscle size and strength as appropriate, especially for training periods of 8 weeks or longer.

Joint Statement from NSCA and CSCCa to NCAA on Behalf of Division 1 Strength and Conditioning Coaches

Colorado Springs, CO — National Strength and Conditioning Association recognizes several professionals for their outstanding achievement at the National Conference in Washington D.C.

The Strength and Conditioning Journal is the professional journal for strength coaches, personal trainers, physical therapists, athletic trainers, and other health professionals working in the strength and conditioning field. The journal's mission is to publish articles that report both the practical applications of research findings and the knowledge gained by experienced professionals.

The NSCA is proud to name 30 new strength and conditioning coaches who have obtained the prestigious Registered Strength and Conditioning Coach® Emeritus (RSCC*E) designation in 2022, growing this exclusive group to a total of 213 coaches.