Search

The purpose of this study was to examine the differences in braking and propulsion force-time characteristics and barbell velocity between traditional (TRAD) and accentuated eccentric loaded (AEL) back squats using various load combinations. Sixteen resistance-trained men participated in four separate testing sessions which included a one repetition maximum (1RM) back squat during the first session and three squat testing sessions. During the squat testing sessions, participants either performed sets of three repetitions of TRAD back squats each with 50, 60, 70, and 80% 1RM or performed the same loads with the addition of weight releasers that increased the total eccentric weight of the first repetition of each set to either 100 (AEL-MAX) or 110% 1RM (AEL-SUPRA). Braking and propulsion mean force, duration, and impulse as well as mean and peak barbell velocity were compared between each condition and load. Significantly greater braking impulses were produced during the AEL-MAX and AEL-SUPRA conditions compared to TRAD (p < 0.03) with small-moderate effect sizes favoring AEL-SUPRA. No other significant differences existed among conditions for other braking, propulsion, or barbell velocity variables. AEL-MAX and AEL-SUPRA back squats may provide a greater braking stimulus compared to TRAD squats; however, the propulsion phase of the movement does not appear to be impacted. From a loading standpoint, larger and smaller load spreads may favor rapid and maximal force production characteristics, respectively. Further research on this topic is needed as a large portion of the braking stimulus experienced during AEL back squats may be influenced by relative strength., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright: © Academy of Physical Education in Katowice.)

Predictive sports data analytics can be revolutionary for sports performance. Existing literature discusses players' or teams' performance, independently or in tandem. Using Machine Learning (ML), this paper aims to holistically evaluate player-, team-, and conference (season)-level performances in Division-1 Women's basketball. The players were monitored and tested through a full competitive year. The performance was quantified at the player level using the reactive strength index modified (RSImod), at the team level by the game score (GS) metric, and finally at the conference level through Player Efficiency Rating (PER). The data includes parameters from training, subjective stress, sleep, and recovery (WHOOP straps), in-game statistics (Polar monitors), and countermovement jumps. We used data balancing techniques and an Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGB) classifier to predict RSI and GS with greater than 90% accuracy and a 0.9 F1 score. The XGB regressor predicted PER with an MSE of 0.026 and an R 2 of 0.680. Ensemble of Random Forest, XGB, and correlation finds feature importance at all levels. We used Partial Dependence Plots to understand the impact of each feature on the target variable. Quantifying and predicting performance at all levels will allow coaches to monitor athlete readiness and help improve training., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Abstract: Pineda, D, Hudak, J, Bingham, GE, and Taber, CB. Validity and reliability of an isometric row in quantifying maximal force production in collegiate rowers. J Strength Cond Res 37(8): e462-e465, 2023-The objective of this study was to examine the relationship between a maximal isometric strength test with a maximal dynamic strength test. The main outcome was to evaluate the isometric test to determine if it was a valid and reliable measurement tool for testing and monitoring of rowing athletes. Collegiate Division 1 rowers were tested on measures of maximal dynamic and isometric strength on 2 occasions separated by 14 days. Thirty-two female athletes (age: 19.9 11.0 years; height: 168.2 ± 7.6 cm; body mass: 71.3 as13.2 kg) participated in this study. Although the isometric test had greater reliability, both tests displayed good-to-excellent reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.79-0.92). Strong correlations were present for the relationship between isometric and dynamic strength tests ( r = 0.76-0.82, p = <0.001). The data indicate that the isometric row test is valid and reliable compared with dynamic testing and may be used in conjunction with dynamic testing in the evaluation of collegiate rowers., (Copyright © 2022 National Strength and Conditioning Association.)

Abstract: Lates, AD, Greer, BK, Wagle, JP, and Taber, CB. Accentuated eccentric loading and cluster set configurations in the bench press. J Strength Cond Res 36(6): 1485-1489, 2022-This study was designed to examine the kinetic and kinematic differences between an Accentuated eccentric loading (AEL), traditional loading, and cluster sets in trained male subjects (age: 23.7 ± 4.0 years, height: 176.4 ± 2.8 cm, mass: 93.6 ± 7.0 kg) with lifting experience (training age: 7.2 ± 2.4 years, 1-repetition maximum (1RM) bench press: 125.0 ± 14.8 kg, relative strength ratio: 1.3 ± 0.1) in the bench press. Subjects reported for a total of 5 sessions which consisted of a 1RM testing session and 4 experimental trials. The 4 experimental conditions consisted of a traditional load (TRAD), traditional load with inter-repetition rest (TRDC), accentuated eccentric loading with inter-repetition rest (AELC), and Accentuated eccentric loading for the first repetition only (AEL1). Concentric load was 80% of subjects' 1RM for all conditions. An eccentric overload of 105% of 1RM was applied using weight-releasing hooks during the AEL conditions. TRDC demonstrated superior concentric outputs for mean velocity and mean power compared with TRAD, AELC, and AEL1 (p < 0.001). In addition, AEL1 produced significantly greater effects for rate of force development compared with TRDC (p < 0.001). These findings suggest that inter-repetition rest had an influence on concentric performance, specifically mean power and mean velocity, and may be favorable when using higher loads and when sustained power outputs are desired. In addition, AEL1 may provide a unique eccentric stimulus that alters loading parameters compared with traditional loading conditions., Competing Interests: The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2020 National Strength and Conditioning Association.)

There has been limited research to explore the use of body tempering and when the use of this modality would be most appropriate. This study aimed to determine if a body tempering intervention would be appropriate pre-exercise by examining its effects on perceived soreness, range of motion (ROM), and force production compared to an intervention of traditional stretching. The subjects for this study were ten Division 1 (D1) football linemen from Sacred Heart University (Age: 19.9 ± 1.5 years, body mass: 130.9 ± 12.0 kg, height: 188.4 ± 5.1 cm, training age: 8.0 ± 3.5 years). Subjects participated in three sessions with the first session being baseline testing. The second and third sessions involved the participants being randomized to receive either the body tempering or stretching intervention for the second session and then receiving the other intervention the final week. Soreness using a visual analog scale (VAS), ROM, counter movement jump (CMJ) peak force and jump height, static jump (SJ) peak force and jump height, and isometric mid-thigh pull max force production were assessed. The results of the study concluded that body tempering does not have a negative effect on muscle performance but did practically reduce perceived muscle soreness. Since body tempering is effective at reducing soreness in athletes, it can be recommended for athletes as part of their pre-exercise warmup without negatively effecting isometric or dynamic force production.

Abstract: Kollars, JM, Taber, CB, and Beyer, KS. Relative age effects in elite olympic weightlifters. J Strength Cond Res 35(5): 1223-1228, 2021-The time of year in which an athlete is born may provide an advantage developmentally for competition, known as relative age effects (RAEs). The presence of RAEs in sport may result in athletes participating less or leaving the sport early. To determine if RAEs exist in elite Olympic weightlifting, data were examined from the past 5 Olympic Games. Using retrospective competition data, a total of 953 weightlifters (595 men and 358 women) who competed in the Olympic Games between 2000 and 2016 were included in this study. Athletes were divided into lightweight, middleweight, and heavyweight for analysis. Using the subset weight classes, the observed date of birth distribution vs. the expected worldwide date of birth distribution were compared using multiple chi square tests. Relative age effects were present overall for weightlifters (χ2 = 189.428, p < 0.001), with over-representation in January (z = +12.6, 20.9%) and under-representation in June (z = -2.1, 6.3%), September (z = -3.2, 5.7%), and November (z = -3.0, 5.1%). Relative age effects were also present in men lightweight (χ2 = 74.773, p < 0.001), men middleweight (χ2 = 41.786, p < 0.001), men heavyweight (χ2 = 39.395, p < 0.001), and women lightweight (χ2 = 37.251, p < 0.001). Determining that RAEs are present in weightlifting is important because it will help maintain the amount of opportunity for all athletes regardless of when they were born in the year. Coaches should be aware of the possible advantages of training age and the effect of physical maturation as a result of these RAEs. Coaches may use this information for athlete selection, but the presence of RAEs should not discourage athletes from participating in the sport of weightlifting., (Copyright © 2021 National Strength and Conditioning Association.)

This study examined the effects of accentuated eccentric loading (AEL) on bench press velocities across a spectrum of concentric and eccentric loads. Ten strength trained men (bench press one-repetition maximum (1-RM): 124.3 ± 19.4 kg; relative strength ratio: 1.5 ± 0.2 kg∙body mass -1 ) participated. Subjects completed bench press repetitions using concentric loads from 30% to 80% 1-RM in 10% increments in each experimental session. The AEL protocols were implemented using 100% (AEL100) and 110% 1-RM (AEL110) loads during the eccentric action, while the eccentric load remained the same as the concentric for traditional loading (TRAD). Multilevel models analyzed the effects of each AEL protocol on concentric velocities across concentric loads ( p < 0.05). Faster concentric velocities were observed at 30% 1-RM and 80% 1-RM with AEL100 compared to TRAD ( p ≤ 0.05) but this effect was reduced for individuals moving the barbell through a greater displacement. Additionally, AEL110 presented a greater change in velocity from 30% to 80% 1-RM than TRAD ( p ≤ 0.05). The AEL100 protocol resulted in faster concentric velocities throughout concentric loads of 30-80% 1-RM, but AEL110 may have been too great to elicit consistent performance enhancements. Thus, the efficacy of AEL at various concentric loads is dependent on the eccentric loading and barbell displacement.

Abstract: Wagle, JP, Carroll, KM, Cunanan, AJ, Wetmore, A, Taber, CB, DeWeese, BH, Sato, K, Stuart, CA, and Stone, MH. Preliminary investigation into the effect of ACTN3 and ACE polymorphisms on muscle and performance characteristics. J Strength Cond Res 35(3): 688-694, 2021-The purpose of this investigation was to explore the phenotypic and performance outcomes associated with ACTN3 and ACE polymorphisms. Ten trained men (age = 25.8 ± 3.0 years, height = 183.3 ± 4.1 cm, body mass = 92.3 ± 9.3 kg, and back squat to body mass ratio = 1.8 ± 0.3) participated. Blood samples were analyzed to determine ACTN3 and ACE polymorphisms. Standing ultrasonography images of the vastus lateralis (VL) were collected to determine whole muscle cross-sectional area (CSA-M), and a percutaneous muscle biopsy of the VL was collected to determine type I-specific CSA (CSA-T1), type II-specific CSA (CSA-T2), and type II to type I CSA ratio (CSA-R). Isometric squats were performed on force platforms with data used to determine peak force (IPF), allometrically scaled peak force (IPFa), and rate of force development (RFD) at various timepoints. One repetition maximum back squats were performed, whereby allometrically scaled dynamic strength (DSa) was determined. Cohen's d effect sizes revealed ACTN3 RR and ACE DD tended to result in greater CSA-M but differ in how they contribute to performance. ACTN3 RR's influence seems to be in the type II fibers, altering maximal strength, and ACE DD may influence RFD capabilities through a favorable CSA-R. Although the findings of the current investigation are limited by the sample size, the findings demonstrate the potential influence of ACTN3 and ACE polymorphisms on isometric and dynamic strength testing. This study may serve as a framework to generate hypotheses regarding the effect of genetics on performance., (Copyright © 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association.)

Abstract: Wagle, JP, Cunanan, AJ, Carroll, KM, Sams, ML, Wetmore, A, Bingham, GE, Taber, CB, DeWeese, BH, Sato, K, Stuart, CA, and Stone, MH. Accentuated eccentric loading and cluster set configurations in the back squat: a kinetic and kinematic analysis. J Strength Cond Res 35(2): 420-427, 2021-This study examined the kinetic and kinematic differences between accentuated eccentric loading (AEL) and cluster sets in trained male subjects (age = 26.1 ± 4.1 years, height = 183.5 ± 4.3 cm, body mass = 92.5 ± 10.5 kg, and back squat to body mass ratio = 1.8 ± 0.3). Four load condition sessions consisted of traditionally loaded (TL) "straight sets," TL cluster (TLC) sets, AEL cluster (AEC) sets, and AEL "straight sets" where only the first repetition had eccentric overload (AEL1). An interrepetition rest interval of 30 seconds was prescribed for both TLC and AEC. Concentric intensity for all load conditions was 80% 1 repetition maximum (1RM). Accentuated eccentric loading was applied to repetitions using weight releasers with total eccentric load equivalent to 105% of concentric 1RM. Traditionally loaded cluster had statistically greater concentric outputs than TL. Furthermore, statistically greater eccentric and concentric outputs were observed during AEC compared with TL with the exception of peak power. Statistically greater concentric characteristics were observed in TLC compared with AEL1, but statistically greater eccentric outputs were observed in AEL1. In the 2 cluster set conditions, statistically greater concentric rate of force development (RFDCON) (d = 0.470, p < 0.001) and average velocity (vavg) (d = 0.560, p < 0.001) in TLC compared with AEC were observed. However, statistically greater eccentric work (WECC) (d = 2.096, p < 0.001) and eccentric RFD (RFDECC) (d = 0.424, p < 0.001) were observed in AEC compared with TLC. Overall, eccentric overload demonstrated efficacy as a means of increasing eccentric work and RFD, but not as a means of potentiating concentric output. Finally, interrepetition rest seems to have the largest influence on concentric power output and RFD., (Copyright © 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association.)

While strength is indeed a skill, most discussions have primarily considered structural adaptations rather than ultrastructural augmentation to improve performance. Altering the structural component of the muscle is often the aim of hypertrophic training, yet not all hypertrophy is equal; such alterations are dependent upon how the muscle adapts to the training stimuli and overall training stress. When comparing bodybuilders to strength and power athletes such as powerlifters, weightlifters, and throwers, while muscle size may be similar, the ability to produce force and power is often inequivalent. Thus, performance differences go beyond structural changes and may be due to the muscle's ultrastructural constituents and training induced adaptations. Relative to potentiating strength and power performances, eliciting specific ultrastructural changes should be a variable of interest during hypertrophic training phases. By focusing on task-specific hypertrophy, it may be possible to achieve an optimal amount of hypertrophy while deemphasizing metabolic and aerobic components that are often associated with high-volume training. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to briefly address different types of hypertrophy and provide directions for practitioners who are aiming to achieve optimal rather than maximal hypertrophy, as it relates to altering ultrastructural muscular components, to potentiate strength and power performance.

The purpose of this review is to provide strength and conditioning practitioners with recommendations on how best to implement tempo eccentric training (TEMPO), flywheel inertial training (FIT), accentuated eccentric loading (AEL), and plyometric training (PT) into resistance training programs that seek to improve an athlete's hypertrophy, strength, and power output. Based on the existing literature, TEMPO may be best implemented with weaker athletes to benefit positional strength and hypertrophy due to the time under tension. FIT may provide an effective hypertrophy, strength, and power stimulus for untrained and weaker individuals; however, stronger individuals may not receive the same eccentric (ECC) overload stimulus. Although AEL may be implemented throughout the training year to benefit hypertrophy, strength, and power output, this strategy is better suited for stronger individuals. When weaker and stronger individuals are exposed to PT, they are exposed to an ECC overload stimulus as a result of increases in the ECC force and ECC rate of force development. In conclusion, when choosing to utilize ECC training methods, the practitioner must integrate these methods into a holistic training program that is designed to improve the athlete's performance capacity.

The purposes of this investigation were to: (1) assess kinetic characteristics of overload, (2) examine eccentric and concentric muscle activations and (3) explore velocity measurement as a method of intensity prescription in inertial flywheel squat training. A series of two experiments were performed: one assessing kinetic and muscle activation characteristics of flywheel squat training using three progressive inertial loads. The second experiment assessed inertial load-velocity relationships using six progressive inertial loads. Peak force, net impulse, positive-negative impulse ratio and positive-negative impulse duration ratio were each statistically significant between all three load conditions ( p  < 0.05). Concentric vastus lateralis muscle activation was the only significant increase between inertial loads ( p  < 0.05). Although not statistically significant, concentric quadricep muscle activation was increased from the lowest to highest inertia. Conversely, eccentric quadricep muscle activation was reduced from the lowest to highest inertia. In the second experiment, statistically significant regression equations were observed for average concentric velocity ( R 2  = 0.66) and peak concentric velocity ( R 2  = 0.60). In conclusion, our results indicate (1) overload is possible kinetically, (2) phase-specific muscle activation responds differently to increased inertia and (3) velocity has the potential to be used for load prescription in the inertial flywheel squat.

The purpose of the study was to compare the physiological responses of skeletal muscle to a resistance training (RT) program using repetition maximum (RM) or relative intensity (RI SR ). Fifteen well-trained males underwent RT 3 d·wk -1 for 10 weeks in either an RM group ( n = 8) or RI SR group ( n = 7). The RM group achieved a relative maximum each day, while the RI SR group trained based on percentages. The RM group exercised until muscular failure on each exercise, while the RI SR group did not reach muscular failure throughout the intervention. Percutaneous needle biopsies of the vastus lateralis were obtained pre-post the training intervention, along with ultrasonography measures. Dependent variables were: Fiber type-specific cross-sectional area (CSA); anatomical CSA (ACSA); muscle thickness (MT); mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR); adenosine monophosphate protein kinase (AMPK); and myosin heavy chains (MHC) specific for type I (MHC1), type IIA (MHC2A), and type IIX (MHC2X). Mixed-design analysis of variance and effect size using Hedge's g were used to assess within- and between-group alterations. RI SR statistically increased type I CSA ( p = 0.018, g = 0.56), type II CSA ( p = 0.012, g = 0.81), ACSA ( p = 0.002, g = 0.53), and MT ( p < 0.001, g = 1.47). RI SR also yielded a significant mTOR reduction ( p = 0.031, g = -1.40). Conversely, RM statistically increased only MT ( p = 0.003, g = 0.80). Between-group effect sizes supported RI SR for type I CSA ( g = 0.48), type II CSA ( g = 0.50), ACSA ( g = 1.03), MT ( g = 0.72), MHC2X ( g = 0.31), MHC2A ( g = 0.87), and MHC1 ( g = 0.59); with all other effects being of trivial magnitude ( g < 0.20). Our results demonstrated greater adaptations in fiber size, whole-muscle size, and several key contractile proteins when using RI SR compared to RM loading paradigms.

Wetmore, A, Wagle, JP, Sams, ML, Taber, CB, DeWeese, BH, Sato, K, and Stone, MH. Cluster set loading in the back squat: Kinetic and kinematic implications. J Strength Cond Res 33(7S): S19-S25, 2019-As athletes become well trained, they require greater stimuli and variation to force adaptation. One means of adding additional variation is the use of cluster loading. Cluster loading involves introducing interrepetition rest during a set, which in theory may allow athletes to train at higher absolute intensities for the same volume. The purpose of this study was to investigate the kinetic and kinematic implications of cluster loading as a resistance training programming tactic compared with traditional loading (TL). Eleven resistance-trained men (age = 26.75 ± 3.98 years, height = 181.36 ± 5.96 cm, body mass = 89.83 ± 10.66 kg, and relative squat strength = 1.84 ± 0.34) were recruited for this study. Each subject completed 2 testing sessions consisting of 3 sets of 5 back squats at 80% of their 1 repetition maximum with 3 minutes of interset rest. Cluster loading included 30 seconds of interrepetition rest with 3 minutes of interset rest. All testing was performed on dual-force plates sampling at 1,000 Hz, and the barbell was connected to 4 linear position transducers sampling at 1,000 Hz. Both conditions had similar values for peak force, concentric average force, and eccentric average force (p = 0.25, effect size (ES) = 0.09, p = 0.25, ES = 0.09, and p = 0.60, ES = 0.04, respectively). Cluster loading had significantly higher peak power (PP) (p < 0.001, ES = 0.77), peak and average velocities (p < 0.001, ES = 0.77, and p < 0.001, ES = 0.81, respectively), lower times to PP and velocity (p < 0.001, ES = -0.68, and p < 0.001, ES = -0.68, respectively) as well as greater maintenance of time to PP (p < 0.001, ES = 1.57). These results suggest that cluster loading may be superior to TL when maintaining power output and time point variables is the desired outcome of training.

The purpose of this review was to provide a physiological rationale for the use of eccentric resistance training and to provide an overview of the most commonly prescribed eccentric training methods. Based on the existing literature, there is a strong physiological rationale for the incorporation of eccentric training into a training program for an individual seeking to maximize muscle size, strength, and power. Specific adaptations may include an increase in muscle cross-sectional area, force output, and fiber shortening velocities, all of which have the potential to benefit power production characteristics. Tempo eccentric training, flywheel inertial training, accentuated eccentric loading, and plyometric training are commonly implemented in applied contexts. These methods tend to involve different force absorption characteristics and thus, overload the muscle or musculotendinous unit in different ways during lengthening actions. For this reason, they may produce different magnitudes of improvement in hypertrophy, strength, and power. The constraints to which they are implemented can have a marked effect on the characteristics of force absorption and therefore, could affect the nature of the adaptive response. However, the versatility of the constraints when prescribing these methods mean that they can be effectively implemented to induce these adaptations within a variety of populations.

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of a ballistic or non-ballistic concentric-only bench press (COBP) on subsequent plyometric push-up performance. Fourteen resistance trained men completed two separate one-repetition-maximum (1RM) testing sessions followed by three randomized experimental explosive push-up sessions. These sessions combined a heavy concentric bench press with plyometric push-ups. Using a series of 3 × 10 (condition × time) repeated measures ANOVA, comparisons were made between the effects of ballistic and non-ballistic bench presses on performance of plyometric push-ups to investigate push-up performance variables. Compared with the control condition, both ballistic and non-ballistic bench presses produced lower net impulse and take-off velocity data. No differences were found between ballistic and non-ballistic conditions comparing net impulse and take-off velocity. We conclude that the magnitude of loading used in the current investigation may have caused acute fatigue which led to lower push-up performance characteristics. This information can be used to alter loading protocols when designing complexes for the upper body, combining the bench press and plyometric push-ups.

Purpose: To compare repetition maximum (RM) to relative intensity using sets and repetitions (RISR) resistance training on measures of training load, vertical jump, and force production in well-trained lifters., Methods: Fifteen well-trained (isometric peak force = 4403.61 [664.69] N, mean [SD]) males underwent resistance training 3 d/wk for 10 wk in either an RM group (n = 8) or RISR group (n = 7). Weeks 8 to 10 consisted of a tapering period for both groups. The RM group achieved a relative maximum each day, whereas the RISR group trained based on percentages. Testing at 5 time points included unweighted (<1 kg) and 20-kg squat jumps, countermovement jumps, and isometric midthigh pulls. Mixed-design analyses of variance and effect size using Hedge's g were used to assess within- and between-groups alterations., Results: Moderate between-groups effect sizes were observed for all squat-jump and countermovement-jump conditions supporting the RISR group (g = 0.76-1.07). A small between-groups effect size supported RISR for allometrically scaled isometric peak force (g = 0.20). Large and moderate between-groups effect sizes supported RISR for rate of force development from 0 to 50 ms (g = 1.25) and 0 to 100 ms (g = 0.89). Weekly volume load displacement was not different between groups (P > .05); however, training strain was statistically greater in the RM group (P < .05)., Conclusions: Overall, this study demonstrated that RISR training yielded greater improvements in vertical jump, rate of force development, and maximal strength compared with RM training, which may be explained partly by differences in the imposed training stress and the use of failure/nonfailure training in a well-trained population.

The purpose of this study was to examine the force-time differences between concentric-only half-squats (COHS) performed with ballistic (BAL) or non-ballistic (NBAL) intent across a range of loads. Eighteen resistance-trained men performed either BAL or NBAL COHS at 30%, 50%, 70%, and 90% of their one repetition maximum (1RM) COHS. Relative peak force (PF) and relative impulse from 0⁻50 ms (Imp50), 0⁻90 ms (Imp90), 0⁻200 ms (Imp200), and 0⁻250 ms (Imp250) were compared using a series of 2 × 4 (intent × load) repeated measures ANOVAs with Bonferroni post hoc tests. Cohen's d effect sizes were calculated to provide measures of practical significance between the BAL and NBAL COHS and each load. BAL COHS produced statistically greater PF than NBAL COHS at 30% (d = 3.37), 50% (d = 2.88), 70% (d = 2.29), and 90% 1RM (d = 1.19) (all p < 0.001). Statistically significant main effect differences were found between load-averaged BAL and NBAL COHS for Imp90 ( p = 0.006, d = 0.25), Imp200 ( p = 0.001, d = 0.36), and Imp250 ( p < 0.001, d = 0.41), but not for Imp50 ( p = 0.018, d = 0.21). Considering the greater PF and impulse observed during the BAL condition, performing COHS with BAL intent may provide a favorable training stimulus compared to COHS performed with NBAL intent.

The current investigation was an examination of the repetition-to-repetition magnitudes and changes in kinetic and kinematic characteristics of the back squat using accentuated eccentric loading (AEL) and cluster sets. Trained male subjects (age = 26.1 ± 4.1 years, height = 183.5 ± 4.3 cm, body mass = 92.5 ± 10.5 kg, back squat to body mass ratio = 1.8 ± 0.3) completed four load condition sessions, each consisting of three sets of five repetitions of either traditionally loaded straight sets (TL), traditionally loaded cluster sets (TLC), AEL cluster sets (AEC), and AEL straight sets where only the initial repetition had eccentric overload (AEL1). Eccentric overload was applied using weight releasers, creating a total eccentric load equivalent to 105% of concentric one repetition maximum (1RM). Concentric load was 80% 1RM for all load conditions. Using straight sets (TL and AEL1) tended to decrease peak power (PP) ( d = &minus;1.90 to &minus;0.76), concentric rate of force development (RFD CON ) ( d = &minus;1.59 to &minus;0.27), and average velocity (MV) ( d = &minus;3.91 to &minus;1.29), with moderate decreases in MV using cluster sets ( d = &minus;0.81 to &minus;0.62). Greater magnitude eccentric rate of force development (RFD ECC ) was observed using AEC at repetition three (R3) and five (R5) compared to all load conditions ( d = 0.21⁻0.65). Large within-condition changes in RFD ECC from repetition one to repetition three (∆REP 1⁻3 ) were present using AEL1 ( d = 1.51), demonstrating that RFD ECC remained elevated for at least three repetitions despite overload only present on the initial repetition. Overall, cluster sets appear to permit higher magnitude and improved maintenance of concentric outputs throughout a set. Eccentric overload with the loading protocol used in the current study does not appear to potentiate concentric output regardless of set configuration but may cause greater RFD ECC compared to traditional loading.

Accentuated eccentric loading (AEL) prescribes eccentric load magnitude in excess of the concentric prescription using movements that require coupled eccentric and concentric actions, with minimal interruption to natural mechanics. This method has been theorized to potentiate concentric performance through higher eccentric loading and, thus, higher concentric force production. There is also evidence for favorable chronic adaptations, namely shifts to faster myosin heavy chain isoforms and changes in IIx-specific muscle cross-sectional area. However, research concerning the acute and chronic responses to AEL is inconclusive, likely due to inconsistencies in subjects, exercise selection, load prescription, and method of providing AEL. Therefore, the purpose of this review is to summarize: (1) the magnitudes and methods of AEL application; (2) the acute and chronic implications of AEL as a means to enhance force production; (3) the potential mechanisms by which AEL enhances acute and chronic performance; and (4) the limitations of current research and the potential for future study.

The purpose of the current study was (1) to examine the differences between standing and lying measures of vastus lateralis (VL), muscle thickness (MT), pennation angle (PA), and cross-sectional area (CSA) using ultrasonography; and (2) to explore the relationships between lying and standing measures with isometric and dynamic assessments of force production-specifically peak force, rate of force development (RFD), impulse, and one-repetition maximum back squat. Fourteen resistance-trained subjects (age = 26.8 ± 4.0 years, height = 181.4 ± 6.0 cm, body mass = 89.8 ± 10.7 kg, back squat to body mass ratio = 1.84 ± 0.34) agreed to participate. Lying and standing ultrasonography images of the right VL were collected following 48 hours of rest. Isometric squat assessments followed ultrasonography, and were performed on force platforms with data used to determine isometric peak force (IPF), as well as RFD and impulse at various time points. Forty-eight hours later, one-repetition maximum back squats were performed by each subject. Paired-samples t-tests revealed statistically significant differences between standing and lying measurements of MT ( p < 0.001), PA ( p < 0.001), and CSA ( p ≤ 0.05), with standing values larger in all cases. Further, standing measures were correlated more strongly and abundantly to isometric and dynamic performance. These results suggest that if practitioners intend to gain insight into strength-power potential based on ultrasonography measurements, performing the measurement collection with the athlete in a standing posture may be preferred., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

The purpose of this study was to examine the effect that load has on the mechanics of the jump shrug. Fifteen track and field and club/intramural athletes (age 21.7 ± 1.3 y, height 180.9 ± 6.6 cm, body mass 84.7 ± 13.2 kg, 1-repetition-maximum (1RM) hang power clean 109.1 ± 17.2 kg) performed repetitions of the jump shrug at 30%, 45%, 65%, and 80% of their 1RM hang power clean. Jump height, peak landing force, and potential energy of the system at jump-shrug apex were compared between loads using a series of 1-way repeated-measures ANOVAs. Statistical differences in jump height (P < .001), peak landing force (P = .012), and potential energy of the system (P < .001) existed; however, there were no statistically significant pairwise comparisons in peak landing force between loads (P > .05). The greatest magnitudes of jump height, peak landing force, and potential energy of the system at the apex of the jump shrug occurred at 30% 1RM hang power clean and decreased as the external load increased from 45% to 80% 1RM hang power clean. Relationships between peak landing force and potential energy of the system at jump-shrug apex indicate that the landing forces produced during the jump shrug may be due to the landing strategy used by the athletes, especially at lighter loads. Practitioners may prescribe heavier loads during the jump-shrug exercise without viewing landing force as a potential limitation.