Search

Abstract: Weakley, J, Johnston, RD, Cowley, N, Wood, T, Ramirez-Lopez, C, McMahon, E, and García-Ramos, A. The effects and reproducibility of 10, 20, and 30% velocity loss thresholds on acute and short-term fatigue and recovery responses. J Strength Cond Res 38(3): 465-473, 2024-This study aimed to establish the effects and reproducibility of implementing 10, 20, and 30% velocity loss thresholds (VLTs) during the free-weight barbell back squat on acute and short-term perceived soreness, neuromuscular fatigue, and physical performance. Using a repeated, counterbalanced, crossover design, 12 team-sport athletes completed on separate sessions 5 sets of the free-weight barbell back-squat until reaching VLTs of either 10, 20, or 30%. Outcomes were measured immediately postexercise and 24 hours after each session. To assess reproducibility, the same sessions were repeated after 4 weeks. Immediately postexercise, small differences in countermovement jump (CMJ) and 10-m sprint performance were observed between VLT conditions, whereas small to moderate differences in differential ratings of perceived exertion were reported (10% < 20% < 30%). At 24 hours, trivial differences in CMJ outcomes were found but small differences in 10-m sprint performance were detected between conditions (10% < 20% < 30%). In addition, at 24 hours, a single small difference in radial deformation using tensiomyography was found between 10 and 30% conditions, whereas large to very large differences in perceived soreness were reported between conditions (10% < 20% < 30%). Finally, the standard error of measurement of all outcome measures at 24 hours were of a similar magnitude to those reported in tightly controlled, short-term studies. Collectively, these findings demonstrate that VLTs help control the fatigue outcomes that occur as a response to resistance training and that they are reproducible. Therefore, for practitioners who wish to prescribe resistance training and be confident in the subsequent fatigue response, it is strongly advised that VLTs are implemented., (Copyright © 2023 National Strength and Conditioning Association.)

This study examined the influence of inter-set rest periods of 1 (R1), 3 (R3) and 5 (R5) minutes on the number of repetitions completed before exceeding the minimum velocity thresholds of 0.45 m⋅s -1 (MVT 0.45 ) and 0.35 m⋅s -1 (MVT 0.35 ) during the bench press exercise. Twenty-three physically active individuals, 15 men and eight women, randomly completed six testing sessions consisting of four sets of the bench press exercise performed with maximal intent against 75% of the one-repetition maximum. Testing sessions differed in the length of inter-set rest periods (R1, R3, and R5) and MVT applied (MVT 0.45 and MVT 0.35 ). The number of repetitions was lower using shorter inter-set rest periods (R1 < R3 < R5), but R3 was more similar to R1 and R5 using MVT 0.45 and MVT 0.35 , respectively. The fastest velocity of the set was reduced with the increment in the number of sets for the three protocols using MVT 0.35 (greater reduction for shorter rest periods), but it was only reduced for R1 when using MVT 0.45 . The results suggest that, to maintain bench press mechanical performance, 5-min inter-set rest periods are necessary when sets are terminated close to failure (MVT 0.35 ), while 3 min may suffice when sets are terminated farther from failure (MVT 0.45 ).

Abstract: Edwards, T, Weakley, J, Banyard, HG, Cripps, A, Piggott, B, Haff, GG, and Joyce, C. Longitudinal development of sprint performance and force-velocity-power characteristics: influence of biological maturation. J Strength Cond Res 37(11): 2178-2184, 2023-This study was designed to investigate the influence of biological maturation on the longitudinal development of sprint performance. Thirty-two subjects performed 2 assessments of maximal sprint performance that were separated by 18 months. Each sprint assessment was measured through a radar gun that collected instantaneous velocity with the velocity-time data used to derive sprint times and force-velocity-power characteristics. The biological maturity of each subject was assessed using a predictive equation, and subjects were grouped according to predicted years from peak height velocity (circa-PHV: -1.0 to 1.0; post-PHV: >1.0). A 2 × 2 mixed model analysis of variance was used to assess group × time interactions, and paired t -tests were used to assess the longitudinal changes for each maturity group. No significant group × time interactions were observed for any sprint time or force-velocity-power characteristic. The circa-PHV group experienced significant within-group changes in maximal theoretical velocity (6.35 vs. 5.47%; effect size [ES] = 1.26 vs. 0.52) and 5-m sprint time (-3.63% vs. -2.94%; ES = -0.64 vs. -0.52) compared with the post-PHV group. There was no significant change in the magnitude of relative theoretical maximum force in either group; however, both the circa-PHV and post-PHV groups significantly improved the orientation of force production at the start of the sprint (RFmax [4.91 vs. 4.46%; ES = 0.79 vs. 0.74, respectively]). Considering these findings, it is recommended that practitioners adopt training methods aimed to improve relative lower-limb force production, such as traditional strength training and sled pulling and pushing, to improve sprint performance and relative theoretical maximum force., (Copyright © 2023 National Strength and Conditioning Association.)

Background: Maximal lower-body strength can be assessed both dynamically and isometrically; however, the relationship between the changes in these 2 forms of strength following resistance training is not well understood., Purpose: To systematically review and analyze the effects of resistance training on changes in maximal dynamic (1-repetition-maximum back squat, deadlift, and power clean) and position-matched isometric strength (isometric midthigh pull and the isometric squat). In addition, individual-level data were used to quantify the agreement and relationship between changes in dynamic and isometric strength., Methods: Databases were systematically searched to identify eligible articles, and meta-analysis procedures were performed on the extracted data. The raw results from 4 studies were acquired, enabling bias and absolute reliability measures to be calculated using Bland-Altman test of agreement., Results: Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria, which resulted in 29 isometric-dynamic change comparisons. The overall pooled effect was 0.13 in favor of dynamic testing; however, the prediction interval ranged from g = -0.49 to 0.75. There was no evidence of bias (P = .825) between isometric and dynamic tests; however, the reliability coefficient was estimated to be 16%, and the coefficient of variation (%) was 109.27., Conclusions: As a range of future effects can be expected when comparing isometric to dynamic strength changes following resistance training, and limited proportionality exists between changes in these 2 strength qualities, there is strong evidence that isometric and dynamic strength represent separate neuromuscular domains. These findings can be used to inform strength-assessment models in athlete populations.

Abstract: Pérez-Castilla, A, Miras-Moreno, S, Weakley, J, and García-Ramos, A. Relationship between the number of repetitions in reserve and lifting velocity during the prone bench pull exercise: an alternative approach to control proximity-to-failure. J Strength Cond Res 37(8): 1551-1558, 2023-This study aimed to explore the goodness-of-fit and accuracy of both general and individual relationships between the number of repetitions in reserve (RIR) and the repetition velocity during the Smith machine prone bench pull exercise. Fifteen male sports science students completed 3 sessions separated by 48-72 hours. The first session was used to determine the bench pull 1 repetition maximum (1RM). The second and third sessions were identical and consisted of 3 single sets (60, 70, and 80% 1RM) of repetitions to momentary muscular failure separated by 10 minutes during the Smith machine prone bench pull exercise. General (i.e., pooling together the data from the 15 subjects) and individual RIR-velocity relationships were constructed from the data collected in the second session by pooling the data from the 3 loads (multiple-loads) or specifically for each load (load-specific). The 4 RIR-velocity relationship models were ranked by their goodness-of-fit as follows: individual load-specific ( r = 0.93) > individual multiple-loads ( r = 0.83) > general multiple-loads ( r = 0.65) > general load-specific ( r = 0.61). The accuracy when predicting the RIR in the third session based on the RIR-velocity equations obtained in the second session was acceptable and comparable for the 4 RIR-velocity relationship models (absolute errors ≤2 RIR). However, the 4 RIR-velocity relationship models significantly underestimated the RIR for ≥1 RIR and overestimated the RIR for 0 RIR. These results suggest that the 4 RIR-velocity relationship models are equally effective to quantify proximity-to-failure during the Smith machine prone bench pull exercise., (Copyright © 2022 National Strength and Conditioning Association.)

Abstract: Weakley, J, Castilla, AP, Ramos, AG, Banyard, H, Thurlow, F, Edwards, T, Morrison, M, McMahon, E, and Owen, C. The effect of traditional, rest redistribution, and velocity-based prescription on repeated sprint training performance and responses in semi-professional athletes. J Strength Cond Res 37(8): 1566-1572, 2023-The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of traditional, rest redistribution, and velocity-based repeated sprint training methods on repeated sprint performance, perceived effort, heart rate, and changes in force-velocity-power (FVP) profiles in male semiprofessional athletes. In a randomized crossover design, a traditional (2 sets of 6 repetitions [TRAD]), 2 different rest redistribution (4 sets of 3 repetitions [RR4] and 12 sets of 1 repetition [RR12]), and a 5% velocity loss (VL5%) (12 repetitions, with sets terminated when a 5% reduction in mean velocity had occurred) condition were completed. Mean and peak velocity, mean heart rate, and differential ratings of perceived exertion (dRPE) were measured throughout each session, while horizontal FVP profiles were assessed presession and postsession. The RR4 and RR12 conditions allowed the greatest maintenance of velocity, while the RR4, RR12, and VL5% had a moderate , significantly greater mean heart rate than the traditional condition. Trivial , nonsignificant differences between all conditions were observed in dRPE of the legs and breathlessness and FVP profiles. These findings indicate that rest redistribution can allow for greater maintenance of sprint velocity and heart rate, without altering perceived effort during repeated sprint training. In addition, velocity-loss thresholds may be a feasible method of prescription if athletes have diverse physical qualities and reductions in sprint performance during repeated sprint training are undesirable. Practitioners should consider these outcomes when designing repeated sprint training sessions because the strategic use of these methods can alter sprint performance and internal load without changing perceptions of intensity., (Copyright © 2023 National Strength and Conditioning Association.)

Abstract: Weakley, J, Munteanu, G, Cowley, N, Johnston, R, Morrison, M, Gardiner, C, Pérez-Castilla, A, and García-Ramos, A. The criterion validity and between-day reliability of the Perch for measuring barbell velocity during commonly used resistance training exercises. J Strength Cond Res 37(4): 787-792, 2023-This study aimed to assess the criterion validity and between-day reliability (accounting for technological and biological variability) of mean and peak concentric velocity from the Perch measurement system. On 2 testing occasions, 16 subjects completed repetitions at 20, 40, 60, 80, 90, and 100% of 1-repetition maximum in the free-weight barbell back squat and bench press. To assess criterion validity, values from the Perch and a 3-dimensional motion capture system (criterion) were compared. Technological variability was assessed by determining whether the differences between the Perch and criterion for each load were comparable for both testing sessions, whereas between-day reliability with both technological and biological variability was calculated from Perch values across days. Generalized estimating equations were used to calculate R2 and root mean square error, whereas Bland-Altman plots assessed magnitude of difference between measures. To support monitoring of athletes over time, standard error of measurement and minimum detectable changes (MDC) were calculated. There was excellent agreement between the Perch and criterion device, with mean velocity in both exercises demonstrating a mean bias ranging from -0.01 to 0.01 m·s -1 . For peak velocity, Perch underestimated velocity compared with the criterion ranging from -0.08 to -0.12 m·s -1 for the back squat and -0.01 to -0.02 m·s -1 for the bench press. Technological variability between-days were all less than the MDC. These findings demonstrate that the Perch provides valid and reliable mean and peak concentric velocity outputs across a range of velocities. Therefore, practitioners can confidently implement this device for the monitoring and prescription of resistance training., (Copyright © 2022 National Strength and Conditioning Association.)

Male academy rugby league players are required to undertake field and resistance training to develop the technical, tactical and physical qualities important for success in the sport. However, limited research is available exploring the training load of academy rugby league players. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to quantify the field and resistance training loads of academy rugby league players during a pre-season period and compare training loads between playing positions (i.e., forwards vs. backs). Field and resistance training load data from 28 adolescent male (age 17 ± 1 years) rugby league players were retrospectively analysed following a 13-week pre-season training period (85 total training observations; 45 field sessions and 40 resistance training sessions). Global positioning system microtechnology, and estimated repetition volume was used to quantify external training load, and session rating of perceived exertion (sRPE) was used to quantify internal training load. Positional differences (forwards n = 13 and backs n = 15) in training load were established using a linear mixed effect model. Mean weekly training frequency was 7 ± 2 with duration totaling 324 ± 137 minutes, and a mean sRPE of 1562 ± 678 arbitrary units (AU). Backs covered more high-speed distance than forwards in weeks two (p = 0.024), and 11 (p = 0.028). Compared to the forwards, backs completed more lower body resistance training volume in week one (p = 0.02), more upper body volume in week three (p< 0.001) and week 12 (p = 0.005). The findings provide novel data on the field and resistance-based training load undertaken by academy rugby league players across a pre-season period, highlighting relative uniformity between playing positions. Quantifying training load can support objective decision making for the prescription and manipulation of future training, ultimately aiming to maximise training within development pathways., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Purpose: To compare the accuracy of nine 1-repetition maximum (1RM) prediction methods during the paused and touch-and-go bench press exercises performed in a Smith machine., Method: A total of 86 men performed 2 identical sessions (incremental loading test until reaching the 1RM followed by a set to failure) in a randomized order during the paused and touch-and-go bench press exercises. Individualized load-velocity relationships were modeled by linear and polynomial regression models considering 4 loads (45%-60%-75%-90% of 1RM) (multiple-point methods) and considering only 2 loads (45%-90% of 1RM) by a linear regression (2-point method). Three minimal velocity thresholds were used: the general velocity of 0.17 m·s-1 (general velocity of the 1RM [V1RM]), the velocity obtained when lifting the 1RM load (individual V1RM), and the velocity obtained during the last repetition of a set to failure., Results: The 1RM prediction methods were generally valid (range: r = .96-.99, standard error of the estimate = 2.8-4.9 kg or 4.6%-8.0% of 1RM). The multiple-point linear method (2.79 [2.29] kg) was more precise than the multiple-point polynomial method (3.54 [3.31] kg; P = .013), but no significant differences were observed when compared with the 2-point method (3.09 [2.66] kg, P = .136). The velocity of the last repetition of a set to failure (3.47 [2.97] kg) was significantly less precise than the individual V1RM (2.91 [2.75] kg, P = .009) and general V1RM (3.00 [2.65] kg, P = .010)., Conclusions: Linear regression models and a general minimal velocity threshold of 0.17 m·s-1 should be recommended to obtain a quick and precise estimation of the 1RM during the bench press exercise performed in a Smith machine.

Purpose: To explore the effect of several methodological factors on the number of repetitions performed before and after reaching certain velocity loss thresholds (VLTs)., Method: Fifteen resistance-trained men (bench press 1-repetition maximum = 1.25 [0.16] kg·kg-1) performed with maximum intent a total of 182 sets (77 short sets [≤12 repetitions] and 105 long sets [>12 repetitions]) leading to failure during the Smith machine bench press exercise. Fifteen percent, 30%, and 45% VLTs were calculated, considering 2 reference repetitions (first and fastest repetitions) and 2 velocity variables (mean velocity [MV] and peak velocity [PV])., Results: The number of repetitions performed before reaching all VLTs were affected by the reference repetition and velocity variable (P ≤ .001). The fastest MV and PV during the short sets (75.3%) and PV during the long sets (72.4%) were predominantly observed during the first repetition, while the fastest MV during long sets was almost equally distributed between the first (37.1%) and second repetition (40.0%). Failure occurred before reaching the VLTs more frequently using PV (4, 8, and 33 occasions for 15%, 30%, and 45% VLTs, respectively) than MV (only 1 occasion for the 45% VLT). The participants rarely produced a velocity output above a VLT once this threshold was exceeded for the first time (≈10% and 30% of occasions during the short and long sets, respectively)., Conclusions: The reference repetition and velocity variable are important factors to consider when implementing VLTs during resistance training. The fastest repetition (instead of the first repetition) and MV (instead of PV) are recommended.

Abstract: Weakley, JJS, Till, K, Read, DB, Leduc, C, Roe, GAB, Phibbs, PJ, Darrall-Jones, J, and Jones, B. Jump training in rugby union players: barbell or hexagonal bar?. J Strength Cond Res 35(3): 754-761, 2021-The countermovement jump (CMJ) is an exercise that can develop athletic performance. Using the conventional barbell (BAR) and hexagonal barbell (HEX) while jumping, the intensity can be increased. However, the bar that provides greater adaptations is unknown. Therefore, this study aimed to assess changes in loaded and unloaded CMJ with either a BAR or HEX across a 4-week mesocycle in rugby union players. Twenty-nine subjects were strength-matched and randomized into 2 groups. Subjects completed 3 sets of CMJ at 20% of 1 repetition maximum back squat, 3 times per week for 4 weeks, using either a BAR or HEX. Subjects completed an unloaded CMJ on a force plate before and after, whereas the highest peak concentric velocity during the jump squat was recorded in the first and last training sessions using a linear position transducer. Magnitude-based inferences assessed meaningful changes within- and between-groups. Possibly greater improvements in unloaded CMJ were found in the HEX group in jump height (effect size ± 90% confidence intervals: 0.27 ± 0.27), relative peak (0.21 ± 0.23), and mean power (0.32 ± 0.36). In addition, likely to very likely greater improvements were observed in the HEX group in peak velocity (0.33 ± 0.27), relative mean power (0.53 ± 0.30), mean force (0.47 ± 0.27), and 100-ms impulse (0.60 ± 0.48). Similar raw changes in jump squat peak velocity occurred (0.20-0.25 m·s-1), despite the likely greater ES occurring with the BAR (0.32 ± 0.26). These results indicate that training with the HEX leads to superior unloaded CMJ adaptations. In addition, practitioners should use either the HEX or BAR when aiming to enhance loaded jump ability., (Copyright © 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association.)

Purpose: To compare the effects of velocity-based training (VBT) and 1-repetition-maximum (1RM) percentage-based training (PBT) on changes in strength, loaded countermovement jump (CMJ), and sprint performance., Methods: A total of 24 resistance-trained males performed 6 weeks of full-depth free-weight back squats 3 times per week in a daily undulating format, with groups matched for sets and repetitions. The PBT group lifted with fixed relative loads varying from 59% to 85% of preintervention 1RM. The VBT group aimed for a sessional target velocity that was prescribed from pretraining individualized load-velocity profiles. Thus, real-time velocity feedback dictated the VBT set-by-set training load adjustments. Pretraining and posttraining assessments included the 1RM, peak velocity for CMJ at 30%1RM (PV-CMJ), 20-m sprint (including 5 and 10 m), and 505 change-of-direction test (COD)., Results: The VBT group maintained faster (effect size [ES] = 1.25) training repetitions with less perceived difficulty (ES = 0.72) compared with the PBT group. The VBT group had likely to very likely improvements in the COD (ES = -1.20 to -1.27), 5-m sprint (ES = -1.17), 10-m sprint (ES = -0.93), 1RM (ES = 0.89), and PV-CMJ (ES = 0.79). The PBT group had almost certain improvements in the 1RM (ES = 1.41) and possibly beneficial improvements in the COD (ES = -0.86). Very likely favorable between-groups effects were observed for VBT compared to PBT in the PV-CMJ (ES = 1.81), 5-m sprint (ES = 1.35), and 20-m sprint (ES = 1.27); likely favorable between-groups effects were observed in the 10-m sprint (ES = 1.24) and nondominant-leg COD (ES = 0.96), whereas the dominant-leg COD (ES = 0.67) was possibly favorable. PBT had small (ES = 0.57), but unclear differences for 1RM improvement compared to VBT., Conclusions: Both training methods improved 1RM and COD times, but PBT may be slightly favorable for stronger individuals focusing on maximal strength, whereas VBT was more beneficial for PV-CMJ, sprint, and COD improvements.

Weakley, J, Wilson, K, Till, K, Banyard, H, Dyson, J, Phibbs, P, Read, D, and Jones, B. Show me, tell me, encourage me: The effect of different forms of feedback on resistance training performance. J Strength Cond Res 34(11): 3157-3163, 2020-When performing resistance training, verbal kinematic feedback and visual kinematic feedback are known to enhance performance. In addition, providing verbal encouragement can assist in the attenuation of fatigue. However, the effects of these forms of feedback have never been compared. Consequently, this study aimed to quantify the effects of verbal kinematic feedback and visual kinematic feedback, and verbal encouragement on barbell velocity during the back squat. Furthermore, changes in performance were related to individual-reported conscientiousness. Twelve semiprofessional rugby union players volunteered to participate in the study that consisted of the subjects completing a set of the barbell back squat across 4 conditions (i.e., no-feedback [control], verbal feedback of kinematic information [verbal], visual feedback of kinematic information [visual], and verbal encouragement [encouragement]). In addition, participants completed a questionnaire before the study to assess conscientiousness. Magnitude-based inferences were used to assess differences between conditions, whereas Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was used to assess relationships between conscientiousness and changes in barbell velocity. All 3 forms of feedback showed almost certain improvements in barbell velocity, while differences between interventions were likely to very likely trivial. Changes in barbell velocity showed small to large inverse relationships with conscientiousness. These findings suggest that practitioners should supply kinematic feedback (verbally or visually) or, when technology is not available, provide athletes with encouraging statements while resistance training. Verbal encouragement may be of greatest benefit for individuals who demonstrate low levels of conscientiousness. Given these findings, practitioners are advised to use either technology or verbal encouragement to manipulate acute training outcomes.

Exercise velocity and relative velocity loss thresholds (VLTs) are commonly used in velocity-based resistance training. This study aims to quantify the between-day reliability of 10%, 20%, and 30% VLTs on kinetic and kinematic outputs, changes in external load, and repetition characteristics in well-trained athletes. Using a repeated, counter-balanced crossover design, twelve semi-professional athletes completed five sets of the back squat with an external load corresponding to a mean concentric velocity of ~0.70 m·s -1 and a VLT applied. The testing sessions were repeated after four weeks of unstructured training to assess the long-term reliability of each VLT. A coefficient of variation (CV) <10% was used to classify outputs as reliable. Kinetic and kinematic outputs and external load were largely reliable, with only peak power during sets 2-5 within the 10% VLT condition demonstrating a CV >10% (CV: 11.14-14.92%). Alternatively, the repetitions completed within each set showed large variation (CV: 18.92-67.49%). These findings demonstrate that by utilizing VLTs, kinetic and kinematic outputs can be prescribed and replicated across training mesocycles. Thus, for practitioners wishing to reliably control the kinetic and kinematic stimulus that is being applied to their athletes, it is advised that a velocity-based approach is used.

Weakley, J, Chalkley, D, Johnston, R, García-Ramos, A, Townshend, A, Dorrell, H, Pearson, M, Morrison, M, and Cole, M. Criterion validity, and interunit and between-day reliability of the FLEX for measuring barbell velocity during commonly used resistance training exercises. J Strength Cond Res 34(6): 1519-1524, 2020-The aim of this study was to assess the criterion validity, interunit reliability (accounting for technological and biological variance), and between-day reliability of a novel optic laser device (FLEX) for quantifying mean concentric velocity. To assess the validity against a three-dimensional motion capture system and interunit reliability with both technological and biological variation, 18 men and women completed repetitions at 20, 40, 60, 80, 90, and 100% of one repetition maximum in the free-weight barbell back squat and bench press. To assess interunit (technological only) reliability, a purpose-built, calibrated rig completed a set protocol with 2 devices. To assess between-day reliability of the technology, the same protocol was repeated 21 days later. Standardized bias, typical error of the estimate (TEE; %), and Pearson's correlation coefficient (r) were used to assess validity, whereas typical error and coefficient of variation (CV%) were calculated for reliability. Overall, TEE (±90 CL) between the FLEX and criterion measure was 0.03 (±0.004) and 0.04 (±0.005) m·s in the back squat and bench press, respectively. For measures of reliability, overall interunit technological variance (CV% [± 90% confidence interval]) was 3.96% (3.83-4.12) but increased to 9.82% (9.31-10.41) and 9.83% (9.17-10.61) in the back squat and bench press, respectively, when biological variance was introduced. Finally, the overall between-day reliability was 3.77% (3.63-3.91). These findings demonstrate that the FLEX provides valid and reliable mean concentric velocity outputs across a range of velocities. Thus, practitioners can confidently implement this device for the monitoring and prescription of resistance training loads.

Purpose: Prescribing resistance training using velocity loss thresholds can enhance exercise quality by mitigating neuromuscular fatigue. As little is known regarding performance during these protocols, we aimed to assess the effects of 10%, 20%, and 30% velocity loss thresholds on kinetic, kinematic, and repetition characteristics in the free-weight back squat., Methods: Using a randomized crossover design, 16 resistance-trained men were recruited to complete 5 sets of the barbell back squat. Lifting load corresponded to a mean concentric velocity (MV) of ∼0.70 m·s-1 (115 [22] kg). Repetitions were performed until a 10%, 20%, or 30% MV loss was attained., Results: Set MV and power output were substantially higher in the 10% protocol (0.66 m·s-1 and 1341 W, respectively), followed by the 20% (0.62 m·s-1 and 1246 W) and 30% protocols (0.59 m·s-1 and 1179 W). There were no substantial changes in MV (-0.01 to -0.02 m·s-1) or power output (-14 to -55 W) across the 5 sets for all protocols, and individual differences in these changes were typically trivial to small. Mean set repetitions were substantially higher in the 30% protocol (7.8), followed by the 20% (6.4) and 10% protocols (4.2). There were small to moderate reductions in repetitions across the 5 sets during all protocols (-39%, -31%, -19%, respectively), and individual differences in these changes were small to very large., Conclusions: Velocity training prescription maintains kinetic and kinematic output across multiple sets of the back squat, with repetition ranges being highly variable. Our findings, therefore, challenge traditional resistance training paradigms (repetition based) and add support to a velocity-based approach.

Weakley, JJS, Till, K, Read, DB, Phibbs, PJ, Roe, G, Darrall-Jones, J, and Jones, BL. The effects of superset configuration on kinetic, kinematic, and perceived exertion in the barbell bench press. J Strength Cond Res 34(1): 65-72, 2020-Training that is efficient and effective is of great importance to an athlete. One method of improving efficiency is by incorporating supersets into resistance training routines. However, the structuring of supersets is still unexplored. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to assess the effects of agonist-antagonist (A-A), alternate peripheral (A-P), and similar biomechanical (SB) superset configurations on rate of perceived exertion (RPE), kinetic and kinematic changes during the bench press. Ten subjects performed resistance training protocols in a randomized-crossover design, with magnitude-based inferences assessing changes/differences within and between protocols. Changes in rate of perceived exertion were very likely and almost certainly greater in the A-P and SB protocols when compared with the A-A, whereas all superset protocols had very likely to almost certain reductions in mean velocity and power from baseline. Reductions in mean velocity and power were almost certainly greater in the SB protocol, with differences between the A-A and A-P protocols being unclear. Decreases in peak force were likely and almost certain in the A-A and SB protocols respectively, with changes in A-P being unclear. Differences between these protocols showed likely greater decreases in SB peak forces when compared to A-A, with all other superset comparisons being unclear. This study demonstrates the importance of exercise selection when incorporating supersets into a training routine. It is suggested that the practitioner uses A-A supersets when aiming to improve training efficiency and minimize reductions in kinetic and kinematic output of the agonist musculature while completing the barbell bench press.

This study examined the reliability and validity of three methods of estimating the one-repetition maximum (1RM) during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise. Twenty-six men (22 rowers and four weightlifters) performed an incremental loading test until reaching their 1RM, followed by a set of repetitions-to-failure. Eighteen participants were re-tested to conduct the reliability analysis. The 1RM was estimated through the lifts-to-failure equations proposed by Lombardi and O'Connor, general load-velocity (L-V) relationships proposed by Sánchez-Medina and Loturco and the individual L-V relationships modelled using four (multiple-point method) or only two loads (two-point method). The direct method provided the highest reliability (coefficient of variation [CV] = 2.45% and intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.97), followed by the Lombardi's equation (CV = 3.44% and ICC = 0.94), and no meaningful differences were observed between the remaining methods (CV range = 4.95-6.89% and ICC range = 0.81-0.91). The lifts-to-failure equations overestimated the 1RM (3.43-4.08%), the general L-V relationship proposed by Sánchez-Medina underestimated the 1RM (-3.77%), and no significant differences were observed for the remaining prediction methods (-0.40-0.86%). The individual L-V relationship could be recommended as the most accurate method for predicting the 1RM during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise.

Weakley, JJS, Till, K, Darrall-Jones, J, Roe, GAB, Phibbs, PJ, Read, DB, and Jones, BL. Strength and conditioning practices in adolescent rugby players: relationship with changes in physical qualities. J Strength Cond Res 33(9): 2361-2369, 2019-Adolescent rugby players benefit from the implementation of resistance training. However resistance training practices and how they influence short-term physical change is unknown. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to quantify resistance training practices, evaluate physical development, and relate these changes to resistance training variables across 12 weeks in adolescent rugby union players. Thirty-five male adolescent rugby union players participated in the study with subjects completing an anthropometric and physical testing battery before and after a 12-week in-season mesocycle. Subjects recorded resistance training frequency, exercises, repetitions, load, minutes, and rating of perceived exertion for each session using weekly training diaries during the 12-week period. Paired sample t tests and Cohen's d effect sizes were used to assess change, whereas Pearson correlation coefficients assessed relationships between variables. Resistance training practices were variable, although significant (p ≤ 0.05) improvements in body mass, countermovement jump (CMJ) height, front squat, bench press, and chin-up strength were observed. Resistance training volume load had moderate to strong relationships with changes in CMJ (r = 0.71), chin up (r = 0.73), and bench press (r = 0.45). Frequency of upper and lower-body compound exercises had significant moderate to large relationships with changes in CMJ (r = 0.68), chin up (r = 0.65), and bench press (r = 0.41). Across a 12-week in-season period, adolescent rugby union players have varying resistance training practices, although anthropometric and physical characteristics seem to improve. Given the observed relationships, increased volume loads through the implementation of free-weight compound exercises could be an effective method for improving physical qualities in young rugby players.

Weakley, JJS, Wilson, KM, Till, K, Read, DB, Darrall-Jones, J, Roe, GAB, Phibbs, PJ, and Jones, B. Visual feedback attenuates mean concentric barbell velocity loss and improves motivation, competitiveness, and perceived workload in male adolescent athletes. J Strength Cond Res 33(9): 2420-2425, 2019-It is unknown whether instantaneous visual feedback of resistance training outcomes can enhance barbell velocity in younger athletes. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to quantify the effects of visual feedback on mean concentric barbell velocity in the back squat and to identify changes in motivation, competitiveness, and perceived workload. In a randomized-crossover design (Feedback vs. Control), feedback of mean concentric barbell velocity was or was not provided throughout a set of 10 repetitions in the barbell back squat. Magnitude-based inferences were used to assess changes between conditions, with almost certainly greater differences in mean concentric velocity between the Feedback (0.70 ± 0.04 m·s) and Control (0.65 ± 0.05 m·s) observed. In addition, individual repetition mean concentric velocity ranged from possibly (repetition number 2: 0.79 ± 0.04 vs. 0.78 ± 0.04 m·s) to almost certainly (repetition number 10: 0.58 ± 0.05 vs. 0.49 ± 0.05 m·s) greater when provided feedback, whereas almost certain differences were observed in motivation, competitiveness, and perceived workload, respectively. Providing adolescent male athletes with visual kinematic information while completing resistance training is beneficial for the maintenance of barbell velocity during a training set, potentially enhancing physical performance. Moreover, these improvements were observed alongside increases in motivation, competitiveness, and perceived workload providing insight into the underlying mechanisms responsible for the performance gains observed. Given the observed maintenance of barbell velocity during a training set, practitioners can use this technique to manipulate training outcomes during resistance training.

Weakley, J, Fernández-Valdés, B, Thomas, L, Ramirez-Lopez, C, and Jones, B. Criterion validity of force and power outputs for a commonly used flywheel resistance training device and bluetooth app. J Strength Cond Res 33(5): 1180-1184, 2019-Flywheels are a resistance training device that can increase lean body mass, strength, and power. However, because of their unique design and the inertia from the concentric portion directly relating to the force that is applied during the eccentric portion, monitoring the training stimulus can be difficult. Consequently, the aim of this study was to assess the validity of the kMeter app for quantifying force and power at a range of different isoinertial loads from a flywheel training device when compared against a criterion measure. Eleven subjects volunteered to take part in this study, with subjects completing between 5 and 35 repetitions of the harness squat with 0.05, 0.10, 0.15 kg·m isoinertial load. A synchronized dual force plate and tricamera optoelectronic setup was used as the criterion measure to calculate force and power output, while the kMeter app was used as the practical measure. Very large to nearly perfect relationships were observed between the 2 measures, with trivial to moderate bias reported. In addition, typical error of the estimate (TEE) was found to be <10% at all isoinertial loads. These findings suggest that the kMeter app, when used in conjunction with the kBox flywheel device, demonstrates acceptable levels of validity. However, because of the TEE, the kMeter app may not be able to accurately detect small differences and therefore be suitable for research purposes. These findings suggest that the kMeter app is an acceptable method of monitoring flywheel resistance training. Furthermore, it is advised that practitioners use mean power rather than mean force.

This aims of this study were (I) to determine the velocity variable and regression model which best fit the load-velocity relationship during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise, (II) to compare the reliability of the velocity attained at each percentage of the one-repetition maximum (1RM) between different velocity variables and regression models, and (III) to compare the within- and between-subject variability of the velocity attained at each %1RM. Eighteen men (14 rowers and four weightlifters) performed an incremental test during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise in two different sessions. General and individual load-velocity relationships were modelled through three velocity variables (mean velocity [MV], mean propulsive velocity [MPV] and peak velocity [PV]) and two regression models (linear and second-order polynomial). The main findings revealed that (I) the general (Pearson's correlation coefficient [r] range = 0.964-0.973) and individual (median r = 0.986 for MV, 0.989 for MPV, and 0.984 for PV) load-velocity relationships were highly linear, (II) the reliability of the velocity attained at each %1RM did not meaningfully differ between the velocity variables (coefficient of variation [CV] range = 2.55-7.61% for MV, 2.84-7.72% for MPV and 3.50-6.03% for PV) neither between the regression models (CV range = 2.55-7.72% and 2.73-5.25% for the linear and polynomial regressions, respectively), and (III) the within-subject variability of the velocity attained at each %1RM was lower than the between-subject variability for the light-moderate loads. No meaningful differences between the within- and between-subject CVs were observed for the MV of the 1RM trial (6.02% vs. 6.60%; CVratio = 1.10), while the within-subject CV was lower for PV (6.36% vs. 7.56%; CVratio = 1.19). These results suggest that the individual load-MV relationship should be determined with a linear regression model to obtain the most accurate prescription of the relative load during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Purpose: Investigate the acute and short-term (i.e., 24 h) effects of traditional (TRAD), superset (SS), and tri-set (TRI) resistance training protocols on perceptions of intensity and physiological responses., Methods: Fourteen male participants completed a familiarisation session and three resistance training protocols (i.e., TRAD, SS, and TRI) in a randomised-crossover design. Rating of perceived exertion, lactate concentration ([Lac]), creatine kinase concentration ([CK]), countermovement jump (CMJ), testosterone, and cortisol concentrations was measured pre, immediately, and 24-h post the resistance training sessions with magnitude-based inferences assessing changes/differences within/between protocols., Results: TRI reported possible to almost certainly greater efficiency and rate of perceived exertion, although session perceived load was very likely lower. SS and TRI had very likely to almost certainly greater lactate responses during the protocols, with changes in [CK] being very likely and likely increased at 24 h, respectively. At 24-h post-training, CMJ variables in the TRAD protocol had returned to baseline; however, SS and TRI were still possibly to likely reduced. Possible increases in testosterone immediately post SS and TRI protocols were reported, with SS showing possible increases at 24-h post-training. TRAD and SS showed almost certain and likely decreases in cortisol immediately post, respectively, with TRAD reporting likely decreases at 24-h post-training., Conclusions: SS and TRI can enhance training efficiency and reduce training time. However, acute and short-term physiological responses differ between protocols. Athletes can utilise SS and TRI resistance training, but may require additional recovery post-training to minimise effects of fatigue.

Weakley, JJS, Till, K, Darrall-Jones, J, Roe, GAB, Phibbs, PJ, Read, DB, and Jones, BL. The influence of resistance training experience on the between-day reliability of commonly used strength measures in male youth athletes. J Strength Cond Res 31(7): 2005-2010, 2017-The purpose of this study was to determine the between-day reliability of commonly used strength measures in male youth athletes while considering resistance training experience. Data were collected on 25 male athletes over 2 testing sessions, with 72 hours rest between, for the 3 repetition maximum (3RM) front squat, chin-up, and bench press. Subjects were initially categorized by resistance training experience (inexperienced; 6-12 months, experienced; >2 years). The assessment of the between-day reliability (coefficient of variation [CV%]) showed that the front squat (experienced: 2.90%; inexperienced: 1.90%), chin-up (experienced: 1.70%; inexperienced: 1.90%), and bench press (experienced: 4.50%; inexperienced: 2.40%) were all reliable measures of strength in both groups. Comparison between groups for the error of measurement for each exercise showed trivial differences. When both groups were combined, the CV% for the front squat, bench press, and chin-up were 2.50, 1.80, and 3.70%, respectively. This study provides scientists and practitioners with the between-day reliability reference data to determine real and practical changes for strength in male youth athletes with different resistance training experience. Furthermore, this study demonstrates that 3RM front squat, chin-up, and bench press are reliable exercises to quantify strength in male youth athletes.

Background: Maximal lower-body strength can be assessed both dynamically and isometrically; however, the relationship between the changes in these 2 forms of strength following resistance training is not well understood. Purpose: To systematically review and analyze the effects of resistance training on changes in maximal dynamic (1-repetition-maximum back squat, deadlift, and power clean) and position-matched isometric strength (isometric midthigh pull and the isometric squat). In addition, individual-level data were used to quantify the agreement and relationship between changes in dynamic and isometric strength. Methods: Databases were systematically searched to identify eligible articles, and meta-analysis procedures were performed on the extracted data. The raw results from 4 studies were acquired, enabling bias and absolute reliability measures to be calculated using Bland–Altman test of agreement. Results: Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria, which resulted in 29 isometric–dynamic change comparisons. The overall pooled effect was 0.13 in favor of dynamic testing; however, the prediction interval ranged from g = −0.49 to 0.75. There was no evidence of bias (P =.825) between isometric and dynamic tests; however, the reliability coefficient was estimated to be 16%, and the coefficient of variation (%) was 109.27. Conclusions: As a range of future effects can be expected when comparing isometric to dynamic strength changes following resistance training, and limited proportionality exists between changes in these 2 strength qualities, there is strong evidence that isometric and dynamic strength represent separate neuromuscular domains. These findings can be used to inform strength-assessment models in athlete populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this study was to assess whether lifting velocity (MV) can provide accurate estimations of the maximum number of repetitions that can be performed to failure (RTF) during the parallel back‐squat exercise performed in a Smith machine. Thirty male wrestlers from the Turkey Olympic preparation center (age = 22.6 ± 2.2 years) completed four testing sessions: a session to determine the back‐squat one‐repetition maximum [1RM], two sessions consisting of single sets to failure against three loads (90%‐80%‐70%1RM), and one session consisting of four sets to failure against the 75%1RM. The goodness‐of‐fit of the generalized RTF‐MV relationship was strong (r2 = 0.838), but the individualized RTF‐MV relationships were stronger (r2 = 0.957 ± 0.058). Only 3 out of 60 individualized RTF‐MV relationships revealed a r2 lower than the r2 of the generalized RTF‐MV relationship (r2 = 0.685, 0.779 and 0.810). The reliability of the fastest MV associated with each RTF ranged from acceptable (4 out of 15 RTFs) to high (11 out of 15 RTFs). The raw and absolute errors in the prediction of RTF did not increase under fatigue and were comparable for both generalized (raw errors: −1.0–0.3 repetitions; absolute errors: 1.1–1.7 repetitions) and individualized (raw errors: −0.8 to 0.1 repetitions; absolute errors: 1.2–1.8 repetitions) RTF‐MV relationships. These results indicate that RTF can be predicted with acceptable precision from MV recordings in resistance‐trained skilled wrestlers during the parallel back‐squat exercise performed in a Smith machine. Highlights: The maximum number of repetitions completed to failure (RTF) can be predicted with acceptable precision from mean velocity (MV) recordings in resistance‐trained skilled wrestlers during the parallel back‐squat exercise performed in a Smith machine.The raw and absolute errors in the prediction of RTF is not influenced by the fatigue levels experienced at the beginning of the set.For more accurate RTF‐MV relationships, familiarity with lifting at maximal intended velocity and performing sets to failure seems beneficial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study aimed to investigate how squat protocols performed at maximal and submaximal intended velocities during interset periods of paired upper‐body exercises that impact the mechanical performance of these multijoint upper‐body exercises. Twenty‐one young and healthy adults (seven women) completed three experimental sessions, each comprising four sets of five repetitions at 75% of their 1‐repetition maximum, with a 4‐min break between sets using the bench press and bench pull exercises. The experimental sessions differed in the protocol utilized during the interset periods: (i) Passive—no physical exercise was performed; (ii) SQfast—5 repetitions of the squat exercise at maximal intended velocity against the load associated with a mean velocity (MV) of 0.75 m s−1; and (iii) SQslow—5 repetitions of the squat exercise at submaximal velocity (intended MV of 0.50 m s−1) against the load associated with an MV of 0.75 m s−1. Level of significance was p ≤ 0.05. The main findings revealed negligible differences (effect size [ES] < 0.20) among the exercise protocols (passive vs. SQfast vs. SQslow) for all mechanical variables during the bench pull, whereas during the bench press, small differences (ES from 0.23 to 0.31) emerged favoring the passive protocol over SQfast and SQslow in terms of mean set velocity and fastest MV of the set. The absence of significant differences between the SQfast and SQslow protocols, irrespective of the particular upper‐body exercise, implies that the intended lifting velocity does not influence the potential interference effect during paired set training procedures. Highlights: Supersets with the squat exercise appear to exert minimal influence on bench pull mechanical performance but modest interference arises concerning the bench press exercise.The intended lifting velocity utilized in lower‐body exercises does not exert an influence on mechanical performance within paired upper‐body exercise sets.Exercise selection holds greater significance than intended lifting velocity when striving to mitigate interference in superset training. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this study was to investigate the validity of a low-cost friction encoder against a criterion measure (strain gauge combined with a linear encoder) for assessing velocity, force and power in flywheel exercise devices. Ten young and physically active volunteers performed two sets of 14 maximal squats on a flywheel inertial device (YoYo Technology, Stockholm, Sweden) with five minutes rest between each set. Two different resistances were used (0.075 kg ⋅ m² for the first set; 0.025 kg ⋅ m² for the second). Mean velocity (Vrep), force (Frep) and power (Prep) for each repetition were assessed simultaneously via a friction encoder (Chronojump, Barcelona, Spain), and with a strain gauge combined with a linear encoder (MuscleLab 6000, Ergotest Technology, Porsgrunn, Norway). Results are displayed as (Mean [CI 90%]). Compared to criterion measures, mean bias for the practical measures of Vrep, Frep and Prep were moderate (-0.95 [-0.99 to -0.92]), small (0.53 [0.50 to 0.56]) and moderate (-0.68 [-0.71 to -0.65]) respectively. The typical error of estimate (TEE) was small for all three parameters; Vrep (0.23 [0.20 to 0.25]), Frep (0.20 [0.18 to 0.22]) and Prep (0.18 [0.16 to 0.20]). Correlations with MuscleLab were nearly perfect for all measures in all load configurations. Based on these findings, the friction encoder provides valid measures of velocity, force and power in flywheel exercise devices. However, as error did exist between measures, the same testing protocol should be used when assessing changes in these parameters over time, or when aiming to perform inter-individual comparisons. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Resistance training is a method of enhancing strength, gait speed, mobility, and health. However, the external load required to induce these benefits is a contentious issue. A growing body of evidence suggests that when lower load resistance training [i.e., loads < 50% of one-repetition maximum (1RM)] is completed within close proximity to concentric failure, it can serve as an effective alternative to traditional higher load (i.e., loads > 70% of 1RM) training and in many cases can promote similar or even superior physiological adaptations. Such findings are important given that confidence with external loads and access to training facilities and equipment are commonly cited barriers to regular resistance training. Here, we review some of the mechanisms and physiological changes in response to lower load resistance training. We also consider the evidence for applying lower loads for those at risk of cardiovascular and metabolic diseases and those with reduced mobility. Finally, we provide practical recommendations, specifically that to maximize the benefits of lower load resistance training, high levels of effort and training in close proximity to concentric failure are required. Additionally, using lower loads 2–3 times per week with 3–4 sets per exercise, and loads no lower than 30% of 1RM can enhance muscle hypertrophy and strength adaptations. Consequently, implementing lower load resistance training can be a beneficial and viable resistance training method for a wide range of fitness- and health-related goals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Feedback can enhance acute physical performance. However, its effects on physical adaptation have received little attention. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine the effect of feedback during a 4-wk training program on jump, sprint, and strength adaptations. Methods: A total of 28 semiprofessional male rugby union players were strength-matched into 2 groups (feedback and nonfeedback). During the 4-wk training program, the Feedback group received immediate, objective feedback on (1) mean concentric velocity during resistance training repetitions, (2) distance feedback for standing broad jumps, and (3) time for sprints. The Nonfeedback group was not provided additional information. Across the 4-wk mesocycle, subjects completed 3 strength and conditioning sessions per week. Countermovement jump, standing long jump, 10- and 20-m sprint, and 3-repetition-maximum barbell back squat and bench press were measured before and after the training intervention. Magnitude-based inferences assessed meaningful changes within and between groups. Results: The Feedback group showed small to moderate improvements in outcome measures, whereas the Nonfeedback group demonstrated trivial to small improvements. Improvements in countermovement-jump relative peak power (effect size ±90% confidence limits: 0.34 ± 0.42), 10-m (0.20 ± 0.35) and 20-m sprints (0.40 ± 0.21), and 3-repetition-maximum back squats (0.23 ± 0.17) were possibly to likely greater for the Feedback condition than for Nonfeedback. Conclusions: Providing augmented feedback during strength and conditioning routines can enhance training adaptations compared with athletes who do not receive feedback. Consequently, practitioners should consider providing kinematic outputs, displacement, or sprint time at the completion of each repetition as athletes train. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this study was to investigate the differences and long-term reliability in perceptual, metabolic, and neuromuscular responses to velocity loss resistance training protocols. Using a repeated, counterbalanced, crossover design, twelve team-sport athletes completed 5-sets of barbell back-squats at a load corresponding to a mean concentric velocity of ~0.70 m·s−1. On different days, repetitions were performed until a 10%, 20% or 30% velocity loss was attained, with outcome measures collected after each set. Sessions were repeated after four-weeks. There were substantial between-protocol differences in post-set differential ratings of perceived exertion (dRPE, i.e., breathlessness and leg muscles, AU) and blood lactate concentration (B[La], mmol·L−1), such that 30%>20%>10% by small to large magnitudes. Differences in post-set countermovement jump (CMJ) variables were small for most variables, such that 30%<20%<10%. Standard deviations representing four-week variability of post-set responses to each protocol were: dRPE, 8–11; B[La], 0.8–1.0; CMJ height, 1.6–2.0; CMJ PPO, 1.0–1.8; CMJ PCV, 0.04–0.06; CMJ 100ms-Impulse, 5.7–11.9. Velocity loss thresholds control the magnitude of perceptual, metabolic, and neuromuscular responses to resistance training. For practitioners wanting to reliably prescribe training that can induce a given perceptual, metabolic, or neuromuscular response, it is strongly advised that velocity-based thresholds are implemented. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The use of unstable surfaces during resistance training has demonstrated a maintenance or reduction on force production. However, the use of unstable surface on force variability has not been assessed using non-linear methods that may be better suited to detect changes in movement variability throughout a given movement. Consequently, this study compared the use of stable vs unstable surfaces on force variability during bilateral squats performed with an inertial flywheel device (Eccoteck, Byomedic System SCP, Spain). Twenty healthy men (mean ± SD: age 22.9 ± 2.9 years, height 1.81 ± 0.7 m, body mass 76.4 ± 7.6 kg and 1RM back squat 110.9 ± 19.7 kg) with a minimum of four years in resistance training performed six sets of six repetitions of squats at maximal concentric effort with one minute rest between sets. Force output on the vertical axes was measured using a strain gauge and the results were processed using non-linear sample entropy (SampEn). Results showed no differences for any of the dependent variables between stable and unstable conditions. SampEn showed no differences between conditions (chi-squared = 0.048 P = 0.827), while Force mean and SampEn presented a small correlation (r = 0.184; p < 0.01). No changes in entropy were found over the course of the series. Together, these results suggest that the structure of force variability between stable and unstable surfaces are similar. This lack of difference between surfaces may be due to postural and anticipatory adjustments. Consequently, by introducing unstable surfaces to the flywheel bilateral squat exercise, practitioners may not observe changes in Force mean and force variability when compared to stable surface training suggesting that increased training volumes or intensity may be required during unstable environments to cause a desired training stimulus. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]