Next Article in Journal
The “Socialized Architecture”: A Software Engineering Approach for a New Cloud
Next Article in Special Issue
Common Issues and Differences in Motivational Support and the Effects of Rugby for the U-15 and U-16 National Teams
Previous Article in Journal
Case Study of Using the Geothermal Potential of Mine Water for Central District Heating—The Rožná Deposit, Czech Republic
Previous Article in Special Issue
Physical Illiteracy and Obesity Barrier: How Physical Education Can Overpass Potential Adverse Effects? A Narrative Review
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 4
10.3390/su14042017
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Paralympic Powerlifting as a Sustainable Way to Improve Strength in Athletes with Spinal Cord Injury and Other Disabilities

by
Felipe J. Aidar
1,2,3,4,
Stefania Cataldi
5,
Georgian Badicu
6,
Ana Filipa Silva
7,8,
Filipe Manuel Clemente
7,8,9,
Francesca Latino
5,
Gianpiero Greco
5,* and
Francesco Fischetti
5
1
Graduate Program of Physical Education, Federal University of Sergipe (UFS), São Cristovão 49100-000, Brazil
2
Group of Studies and Research of Performance, Sport, Health and Paralympic Sports (GEPEPS), Federal University of Sergipe (UFS), São Cristovão 49100-000, Brazil
3
Department of Physical Education, Federal University of Sergipe (UFS), São Cristovão 49100-000, Brazil
4
Graduate Program of Physiological Science, Federal University of Sergipe (UFS), São Cristovão 49100-000, Brazil
5
Department of Basic Medical Sciences, Neuroscience and Sense Organs, University of Study of Bari, 70121 Bari, Italy
6
Department of Physical Education and Special Motricity, Faculty of Physical Education and Mountain Sports, Transilvania University of Braşov, 500068 Braşov, Romania
7
Escola Superior Desporto e Lazer, Instituto Politécnico de Viana do Castelo, Rua Escola Industrial e Comercial de Nun’Álvares, 4900-347 Viana do Castelo, Portugal
8
Research Center in Sports Performance, Recreation, Innovation and Technology (SPRINT), 4960-320 Melgaço, Portugal
9
Instituto de Telecomunicações, Delegação da Covilhã, 1049-001 Lisboa, Portugal
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(4), 2017; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su14042017
Submission received: 20 January 2022 / Revised: 31 January 2022 / Accepted: 5 February 2022 / Published: 10 February 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Physical Education, Exercise, and Sport for a Sustainable Environment and Lifestyle)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background: in Paralympic Powerlifting (PP), athletes with a spinal cord injury (SCI) and other disabilities (OD) compete together. However, athletes with SCI are at a disadvantage in terms of force production and transfer. Objective: to analyze the strength and the dynamic and static indicators, at different intensities, tied and untied in athletes with SCI and OD. Methods: the sample presented 10 OD (28.30 ± 4.92 years) and 10 SCI (30.00 ± 4.27 years), classified competitors, and eligible to compete in the sport (all males). Maximum isometric force (MIF); time to MIF (Time); rate of force development (RFD); impulse, variability, and fatigue index (FI); and the dynamic tests of Mean Propulsive Velocity (MPV), Velocity Maximum (Vmax), and Power with loads of 40, 60, and 80% of 1 Repetition Maximum (1 RM), respectively. Results: there were no differences between OD and SCI in dynamic and isometric strength indicators. In MPV, there was an 80% difference between tethered and untethered SCI (p = 0.041). In VMax, there were differences in SCI between tethered and untethered, 40% (p = 0.004) and 80% (p = 0.023), respectively. There were no differences in the other intensities. Conclusion: PP training seems to be a sustainable way to promote strength gains in SCI, since there were no differences between athletes with SCI and OD, as practitioners of Paralympic Powerlifting.

1. Introduction

Spinal cord injury (SCI) affects about 500,000 people worldwide [1], whether of traumatic etiology or not [1,2]. SCI is characterized by physical disability and a decreased quality of life [3]. The most indicated treatments in rehabilitation include physical exercises, among other approaches [1], where exercises and sports practices have been presented as a sustainable practice with favorable impacts on health and general well-being [4]. SCI would have a negative impact on performance, making it difficult to maintain strength, power, and speed, among others. Added to these facts, in SCI, fatigue tends to appear prematurely, due to the physiological interactions of the deficiency [5]. That is, the absence or decrease in autonomic control would be reduced in SCI, with a negative impact on performance and fatigue [6].
In this direction, initially athletes with SCI could be harmed, in terms of strength indicators, due to the difficulty of transferring strength, in the performance of the movement when they are untied, which was not observed by our findings. Thus, SCI could be harmed, being not tied up, in view of the presented hypothesis; that is, the difficulty that SCI would have to maintain the position, which would cause damages to strength, power, speed, and, therefore, to the abilities of the specific neuromotor disorders, which would not occur in other disabilities [5].
Thus, in the Paralympic field, we have Paralympic Powerlifting (PP), which is characterized as a strength sport [7]; people with physical disabilities, especially in the lower limbs [7], are eligible, and its practice is performed through the adapted bench press, with the lower limbs extended over the bench, and athletes can be tied to the bench with bands in order to improve stabilization [7]. The sport has grown worldwide, with improvements in terms of performance [8,9]. However, research has focused on health assessment, injuries, and recovery, among others [10,11,12,13]. In this sense, it has been emphasized that SCI would impair the transfer of force [14], where this would be related to the difficulty in maintaining strength, power, and speed, when compared to other deficiencies [5].
Thus, the hypotheses were raised that SCI would have impaired strength indicators in relation to other deficiencies, and there may be some damage to sports practice [7]. Thus, the objective of this research was to evaluate the mechanical strength indicators, in Attached and Non-Attached conditions, as established by IPC rules [7], in athletes with SCI compared to OD, at different intensities, in relation to performance in Paralympic Powerlifting. Thus, as the IPC allows athletes to be tied to the bench with up to two fixation bands [7], we raised the hypothesis that this could interfere with the stabilization of the athletes; due to this stabilization, the transfer of force to the upper limbs could be potentiated and even athletes with SCI would be harmed without extra stabilization in relation to OD.

2. Materials and Methods

In the first week, the subjects were submitted to a familiarization session, 1 RM test, and definition of the biacromial distance as the base for the different amplitudes. The second and third weeks were destined to the execution of the velocity Maximum (VMax), Mean Propulsive Velocity (MPV), and Power tests on 40%, 60%, and 80% loads of 1 Repetition Maximum (1 RM), as well as Isometric tests with different disabilities, attached and not attached to the bench. Figure 1 exemplifies the experimental design of the study.
For the Attached condition, the athletes were fixed to the bench press with two bands with a width of 10 cm and a length of 3.0 m, used to fix the athletes’ thighs and legs to the bench [7]. It should be noted that the bands cannot be placed on the joints, and they cannot have metallic structures being fixed through Velcro. On the other hand, Not Attached athletes simply placed their upper limbs on the bench without any type of fixation.

2.1. Sample

The sample consisted of 20 male Paralympic Powerlifting athletes, 10 with other disabilities (OD) and 10 with a spinal cord injury (SCI). The participants were classified competitors, eligible to compete in the sport [7], with at least 18 months of experience and training in the sport. Among the deficiencies in the SCI group, nine had a spinal cord injury by accident and one was due to injury caused by the parasite Schistosoma Mansoni in the spinal cord; all were with a spinal cord injury below the eight thoracic vertebrae. In the other disability group (OD), five subjects suffered from amputation, four from artogriposis, and one from lower limb disability due to traumatic brain injury and. Athletes participated in the study voluntarily and signed an informed consent form. The study was developed in accordance with resolution 466/2012 of the National Research Ethics Commission–CONEP, of the National Health Council, in accordance with the ethical principles expressed in Helsinki Declaration (1964, reformulated in 2013), by the World Medical Association. This study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Federal University of Sergipe, CAAE: 2.637.882 (date of approval: 7 May 2018). The sample characterization is shown (Table 1).
The sampling power was calculated a priori using the open-source software G*Power® (Version 3.0; Berlin, Germany), choosing a “F family statistics (ANOVA)” considering a standard α < 0.05, β = 0.80 and the effect size of 1.33 found for the Rate of Force Development (RFD) in Paralympic Powerlifting athletes [9]. Thus, it was possible to estimate a sample power of 0.80 (F (2.0): 4.73) for a minimum sample of eight subjects per group, suggesting that the sample size of the present study has statistical strength to respond to the research approach.
This study followed a static and dynamic force test, we analyzed the effects of two different classifications of disabilities (i.e., OD and SCI) (see Table 1) on the performance of Paralympic Powerlifting athletes at the national level. The study lasted three weeks. The first week aimed at familiarization with the tests of 1 Maximum Repetition (1 RM) and 72 h later with the dynamic and static tests. During week 2, the 1 RM and static tests were performed with a 72 h interval. Records in these sessions included maximum isometric force (MIF), time to MIF (Time), rate of force development (RFD), impulse, variability and fatigue index (FI). Finally, in week 3, the two sessions comprised dynamic tests at 40 and 60% 1 RM and, 72 h later at 80% 1 RM and Isometric tests. In both sessions measurements include mean propulsive velocity (MPV), maximum velocity (Vmax), and power and isometric variables. All tests were performed on different days at the same time (between 9:00 a.m. and noon) at temperatures ranging between 23 °C and 25 °C with a relative humidity of ~60%. All tests were performed on an adapted bench press, in the supine position. The study was carried out at the Federal University of Sergipe. All evaluations were carried out and monitored by an international-level coach, accredited by the Brazilian Paralympic Committee, with a Master’s and a Doctorate degree in Physical Education, plus 10 years of experience in the modality.

2.2. Instruments

The body mass of the athletes was measured with the subjects in a sitting position using an appropriate Michetti digital electronic scale, Model Mic Welchair (Michetti, São Paulo, SP, Brazil). An official 210 cm long straight bench and a 220 cm long 20 kg bar were used herein (Eleiko Sport AB, Halmstad, Sweden); both pieces of equipment were approved by the International Paralympic Committee (IPC) [7].

2.3. Determination of Load

The athletes started the testing with a self-selected load estimated to be the maximal load. Weight was then added until the maximum load was attained. If the participant overestimated the initial load, 2.5% of the load was subtracted before a new attempt [8,9]. A rest of 3 to 5 min was provided between attempts, according to the participants’ perception of recovery [11,12]. The coefficient of variation between the two measures was at least 94%.

2.4. Warm Up

The participants performed a standardized warm-up for the upper limbs, using three exercises (abduction of the shoulders with dumbbells, military press with dumbbells, and medial and lateral rotation of the arm to warm up the rotator cuff with dumbbells). The warm-up was performed for the upper limbs, using three exercises (shoulder abduction with dumbbells, elbow extension on the pulley, and shoulder rotation with dumbbells) with three sets of 10 to 20 repetitions [11]. Afterwards, a specific warm-up was performed on the bench press with a load of 30% of 1 RM, 10 slow repetitions (3:1 s, eccentric:concentric), and 10 fast repetitions (1:1 s, eccentric:concentric) [11], for approximately 15 min.

2.5. Dynamic Evaluation

The athletes were evaluated during the competitive phase of the season and were familiar with the testing procedures due to their constant training and testing routines. To measure the velocity of movement, a valid and reliable linear position transducer [16], Force Measurement System Speed4Lift SL® (Mostoles, Madrid, Spain) was attached to the bar. The MPV and VMax were collected for analysis purposes with loads of 100% 1 RM [9,12,17,18,19].

2.6. Isometric Force Measurements

The measures of muscle strength, Maximum Isometric Force—MIF (N), Time to MIF (μs), RFD (N.s−1), Impulse (N.s), Variability (N), and Fatigue Index—FI (%), were determined by a Chronojump force sensor (Chronojump, BoscoSystem, Barcelona, Spain). The perpendicular distance between the force sensor and the center of the joint was determined and used to calculate joint torques and FI [9,11,12,20]. FIM was measured by the maximum isometric force generated by the muscles of the upper limbs. The MIF, Time, RFD, Impulse, Variability, and FI were calculated, as explained in another study by our group, and were performed with all subjects not tethered to the bench [12,21].
The Maximum Isometric Strength (FIM) was determined by the maximum strength of the upper limbs, and an elbow angle close to 90° was maintained, at a distance of 15 cm from the bar to the chest. Athletes were instructed to make a single maximum movement (as fast as possible). The fatigue index (FI) was determined in the same way as the FIM, where the athletes maintained the maximum contraction for 5.0 s. The FI was calculated by the formula: FI = ((FINAL END—initial END/final END) X100). The RFD was calculated by the force/time ratio (RFD = Δ force/Δ time) [12,21].

2.7. Statistics

Descriptive statistics were performed using measures of central tendency, mean (X) ± Standard Deviation (SD), and 95% confidence interval (95% CI). To verify the normality of the variables, the Shapiro–Wilk test was used. The data for all variables was homogeneous and normally distributed. To compare conditions of exercise (SCI × OD) and conditions (Attached × Not Attached) of measurement, the ANOVA (Two Way) test was performed with Bonferroni’s Post Hoc. To check the effect size, the partial Eta squared (η2p) was used, adopting values of low effect (≤0.05), medium effect (0.05 to 0.25), high effect (0.25 to 0.50), and very high effect (>0.50) [22]. In comparisons between groups (SCI x OD), Student’s t-test was used. For the t-test, an effect size (Cohen’s d) was calculated, adopting values of low effect (≤0.20), medium effect (0.20 to 0.80), high effect (0.80 to 1.20), and very high effect (>1.20) [23,24]. The variation coefficient (CV%) was calculated by the formula: CV% = (standard deviation (SD)/mean) × 100. In addition, we calculated the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), whose magnitudes were determined as [25]: absence: <0; bad: 0–0.19; weak: 0.20–0.39; moderate: 0.30–0.59; substantial: 0.60–0.79; and almost complete: ≥0.80. Statistical analyses were performed using the Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS) version 22.0 software (SPSS, IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). The level of significance was set at p < 0.05.

3. Results

The results found in MPV (m.s−1) (Figure 2), Vmax (m.s−1) (Figure 3) and Power (W) (Figure 4), in subjects SCI and OD are in the percentages of 40% to 90% of 1 RM.
The results found in the static mechanical variables (isometric) (FIM, Time, RFD, Impulse, Variability, FI) of the subjects OD and SCI are shown in Table 2.
The results found in MPV (m/s) (Figure 2), Vmax (m/s) (Figure 3), and Power (W) (Figure 3), in subjects OD and SCI, are in the percentages of 40, 60, and 80% of 1 RM, Attached and Not Attached.
Mean Propulsive Velocity (m/s) measured from 40 %to 80% of 1 RM in OD and SCI. (A) 40% 1 RM, and (B) 60 1 RM, no differences were found. (C) 80% 1 RM indicates difference in SCI between Attached and Not Attached (p = 0.044; F = 5.161; and ɳ2p = 0.364, high effect).
Velocity Maximum (m/s) measured from 40% to 80% of 1 RM in OD and SCI; (A) 40% 1 RM; (B) 60% 1 RM, no differences were found; and (C) 80% 1 RM, indicates difference in SCI between Attached and Not Attached (p = 0.023; F = 8.475; and ɳ2p = 0.485, high effect).
Power (W) measured from 40% to 80% of 1 RM in OD and SCI; (A) 40% 1 RM, (B) 60% 1 RM, and (C) 80% 1 RM, no differences were found.

4. Discussion

The objective of this study was to evaluate dynamic and static indicators of strength, at different intensity levels as well as tethered and untethered, in relation to performance in Paralympic Powerlifting, in athletes with and without SCI. As main results, we obtained: (i) in the dynamic evaluation, the fact that the athletes were tied up or not did not promote differences; (ii) athletes with SCI obtained similar results to athletes without spinal cord injury and even with better numerical results in relation to average propulsive velocity, regardless of being tied up or not; (iii) in terms of speed, athletes with SCI and OD did not show differences between them, with differences in relation to athletes with SCI tied and not tied; (iv) there were no differences between athletes with SCI and OD in terms of power, regardless of whether they were tied up or not, or indifferent to intensity; and (v) there were no differences in static strength indicators when comparing SCI and OD.
The results showed an inverse relationship between speed and load. These findings were already expected and agree with other studies [18,26], while still other studies showed differences in terms of positioning on the bench, arched or flat, and that these could interfere with the speed of execution from the bench press [27]. Thus, performing the bench press in an arched way would allow a more vertical displacement of the bar, providing a better transfer of force [28]. Our findings contradict this hypothesis, and SCI obtained similar results to athletes with other disabilities, demonstrating that the practice of PP can be a sustainable practice that tends to improve the condition of athletes with SCI.
It should be noted that in Paralympic Powerlifting (PP), the lifts are performed with legs extended over the bench, with the athletes being strapped or not. This position, by itself, tends to reduce the transfer of force in the PP [14]. As mentioned, this lack of strength was not observed in our study, emphasizing that the practice of PP could be an indicated practice to sustain this improvement in terms of strength generation in the SCI, where the results indicate that there are no differences in strength indicators, static and dynamic, between SCI and OD, whether or not they are tied. However, our findings, at maximum speed, found differences between whether SCI was tied or not, in loads of 40% and 80% of 1 RM, with no differences in the load of 60% of 1 RM. On the other hand, SCI, whether tied or tied, did not present numerically higher speeds than OD, a fact that was observed in relation to a higher speed in less-trained subjects compared to more-trained ones [17], although there were no significant differences. Still, in the same direction, a study with PP found extremely low execution speed in the adapted bench press [19]. An explanation for this fact would be that PP athletes tend to train with higher loads, which would bring an adaptation in relation to the speed of the bar. Perhaps this is explained by sport-specific adaptations, not mentioned in other studies, in which athletes with lower-limb deficiency tend to produce more strength in the upper limbs [29,30,31], and this should be the subject of more studies; however, there may be a relationship with the greater use of the upper limbs to get around, especially in the use of wheelchairs and of crutches [32].
In PP, athletes usually have lower limb impairment. Thus, the deficiency in the lower limbs would cause a decrease in the systemic response, considering the smaller muscle mass involved in activities with the use of the lower limbs, which would promote a reduced cardiorespiratory response [33]. The same author described that in the cycle ergometer for upper limbs, the maximum power and VO2 peak of subjects without SCI would be lower by 40% and 25%, respectively, when compared to the cycle ergometer performed with lower limbs. In the same direction, the pattern of muscle response in the bench press with loads from 60% to 100% 1 RM, showed differences in muscle activation in the deltoid, triceps, and pectoralis major muscles between athletes with SCI and conventional athletes [29]. From what is expected of subjects with disabilities, when opposing greater loads, this would lead to an increase in muscle activity [30], and these activations would be related to muscle control [31]. On the other hand, a study that evaluated the bench press rather than the flat and arched position showed that there were no differences between the two, regarding the trajectory and average speed of the bar, emphasizing that the increased support with the use of a fixation band, as in the case of the PP, can provide greater stability to the athletes [34]. However, in terms of bar speed and power, our study did not indicate differences notably for OD athletes, with differences for SCI between tethered and untethered: with higher loads the untethered condition presented itself as better, and with smaller loads the tether was better. However, there were no differences between SCI and OD, both for tethered and untethered.
For our results on potency, no differences were found between SCI and OD, nor tethered and untethered conditions. Contrary to this, one study found differences in OD at 90% intensity compared to 60% and 80% of 1 RM; there was no difference in SCI and OD [26]. An explanation for the SCI result would be linked to diaphragmatic fatigue due to training. In the case of SCI, the diaphragm would contract and expand the rib cage during inspiration; now, it would oppose the mechanical forces transmitted by the thorax, still combined with the supine position, as this would tend to influence the respiratory dynamics and make it difficult to express force in SCI [35,36], emphasizing that these aspects were not observed in our findings.
SCI and OD athletes showed no differences in terms of age, 1 RM, technical index (lifted load/body weight), and training time. In this sense, a study that evaluated experienced and beginner athletes did not observe differences in speed between the groups [37].
In the evaluation of isometric strength indicators, no differences were found between SCI and OD, in relation to MIF, Time to MIF, RFD, Impulse, Variability, and FI. Perhaps this is explained by the fact that PP athletes can exert more force against higher loads and, consequently, at lower speeds. This fact would be a specific adaptation of the training [38,39,40]. A similar result was found in another study in which the static variables also tended not to show differences between athletes with SCI and OD, notably in national level athletes [26]. These findings corroborate ours and this would be an adaptation in relation to training aiming at maximum strength, that is, Paralympic Powerlifting [41].
On the other hand, it has been proposed that improvements in the quality of functional movements in athletes would be subject to additional training aimed at improving specific points. However, the results with specific and traditional training showed similar improvements, which corroborates our findings that PP training would have been enough to improve deficiencies of differentiated etiologies, SCI or OD [42].
With regard to physiological aspects, there is evidence that spinal dysfunction has interfered with neuromuscular control. A review of central segmental motor control would interfere with neuromuscular function and how spinal adjustments (high velocity, low amplitude or impulses) and manipulation (impulses) tend to alter neuromuscular function. Spinal adjustments have been shown to tend to increase strength and decrease fatigue, which would occur due to altered supraspinal excitability and multimodal integration. Thus, initially, it has been mentioned that physical injury, pain, inflammation, and acute or chronic physiological or psychological stress can alter spinal central neural motor control [43]. However, once again our findings are contrary, indicating that strength training, of the PP type, can be beneficial for athletes with SCI, when compared to OD.
The present study has some limitations. Among them, we highlight the sample size, where other studies with a greater number of athletes would be important. One limitation was because the study included only male athletes. Another limitation refers to the fact that the analyzes were performed only on the PP bench, which does not allow an extrapolation to other situations, muscle groups or other movements related to activities of daily living. Thus, we suggest that other studies be carried out to evaluate the interference of experience and training time on the variables studied. No covariates that could interfere with the findings were observed. Other surveys could also assess strength related to activities of daily living and other types of disabilities.

5. Conclusions

From the findings, we conclude that PP athletes with SCI present the same strength pattern, or even higher, when compared with OD. Thus, the static and dynamic strength indicators in PP were similar for athletes with SCI and RE. In this sense, it seems that strength training for PP tends to be a sustainable practice allowing the supply and adaptation in terms of strength in athletes with SCI and OD.
In view of the above, the rules issued by the International Paralympic Committee of functional classification, with a single classification for PP, have support in the scientific sphere, where athletes with SCI and OD presented similar strength levels.
Finally, coaches who are going to train athletes with SCI or OD could use the findings as a way of justifying training aimed at PP to promote a similar and sustainable development for athletes with OD and with SCI, where the difficulty of force generation for SCI seems not to be present in PP athletes. On the other hand, even with no differences, athletes with SCI tend to produce more strength, speed, and static strength, especially at higher loads, and PP may be an important approach for this follow-up. Thus, it seems that strength training, focused on PP, seems to be enough to provide a strength gain for SCI when compared to OD, and these findings should be explored by coaches.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, F.J.A. and F.M.C.; methodology, F.J.A. and G.G.; software, F.M.C.; validation, F.J.A., F.M.C. and G.B.; formal analysis, F.J.A.; investigation, F.J.A.; resources, F.L. and F.F.; data curation, G.G.; writing—original draft preparation, F.J.A. and G.B.; writing—review and editing, G.B., S.C., A.F.S., F.L., G.G. and F.F.; visualization, G.G. and S.C.; supervision, F.F. and G.G.; project administration, S.C. and A.F.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia/Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia e Ensino Superior through national funds and, when applicable, co-funded by EU funds under the project UIDB/EEA/50008/2020.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Federal University of Sergipe, CAAE: 2.637.882 (date of approval: 7 May 2018).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support this study can be obtained from the address: www.ufs.br/Department of Physical Education. Accessed on 15 December 2021.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Word Health Organization. International Perspectives on Spinal Cord Injury; World Health Organization (WHO): Geneva, Switzerland. Available online: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/94190/1/9789241564663_eng.pdf (accessed on 7 November 2018).
  2. New, P.W.; Marshall, R. International Spinal Cord Injury Data Sets for non-traumatic spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord 2014, 52, 123–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Anderson, K.D. Targeting Recovery: Priorities of the Spinal Cord-Injured Population. J. Neurotrauma 2004, 21, 1371–1383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Gilmour, H. Physically active Canadians. Stat. Can. Health Rep. 2007, 18, 45–65. [Google Scholar]
  5. Bergeron, M.F.; Bahr, R.; Bärtsch, P.; Bourdon, L.; Calbet, J.A.; Carlsen, K.H.; Castagna, O.; González-Alonso, J.; Lundby, C.; Maughan, R.J.; et al. International Olympic Committee consensus statement on thermoregulatory and altitude challenges for high-level athletes. Br. J. Sports Med. 2012, 46, 770–779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. Krassioukov, A.; West, C. The Role of Autonomic Function on Sport Performance in Athletes with Spinal Cord Injury. PM&R 2014, 6, S58–S65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. International Paralympic Comitê (IPC). Sports. Available online: https://www.paralympic.org/sports (accessed on 5 October 2021).
  8. Paz, Â.A.; Aidar, F.J.; de Matos, D.G.; de Souza, R.F.; da Silva-Grigoletto, M.E.; van den Tillaar, R.; Ramirez-Campillo, R.; Nakamura, F.Y.; Costa, M.D.C.; Nunes-Silva, A.; et al. Comparison of Post-Exercise Hypotension Responses in Paralympic Powerlifting Athletes after Completing Two Bench Press Training Intensities. Medicina 2020, 56, 156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  9. Sampaio, C.R.S.F.; Aidar, F.J.; Ferreira, A.R.P.; Dos Santos, J.L.; Marçal, A.C.; De Matos, D.G.; De Souza, R.F.; Moreira, O.C.; Guerra, I.; Filho, J.F.; et al. Can Creatine Supplementation Interfere with Muscle Strength and Fatigue in Brazilian National Level Paralympic Powerlifting? Nutrients 2020, 12, 2492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Willick, S.E.; Cushman, D.; Blauwet, C.A.; Emery, C.; Webborn, N.; Derman, W.; Schwellnus, M.P.; Stomphorst, J.; Van De Vliet, P. The epidemiology of injuries in powerlifting at the London 2012 Paralympic Games: An analysis of 1411 athlete-days. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports 2015, 26, 1233–1238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Fraga, G.S.; Aidar, F.J.; Matos, D.G.; Marçal, A.C.; Santos, J.L.; Souza, R.F.; Carneiro, A.L.; Vasconcelos, A.B.; Da Silva-Grigoletto, M.E.; Tillaar, R.V.D.; et al. Effects of Ibuprofen Intake in Muscle Damage, Body Temperature and Muscle Power in Paralympic Powerlifting Athletes. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 5157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Resende, M.; Resende, R.V.; Reis, G.; Barros, L.; Bezerra, M.; Matos, D.; Marçal, A.; Almeida-Neto, P.; Cabral, B.; Neiva, H.; et al. The Influence of Warm-Up on Body Temperature and Strength Performance in Brazilian National-Level Paralympic Powerlifting Athletes. Medicina 2020, 56, 538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Dos Santos, M.D.M.; Aidar, F.J.; de Souza, R.F.; Dos Santos, J.L.; da Silva de Mello, A.; Neiva, H.P.; Marinho, D.A.; Marques, M.C. Does the Grip Width Affect the Bench Press Performance of Paralympic Powerlifters? Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 2020, 15, 1252–1259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Neto, F.; Dorneles, J.R.; Costa, R.R.G. Are the flat and arched bench press really similar? Sports Biomech. 2020, 22, 1–2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Ball, R.; Weidman, D. Analysis of USA Powerlifting Federation Data from January 1, 2012–June 11, 2016. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2018, 32, 1843–1851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Pérez-Castilla, A.; Piepoli, A.; Delgado-García, G.; Garrido-Blanca, G.; García-Ramos, A. Reliability and Concurrent Validity of Seven Commercially Available Devices for the Assessment of Movement Velocity at Different Intensities during the Bench Press. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2019, 33, 1258–1265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. González-Badillo, J.J.; Sánchez-Medina, L. Movement velocity as a measure of loading intensity in resistance training. Int. J. Sports Med. 2010, 31, 347–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. García-Ramos, A.; Pérez-Castilla, A.; Macias, F.J.V.; Latorre-Román, P.Á.; Párraga, J.A.; García-Pinillos, F. Differences in the one-repetition maximum and load-velocity profile between the flat and arched bench press in competitive powerlifters. Sports Biomech. 2021, 20, 261–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. LoTurco, I.; Pereira, L.A.; Winckler, C.; Santos, W.L.; Kobal, R.; McGuigan, M. Load–Velocity Relationship in National Paralympic Powerlifters: A Case Study. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 2019, 14, 531–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Milner-Brown, H.S.; Mellenthin, M.; Miller, R.G. Quantifying human muscle strength, endurance and fatigue. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 1986, 67, 530–535. [Google Scholar]
  21. McGuigan, M.R.; Newton, M.J.; Winchester, J.B.; Nelson, A.G. Relationship between isometric and dynamic strength in recreationally trained men. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2010, 24, 2570–2573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Cohen, J. Statistics a power primer. Psychol. Bull. 1992, 112, 155–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Selya, A.S.; Rose, J.S.; Dierker, L.C.; Hedeker, D.; Mermelstein, R.J. A Practical Guide to Calculating Cohen’s f2, a Measure of Local Effect Size, from PROC MIXED. Front. Psychol. 2012, 3, 111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Lakens, D. Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: A practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Front Psychol. 2013, 4, 863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  25. Golas, A.; Maszczyk, A.; Stastny, P.; Wilk, M.; Ficek, K.; Lockie, R.G.; Zajac, A. A New Approach to EMG Analysis of Closed-Circuit Movements Such as the Flat Bench Press. Sports 2018, 6, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. Teles, L.J.L.; Aidar, F.J.; Matos, D.G.; Marçal, A.C.; Almeida-Neto, P.F.; Neves, E.B.; Moreira, O.C.; Ribeiro Neto, F.; Garrido, N.D.; Vilaça-Alves, J.; et al. Static and Dynamic Strength Indicators in Paralympic Power-Lifters with and without Spinal Cord Injury. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 5907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Elliott, B.C.; Wilson, G.J.; Kerr, G.K. A biomechanical analysis of the sticking region in the bench press. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 1989, 21, 450–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Kristiansen, M.; Madeleine, P.; Hansen, E.A.; Samani, A. Inter-subject variability of muscle synergies during bench press in power lifters and untrained individuals. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports 2013, 25, 89–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Gołaś, A.; Zwierzchowska, A.; Maszczyk, A.; Wilk, M.; Stastny, P.; Zając, A. Neuromuscular Control During the Bench Press Movement in an Elite Disabled and Able-Bodied Athlete. J. Hum. Kinet. 2017, 60, 209–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Stastny, P.; Gołaś, A.; Blazek, D.; Maszczyk, A.; Wilk, M.; Pietraszewski, P.; Petr, M.; Uhlíř, P.; Zając, A. A systematic review of surface electromyography analyses of the bench press movement task. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0171632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Welsch, E.A.; Bird, M.; Mayhew, J.L. Electromyographic Activity of the Pectoralis Major and Anterior Deltoid Muscles during Three Upper-Body Lifts. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2005, 19, 449–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Gomes Costa, R.R.; Dorneles, J.R.; Lopes, G.H.; Gorla, J.I.; Ribeiro Neto, F. Medicine ball throw responsiveness to measure wheelchair basketball mobility in male players. J. Sport Rehabil. 2021, 30, 1230–1232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Theisen, D. Cardiovascular determinants of exercise capacity in the Paralympic athlete with spinal cord injury. Exp. Physiol. 2012, 97, 319–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Ribeiro Neto, F.; Dorneles, J.R.; Luna, R.M.; Spina, M.A.; Gonçalves, C.W.; Gomes Costa, R.R. Performance differences between the arched and flat bench press in beginner and experienced paralympic powerlifters. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2020. ahead of print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Mahler, D.A.; Shuhart, C.R.; Brew, E.; Stukel, T.A. Ventilatory responses and entrainment of breathing during rowing. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 1991, 23, 186–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Steinacker, J.M.; Both, M.; Whipp, B.J. Pulmonary Mechanics and Entrainment of Respiration and Stroke Rate during Rowing. Int. J. Sports Med. 1993, 14, S15–S19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Janicijevic, D.; González-Hernández, J.M.; Gu, Y.; Garcia-Ramos, A. Differences in the magnitude and reliability of velocity variables collected during 3 variants of the bench press exercise. J. Sports Sci. 2020, 38, 759–766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Cormie, P.; McGuigan, M.R.; Newton, R.U. Developing maximal neuromuscular power: Part 1-biological basis of maximal power production. Sports Med. 2011, 41, 17–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Fischetti, F.; Camporeale, F.; Greco, G. Effects of high-load resistance training versus pyramid training system on maximal muscle strength in well-trained young men: A randomized controlled study. J. Phys. Educ. Sport 2019, 19, 80–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Fischetti, F.; Cataldi, S.; Greco, G. Lower-limb plyometric training improves vertical jump and agility abilities in adult female soccer players. J. Phys. Educ. Sport. 2019, 19, 1254–1261. [Google Scholar]
  41. Hakkinen, K.; Pakarinen, A.; Alen, M.; Kauhanen, H.; Komi, P.V. Neuromuscular and hormonal adaptations in athletes to strength training in two years. J. Appl. Physiol. 1988, 65, 2406–2412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Kovac, D.; Krkeljas, Z.; Venter, R. Effect of six-week traditional resistance and functional training on functional performance in female netball players. BMC Sports Sci. Med. Rehabil. 2022, 14, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Haavik, H.; Kumari, N.; Holt, K.; Niazi, I.K.; Amjad, I.; Pujari, A.N.; Türker, K.S.; Murphy, B. The contemporary model of vertebral column joint dysfunction and impact of high-velocity, low-amplitude controlled vertebral thrusts on neuromuscular function. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 2021, 121, 2675–2720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sustainability 14 02017 g001 550
Figure 1. Experimental design. 1 RM: 1-repetition maximum; 40%: 40% 1 RM, 60%: 60% 1 RM, and 80%: 80% 1 RM.
Figure 1. Experimental design. 1 RM: 1-repetition maximum; 40%: 40% 1 RM, 60%: 60% 1 RM, and 80%: 80% 1 RM.
Sustainability 14 02017 g001
Sustainability 14 02017 g002 550
Figure 2. Analysis of dynamic force indicators, mean propulsive velocity (m/s) measured from (A) 40%, (B) 60%, and (C) 80% of 1 RM in OD and SCI groups Attached and Not Attached, at 95% Confidence Intervals (CI). * p < 0.05 (two-way ANOVA, and Bonferroni’s Post Hoc). CI “-“indicates move away from the value to the left and unsigned away from the value to the right. Legend: SCI: Spinal Cord Injury; OD: Other Disability; At: Attached; Nat: Not Attached; and 1 RM: 1 Repetition Maximum.
Figure 2. Analysis of dynamic force indicators, mean propulsive velocity (m/s) measured from (A) 40%, (B) 60%, and (C) 80% of 1 RM in OD and SCI groups Attached and Not Attached, at 95% Confidence Intervals (CI). * p < 0.05 (two-way ANOVA, and Bonferroni’s Post Hoc). CI “-“indicates move away from the value to the left and unsigned away from the value to the right. Legend: SCI: Spinal Cord Injury; OD: Other Disability; At: Attached; Nat: Not Attached; and 1 RM: 1 Repetition Maximum.
Sustainability 14 02017 g002
Sustainability 14 02017 g003 550
Figure 3. Analysis of dynamic force indicators, velocity maximum (m/s) measured from (A) 40%, (B) 60%, and (C) 80% of 1 RM in OD and SCI groups, Attached and Not Attached, at 95% Confidence Intervals. * p < 0.05 (two-way ANOVA, and Bonferroni’s Post Hoc). CI “-“indicates move away from the value to the left and unsigned away from the value to the right. Legend: SCI: Spinal Cord Injury; OD: Other Disability; At: Attached; Nat: Not Attached; and 1 RM: 1 Repetition Maximum.
Figure 3. Analysis of dynamic force indicators, velocity maximum (m/s) measured from (A) 40%, (B) 60%, and (C) 80% of 1 RM in OD and SCI groups, Attached and Not Attached, at 95% Confidence Intervals. * p < 0.05 (two-way ANOVA, and Bonferroni’s Post Hoc). CI “-“indicates move away from the value to the left and unsigned away from the value to the right. Legend: SCI: Spinal Cord Injury; OD: Other Disability; At: Attached; Nat: Not Attached; and 1 RM: 1 Repetition Maximum.
Sustainability 14 02017 g003
Sustainability 14 02017 g004 550
Figure 4. Analysis of dynamic force indicators, Power (W) measured from (A) 40%, (B) 60%, and (C) 80% of 1 RM in OD and SCI groups, Attached and Not Attached, at 95% Confidence Intervals. * p < 0.05 (two-way ANOVA, and Bonferroni’s Post Hoc). CI “-“indicates move away from the value to the left and unsigned away from the value to the right. Legend: SCI: Spinal Cord Injury; OD: Other Disability; At: Attached; Nat: Not Attached; and 1 RM: 1 Repetition Maximum.
Figure 4. Analysis of dynamic force indicators, Power (W) measured from (A) 40%, (B) 60%, and (C) 80% of 1 RM in OD and SCI groups, Attached and Not Attached, at 95% Confidence Intervals. * p < 0.05 (two-way ANOVA, and Bonferroni’s Post Hoc). CI “-“indicates move away from the value to the left and unsigned away from the value to the right. Legend: SCI: Spinal Cord Injury; OD: Other Disability; At: Attached; Nat: Not Attached; and 1 RM: 1 Repetition Maximum.
Sustainability 14 02017 g004
Table
Table 1. Sample characterization.
Table 1. Sample characterization.
Other DisabilitiesSpinal Cord InjurypICCCV〈
Age (years)28.30 ± 4.9230.00 ± 4.270.420.3845.170.301
Body mass (Kg)78.80 ± 18.9879.90 ± 18.910.900.3363.170.377
Experience (years)2.30 ± 0.752.81 ± 0.570.100.2805.240.171
1 RM bench press test (kg)112.40 ± 32.76124.60 ± 26.920.370.4377.170.277
1 RM/weight1.46 ± 0.351.60 ± 0.37 *0.400.56010.710.372
# p < 0.05 (independent “t” test). * Values above 1.4 in the Bench Press, would be considered elite athletes, according to Ball and Weidman [15].
Table
Table 2. Indicators of dynamic and isometric strength with 100% of 1 RM (mean ± standard deviation) in spinal-cord-injured and other disabled individuals.
Table 2. Indicators of dynamic and isometric strength with 100% of 1 RM (mean ± standard deviation) in spinal-cord-injured and other disabled individuals.
ODSCIpCohen’s d
1 RM (kg)
MIF (N)761.46 ± 252.17869.46 ± 152.780.08 *0.61 b
Time (µs)2567.58 ± 1292.282528.71 ± 1311.880.900.04 a
RFD (N.s−1)2553.16 ± 1319.002508.30 ± 923.850.880.49 b
Impulse (N.s)3392.48 ± 1214.403984.80 ± 707.020.06 *0.69 b
Variability (N)41.62 ± 17.8843.20 ± 22.210.750.10 a
FI (%)12.34 ± 5.649.11 ± 2.830.03 *0.79 b
* p < 0.05 (two-way ANOVA, and Bonferroni’s Post Hoc). a: Small Effect (≤0.20), b: Medium Effect (0.20 to 0.80), c: High Effect (0.80 to 1.20), d: Very High Effect (>1.20); 1 RM: 1 Repetition Maximum; MIF: Maximum Isometric Force; Time; Time to MIF; RFD: Rate of Force Development; FI: fatigue index; OD: Other Deficiencies and SCI: Spinal cord injury.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Aidar, F.J.; Cataldi, S.; Badicu, G.; Silva, A.F.; Clemente, F.M.; Latino, F.; Greco, G.; Fischetti, F. Paralympic Powerlifting as a Sustainable Way to Improve Strength in Athletes with Spinal Cord Injury and Other Disabilities. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2017. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su14042017

AMA Style

Aidar FJ, Cataldi S, Badicu G, Silva AF, Clemente FM, Latino F, Greco G, Fischetti F. Paralympic Powerlifting as a Sustainable Way to Improve Strength in Athletes with Spinal Cord Injury and Other Disabilities. Sustainability. 2022; 14(4):2017. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su14042017

Chicago/Turabian Style

Aidar, Felipe J., Stefania Cataldi, Georgian Badicu, Ana Filipa Silva, Filipe Manuel Clemente, Francesca Latino, Gianpiero Greco, and Francesco Fischetti. 2022. "Paralympic Powerlifting as a Sustainable Way to Improve Strength in Athletes with Spinal Cord Injury and Other Disabilities" Sustainability 14, no. 4: 2017. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su14042017

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop