Luis Sánchez-Medina’s research while affiliated with Government of Virginia and other places

For more than a century, many concepts and several theories and principles pertaining to the goals, organization, methodology and evaluation of the effects of resistance training (RT) have been developed and discussed between coaches and scientists. This cumulative body of knowledge and practices has contributed substantially to the evolution of RT methodology. However, a detailed and rigorous examination of the existing literature reveals many inconsistencies that, unless resolved, could seriously hinder further progress in our field. The purpose of this review is to constructively expose, analyze and discuss a set of anomalies present in the current RT methodology, including: (a) the often inappropriate and misleading terminology used, (b) the need to clarify the aims of RT, (c) the very concept of maximal strength, (d) the control and monitoring of the resistance exercise dose, (e) the existing programming models and (f) the evaluation of training effects. A thorough and unbiased examination of these deficiencies could well lead to the adoption of a revised paradigm for RT. This new paradigm must guarantee a precise knowledge of the loads being applied, the effort they involve and their effects. To the best of our knowledge, currently this can only be achieved by monitoring repetition velocity during training. The main contribution of a velocity-based RT approach is that it provides the necessary information to know the actual training loads that induce a specific effect in each athlete. The correct adoption of this revised paradigm will provide coaches and strength and conditioning professionals with accurate and objective information concerning the applied load (relative load, level of effort and training effect). This knowledge is essential to make rational and informed decisions and to improve the training methodology itself.

This report aims to generate an evidence-based debate of the Critical Power (CP), or its analogous Critical Speed (CS), concept. Race times of top Spanish runners were utilized to calculate CS based on three (1500-m to 5000-m; CS1.5-5km ) and four (1500-m to 10000-m; CS1.5-10km ) distance performances. Male running world records from 1000 to 5000-m (CS1-5km ), 1000 to 10000-m (CS1-10km ), 1000-m to half marathon (CS1km-half marathon ), and 1000-m to marathon (CS1km-marathon ) distance races were also utilized for CS calculations. CS1.5-5km (19.62 km·h-1 ) and CS1.5-10km (18.68 km·h-1 ) were different (P<0.01), but both approached the average race speed of the longest distance chosen in the model, and were remarkably homogeneous among subjects (97±1% and 98±1%, respectively). Similar results were obtained using the world records. CS values progressively declined, until reaching a CS1km-marathon value of 20.77 km·h-1 (10% lower than CS1-5km ). Each CS value approached the average speed of the longest distance chosen in the model (96.4-99.8%). A power function better fitted the speed-time relationship compared to the standardized hyperbolic function. However, the horizontal asymptote of a power function is zero. This better approaches the classical definition of CP: the power output that can be maintained almost indefinitely without exhaustion. Beyond any sophisticated mathematical calculation, CS corresponds to 95-99% of the average speed of the longest distance chosen as an exercise trial. CP could be considered a mathematical artifact rather than an important endurance performance marker. In such a case, the consideration of CP as a physiological "gold-standard" should be re-evaluated.

This study aimed to compare the effects of three resistance training (RT) programs differing in the magnitude of velocity loss (VL) allowed in each exercise set: 10%, 30% or 45% on changes in strength, vertical jump, sprint performance and EMG variables. Thirty‐three young men were randomly assigned into three experimental groups (VL10%, VL30% and VL45%; n=11 each) that performed a velocity‐based RT program for 8 weeks using only the full‐squat exercise (SQ). Training load (55‐70% 1RM), frequency (2 sessions/week), number of sets (3) and inter‐set recovery (4 min) were identical for all groups. Running sprint (20 m), countermovement jump (CMJ), 1RM, muscle endurance and EMG during SQ were assessed pre‐ and post‐training. All groups showed significantly (VL10%: 6.4‐58.6%; VL30%: 4.5‐66.2%; VL45%: 1.8‐52.1%; p<0.05‐0.001) improvements in muscle strength and muscle endurance. However, a significant group×time interaction (p<0.05) was observed in CMJ, with VL10% showing greater increments (11.9%) than VL30% and VL45%. In addition, VL10% resulted in greater percent change in sprint performance than the other two groups (VL10%: ‐2.4%; VL30%: ‐1.8%; VL45%: ‐0.5%). No significant changes in EMG variables were observed for any group. RT with loads of 55‐70% 1RM characterized by a low velocity loss (VL10%) provides a very effective and efficient training stimulus since it yields similar strength gains and greater improvements in sports‐related neuromuscular performance (jump and sprint) compared to training with higher velocity losses (VL30%, VL45%). These findings indicate that the magnitude of VL reached in each exercise set considerably influences the observed training adaptations.

This study aimed to compare the load-velocity and load-power relationships of three common variations of the squat exercise. 52 strength-trained males performed a progressive loading test up to the one-repetition maximum (1RM) in the full (F-SQ), parallel (P-SQ) and half (H-SQ) squat, conducted in random order on separate days. Bar velocity and vertical force were measured by means of a linear velocity transducer time-synchronized with a force platform. The relative load that maximized power output (Pmax) was analyzed using three outcome measures: mean concentric (MP), mean propulsive (MPP) and peak power (PP), while also including or excluding body mass in force calculations. 1RM was significantly different between exercises. Load-velocity and load-power relationships were significantly different between the F-SQ, P-SQ and H-SQ variations. Close relationships (R² = 0.92–0.96) between load (%1RM) and bar velocity were found and they were specific for each squat variation, with faster velocities the greater the squat depth. Unlike the F-SQ and P-SQ, no sticking region was observed for the H-SQ when lifting high loads. The Pmax corresponded to a broad load range and was greatly influenced by how force output is calculated (including or excluding body mass) as well as the exact outcome variable used (MP, MPP, PP).

Pareja-Blanco, F, Rodríguez-Rosell, D, Aagaard, P, Sánchez-Medina, L, Ribas-Serna, J, Mora-Custodio, R, Otero-Esquina, C, Yáñez-García, JM, and González-Badillo, JJ. Time course of recovery from resistance exercise with different set configurations. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2018-This study analyzed the response to 10 resistance exercise protocols differing in the number of repetitions performed in each set (R) with respect to the maximum predicted number (P). Ten males performed 10 protocols (R(P): 6(12), 12(12), 5(10), 10(10), 4(8), 8(8), 3(6), 6(6), 2(4), and 4(4)). Three sets with 5-minute interset rests were performed in each protocol in bench press and squat. Mechanical muscle function (countermovement jump height and velocity against a 1 m·s load, V1-load) and biochemical plasma profile (testosterone, cortisol, growth hormone, prolactin, IGF-1, and creatine kinase) were assessed at several time points from 24-hour pre-exercise to 48-hour post-exercise. Protocols to failure, especially those in which the number of repetitions performed was high, resulted in larger reductions in mechanical muscle function, which remained reduced up to 48-hour post-exercise. Protocols to failure also showed greater increments in plasma growth hormone, IGF-1, prolactin, and creatine kinase concentrations. In conclusion, resistance exercise to failure resulted in greater fatigue accumulation and slower rates of neuromuscular recovery, as well as higher hormonal responses and greater muscle damage, especially when the maximal number of repetitions in the set was high.