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.

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to synthesize the literature and provide a robust estimate of the correlations between lower-body, multijoint, isometric and dynamic neuromuscular assessment variables and snatch (SN) and clean and jerk (C&J) performance in competitive weightlifters. A comprehensive search through 3 electronic databases (PubMed, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science) returned 12 studies that met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analyses were performed on Pearson’s correlations between SN and C&J performance and 15 variables from 5 neuromuscular assessments— countermovement jump (CMJ), squat jump (SJ), isometric midthigh pull (IMTP), back squat (BS), and front squat (FS) one repetition maximum (1RM). The FS and BS 1RM exhibited nearly perfect correlations (r 5 0.93 to 0.94), whereas the IMTP peak force exhibited very large correlations (r 5 0.83 to 0.85). The IMTP force at 250 ms exhibited very large correlations (r 5 0.77 to 0.78), and the CMJ and SJ peak power exhibited very large to nearly perfect correlations (r 5 0.88 to 0.92). These findings illustrate the importance of lower-body maximal and time-limited force-producing capabilities in weightlifters. Moreover, each assessment offers at least one variable that exhibits a correlation of .0.70. Therefore, these assessments may be used to gauge weightlifting performance potential.

Interlimb asymmetries have been recently investigated in athletic populations. However, the effects of training interventions on interlimb asymmetries have been scarcely examined. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine the effects of training interventions on changes in interlimb asymmetries from pre- to post-training. Furthermore, to examine the effects of training programs on intervention groups compared with control groups. A database search was completed (MEDLINE, CINAHL, and SPORTDiscus). Eight studies were then included in the meta-analysis. Results showed small reductions in interlimb asymmetries in single-leg broad jump (SLBJ) and change of direction (COD) speed from pre- to post-training interventions, whereas moderate effects were found in single-leg countermovement jump (SLCMJ) and SL lateral jump. When comparing the training interventions with the control groups, results showed small effects in favor of the training groups for reducing interlimb asymmetries in SLBJ and large effects in SLCMJ and COD speed. Thus, training interventions can evoke small to moderate reductions in interlimb asymmetries from pre- to post-training programs. Strength training performed unilaterally or bilaterally may elicit these reductions. Furthermore, training interventions showed larger effects compared with the control groups in reducing interlimb asymmetries. However, further research is needed.

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.

Unite with our strength and conditioning community at the 2026 NSCA National Conference in New Orleans. Learn hands-on, apply new science, + earn up to 3.0 CEUs

This is the NSCA’s Coaching Podcast, where strength and conditioning coaches share their experience, lessons learned, and advice about how to thrive in a highly competitive profession.

Congratulations to the NSCA's 2022 winners! This page is updated as new award winners are named throughout the year.

The NSCA has twelve committees, each of which was established by the Board of Directors to meet the needs of the NSCA. Learn more about how our committees serve Certification, Conferences, Leadership, Inclusion, Fellowship, and Training (L.I.F.T), Education, Finance, Membership, Nominations, Research, State/Provincial Directors, and Women. Applications for committees are accepted from October 1 to December 15 each year.