Healthy body

ОФІЦІЙНО. Українець перейшов до іспанського клубу, який колись був топом Орест Лебеденко продовжить кар'єру у «Депортіво» ⋆ Футбол на Sport.ua

Extended reality is an umbrella term used to describe three computer-generated technologies including virtual reality, augmented reality and mixed reality. Extended reality is an emerging technology that has been utilised in many high-performance domains including psychology, medicine and the military, with the aim of enhancing perceptual-cognitive skills and motor skills. However, the use of extended reality in sport, particularly at the elite level, has only recently started to receive attention. While the growth of extended reality technology continues to accelerate at a rapid rate, empirical evidence aimed at understanding how these devices can best be applied in high-performance sport has not followed suit. Therefore, the purpose of this review is to provide clarity for high-performance sport organisations, researchers, sport scientists, coaches and athletes about the current state of extended reality technology and how it has been utilised in sport. In doing so, we first define and give examples of the types of extended reality technology including virtual reality, augmented reality and mixed reality that are available at the present time. Second, we detail how skill acquisition principles underpinned by the theoretical framework of ecological dynamics can be used to help inform the design and assessment of extended reality training tools. Third, we describe how extended reality has been utilised in sport, including how extended reality tools have been assessed for their level of representativeness, and the effectiveness of extended reality training interventions for improving perceptual-cognitive skills and motor skills. Finally, we discuss the future utilisation of extended reality in sport, including the key learnings that can be drawn from other domains, future research directions, practical applications and areas for consideration related to the use of extended reality for training skills in sport.

Resistance training variables such as volume, load, and frequency are well defined. However, the variable proximity to failure does not have a consistent quantification method, despite being defined as the number of repetitions in reserve (RIR) upon completion of a resistance training set. Further, there is between-study variability in the definition of failure itself. Studies have defined failure as momentary (inability to complete the concentric phase despite maximal effort), volitional (self-termination), or have provided no working definition. Methods to quantify proximity to failure include percentage-based prescription, repetition maximum zone training, velocity loss, and self-reported RIR; each with positives and negatives. Specifically, applying percentage-based prescriptions across a group may lead to a wide range of per-set RIR owing to interindividual differences in repetitions performed at specific percentages of 1 repetition maximum. Velocity loss is an objective method; however, the relationship between velocity loss and RIR varies set-to-set, across loading ranges, and between exercises. Self-reported RIR is inherently individualized; however, its subjectivity can lead to inaccuracy. Further, many studies, regardless of quantification method, do not report RIR. Consequently, it is difficult to make specific recommendations for per-set proximity to failure to maximize hypertrophy and strength. Therefore, this review aims to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the current proximity to failure quantification methods. Further, we propose future directions for researchers and practitioners to quantify proximity to failure, including implementation of absolute velocity stops using individual average concentric velocity/RIR relationships. Finally, we provide guidance for reporting self-reported RIR regardless of the quantification method.

Another interesting finding was that running seemed to exacerbate the interference effect in type I fibers compared with cycling. This could be attributed to the different nature of running compared to cycling, as running is associated with repetitive eccentric loading and stretch–shortening activities, whereas cycling provokes a higher emphasis on concentric work and a longer time under tension. This may, in turn, be associated with greater inflammatory stress induced by running as compared with cycling [47], possibly increasing redox and metabolic stress that may blunt the responsiveness to strength exercise. A direct comparison of muscle hypertrophy induced by aerobic training confirms that cycling can indeed elicit increased muscle size, whereas the effect of running is negligible [48, 49]. However, in the present meta-analysis, the effects of running were based on only three studies. Although caution should be exercised when interpreting these findings, it can be recommended that athletes and fitness enthusiasts seeking to increase muscle mass should consider cycling rather than running as an aerobic training modality.