Determination of optimal loading during the power clean, in collegiate athletes

ABSTRACT: Comfort, P, Fletcher, C, and McMahon, JJ. Determination of optimal loading during the power clean, in collegiate athletes. J Strength Cond Res 26(11): 2970-2974, 2012-Although previous research has been performed in similar areas of study, the optimal load for the development of peak power during training remains controversial, and this has yet to be established in collegiate level athletes. The purpose of this study was to determine the optimal load to achieve peak power output during the power clean in collegiate athletes. Nineteen male collegiate athletes (age 21.5 ± 1.4 years; height 173.86 ± 7.98 cm; body mass 78.85 ± 8.67 kg) performed 3 repetitions of power cleans, while standing on a force platform, using loads of 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, and 80% of their predetermined 1-repetition maximum (1RM) power clean, in a randomized, counterbalanced order. Peak power output occurred at 70% 1RM (2,951.7 ± 931.71 W), which was significantly greater than the 30% (2,149.5 ± 406.98 W, p = 0.007), 40% (2,201.0 ± 438.82 W, p = 0.04), and 50% (2,231.1 ± 501.09 W, p = 0.05) conditions, although not significantly different when compared with the 60 and 80% 1RM loads. In addition, force increased with an increase in load, with peak force occurring at 80% 1RM (1,939.1 ± 320.97 N), which was significantly greater (p < 0.001) than the 30, 40, 50, and 60% 1RM loads but not significantly greater (p > 0.05) than the 70% 1RM load (1,921.2 ± 345.16 N). In contrast, there was no significant difference (p > 0.05) in rate of force development across loads. When training to maximize force and power, it may be advantageous to use loads equivalent to 60-80% of the 1RM, in collegiate level athletes.     

The effect of loading on kinematic and kinetic variables during the midthigh clean pull

The ability to develop high levels of muscular power is considered a fundamental component for many different sporting activities; however, the load that elicits peak power still remains controversial. The primary aim of this study was to determine at which load peak power output occurs during the midthigh clean pull. Sixteen participants (age 21.5 ± 2.4 years; height 173.86 ± 7.98 cm; body mass 70.85 ± 11.67 kg) performed midthigh clean pulls at intensities of 40, 60, 80, 100, 120, and 140% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM) power clean in a randomized and balanced order using a force plate and linear position transducer to assess velocity, displacement, peak power, peak force (Fz), impulse, and rate of force development (RFD). Significantly greater Fz occurred at a load of 140% (2,778.65 ± 151.58 N, p < 0.001), impulse within 100, 200, and 300 milliseconds at a load of 140% 1RM (196.85 ± 76.56, 415.75 ± 157.56, and 647.86 ± 252.43 N·s, p < 0.023, respectively), RFD at a load of 120% (26,224.23 ± 2,461.61 N·s, p = 0.004), whereas peak velocity (1.693 ± 0.042 m·s, p < 0.001) and peak power (3,712.82 ± 254.38 W, p < 0.001) occurred at 40% 1RM. Greatest total impulse (1,129.86 ± 534.86 N·s) was achieved at 140% 1RM, which was significantly greater (p < 0.03) than at all loads except the 120% 1RM condition. Results indicate that increased loading results in significant (p < 0.001) decreases in peak power and peak velocity during the midthigh clean pull. Moreover, if maximizing force production is the goal, then training at a higher load may be advantageous, with peak Fz occurring at 140% 1RM.     

Occurrence of fatigue during sets of static squat jumps performed at a variety of loads

Research has identified that the optimal power load for static squat jumps (with no countermovement) is lower than the loads usually recommended for power training. Lower loads may permit the performance of additional repetitions before the onset of fatigue compared with heavier loads; therefore, the aim of this study was to determine the point of fatigue during squat jumps at various loads (0, 20, 40, 60% 1-repetition maximum [1RM]). Seventeen professional rugby league players performed sets of 6 squat jumps (with no countermovement), using 4 loading conditions (0, 20, 40, and 60% of 1RM back squat). Repeated measures analysis of variance revealed no significant differences (p > 0.05) in force, velocity, power, and displacement between repetitions, for the 0, 20, and 40% loading conditions. The 60% condition showed no significant difference (p > 0.05) in peak force between repetitions; however, velocity (1.12 + 0.10 and 1.18 + 0.11 m·s(-1)), power (3,385 + 343 and 3,617 + 396 W) and displacement (11.13 + 2.31 and 11.85 + 2.16 cm) were significantly (p < 0.02) lower during repetition 6 compared with repetition 2. These findings indicate that when performing squat jumps (with no countermovement) with a load <40% 1RM back squat, up to >6 repetitions can be completed without inducing fatigue and a minimum of 4-6 repetitions should be performed to achieve peak power output. When performing squat jumps (with no countermovement) with a load equal to the 60% 1RM only, 5 repetitions should be performed to minimize fatigue and ensure maintenance of velocity and power.     

Optimal load maximizes the mean mechanical power output during upper extremity exercise in highly trained soccer players

The purpose of this study was to determine the optimal load for the maximal power output during the acceleration phase of a power movement in bench press (BP) exercises of highly trained soccer players at the beginning of a competition period. Fifteen professional male soccer players with an average age of 26.1 ± 3.9 years, an average height of 183.3 ± 6.7 cm, an average body mass of 78.8 ± 7.2 kg, and an average 1 repetition maximum (1RM) of 83.3 ± 11.2 kg were employed as subjects in this study. Maximal mean power output during a BP at 0, 10, 30, 50, 70, and 90% of their 1RM was measured to determine whether an optimal load exists that allows for the attainment of maximal power output. Three-dimensional upper extremity kinematic data were collected. Two force plates embedded in the floor and positioned below the bench were used to measure contact forces between the bench and ground during the lift. A repeated-measures analysis of variance was performed to determine power output differences at different percentages of the 1RM. The results of this study indicated that loads of 50% of the 1RM resulted in greater mean power output during the complete positive power movement. Loads at 30 and 50% of the 1RM resulted in greater mean power output computed from the acceleration phase of the lift than did all loads and were not statistically different from each other. However, individual soccer players did not reach the maximum power output with the same relative load. In conclusion, when soccer players develop muscular power toward the end of when the most important competitions are scheduled, dynamic effort strength training with the range of load from 30 to 50% of 1RM BP should be used. During the competition period, a load of 50% of a 1RM should be used in a BP to maintain muscular power over a wide load range.     

Squat jump training at maximal power loads vs. heavy loads: effect on sprint ability

Training at a load maximizing power output (Pmax) is an intuitively appealing strategy for enhancement of performance that has received little research attention. In this study we identified each subject's Pmax for an isoinertial resistance training exercise used for testing and training, and then we related the changes in strength to changes in sprint performance. The subjects were 18 well-trained rugby league players randomized to two equal-volume training groups for a 7-week period of squat jump training with heavy loads (80% 1RM) or with individually determined Pmax loads (20.0-43.5% 1RM). Performance measures were 1RM strength, maximal power at 55% of pretraining 1RM, and sprint times for 10 and 30 m. Percent changes were standardized to make magnitude-based inferences. Relationships between changes in these variables were expressed as correlations. Sprint times for 10 m showed improvements in the 80% 1RM group (-2.9 +/- 3.2%) and Pmax group (-1.3 +/- 2.2%), and there were similar improvements in 30-m sprint time (-1.9 +/- 2.8 and -1.2 +/- 2.0%, respectively). Differences in the improvements in sprint time between groups were unclear, but improvement in 1RM strength in the 80% 1RM group (15 +/- 9%) was possibly substantially greater than in the Pmax group (11 +/- 8%). Small-moderate negative correlations between change in 1RM and change in sprint time (r approximately -0.30) in the combined groups provided the only evidence of adaptive associations between strength and power outputs, and sprint performance. In conclusion, it seems that training at the load that maximizes individual peak power output for this exercise with a sample of professional team sport athletes was no more effective for improving sprint ability than training at heavy loads, and the changes in power output were not usefully related to changes in sprint ability.     

Performance and reference data in the jump squat at different relative loads in elite sprinters,rugby players,and soccer players

The aims of this study were to compare the outcomes and provide reference data for a set of barbell mechanical parameters collected via a linear velocity transducer in 126 male sprinters (n = 62), rugby players (n = 32), and soccer players (n = 32). Bar-velocity, bar-force, and bar-power outputs were assessed in the jump-squat exercise with jump-squat height determined from bar-peak velocity. The test started at a load of 40% of the athletes’ body mass (BM), and a load of 10% of BM was gradually added until a clear decrement in the bar power was observed. Comparisons of bar variables among the three sports were performed using a one-way analysis of variance. Relative measures of bar velocity, force, and power, and jump-squat height were significantly higher in sprinters than in rugby (difference ranging between 5 and 35%) and soccer (difference ranging between 5 and 60%) players across all loads (40–110% of BM). Rugby players exhibited higher absolute bar-power (mean difference = 22%) and bar-force (mean difference = 16%) values than soccer players, but these differences no longer existed when the data were adjusted for BM (mean difference = 2.5%). Sprinters optimized their bar-power production at significantly greater relative loads (%BM) than rugby (mean difference = 22%) and soccer players (mean difference = 25%); nonetheless, all groups generated their maximum bar-power outputs at similar bar velocities. For the first time, we provided reference values for the jump-squat exercise for three different bar-velocity measures (i.e., mean, mean propulsive, and peak velocity) for sprinters, rugby players, and soccer players, over a wide range of relative loads. Practitioners can use these reference values to monitor their athletes and compare them with top-level sprinters and team-sport players.     

Do force-time and power-time measures in a loaded jump squat differentiate between speed performance and playing level in elite and elite junior rugby union players?

The purpose of this study was to investigate the discriminative ability of rebound jump squat force-time and power-time measures in differentiating speed performance and competition level in elite and elite junior rugby union players. Forty professional rugby union players performed 3 rebound jump squats with an external load of 40 kg from which a number of force-time and power-time variables were acquired and analyzed. Additionally, players performed 3 sprints over 30 m with timing gates at 5, 10, and 30 m. Significant differences (p < 0.05) between the fastest 20 and slowest 20 athletes, and elite (n = 25) and elite junior (n = 15) players in speed and force-time and power-time variables were determined using independent sample t-tests. The fastest and slowest sprinters over 10 m differed in peak power (PP) expressed relative to body weight. Over 30 m, there were significant differences in peak velocity and relative PP and rate of power development. There was no significant difference in speed over any distance between elite and elite junior rugby union players; however, a number of force and power variables including peak force, PP, force at 100 milliseconds from minimum force, and force and impulse 200 milliseconds from minimum force were significantly (p < 0.05) different between playing levels. Although only power values expressed relative to body weight were able to differentiate speed performance, both absolute and relative force and power values differentiated playing levels in professional rugby union players. For speed development in rugby union players, training strategies should aim to optimize the athlete's power to weight ratio, and lower body resistance training should focus on movement velocity. For player development to transition elite junior players to elite status, adding lean mass is likely to be most beneficial.     

Effect of load positioning on the kinematics and kinetics of weighted vertical jumps

One of the most popular exercises for developing lower-body muscular power is the weighted vertical jump. The present study sought to examine the effect of altering the position of the external load on the kinematics and kinetics of the movement. Twenty-nine resistance-trained rugby union athletes performed maximal effort jumps with 0, 20, 40, and 60% of their squat 1 repetition maximum (1RM) with the load positioned (a) on the posterior aspect of the shoulder using a straight barbell and (b) at arms' length using a hexagonal barbell. Kinematic and kinetic variables were calculated through integration of the vertical ground reaction force data using a forward dynamics approach. Performance of the hexagonal barbell jump resulted in significantly (p < 0.05) greater values for jump height, peak force, peak power, and peak rate of force development compared with the straight barbell jump. Significantly (p < 0.05) greater peak power was produced during the unloaded jump compared with all trials where the external load was positioned on the shoulder. In contrast, significantly (p < 0.05) greater peak power was produced when using the hexagonal barbell combined with a load of 20% 1RM compared with all other conditions investigated. The results suggest that weighted vertical jumps should be performed with the external load positioned at arms' length rather than on the shoulder when attempting to improve lower-body muscular performance.     

Kettlebell swing training improves maximal and explosive strength

The aim of this study was to establish the effect that kettlebell swing (KB) training had on measures of maximum (half squat-HS-1 repetition maximum [1RM]) and explosive (vertical jump height-VJH) strength. To put these effects into context, they were compared with the effects of jump squat power training (JS-known to improve 1RM and VJH). Twenty-one healthy men (age = 18-27 years, body mass = 72.58 ± 12.87 kg) who could perform a proficient HS were tested for their HS 1RM and VJH pre- and post-training. Subjects were randomly assigned to either a KB or JS training group after HS 1RM testing and trained twice a week. The KB group performed 12-minute bouts of KB exercise (12 rounds of 30-second exercise, 30-second rest with 12 kg if <70 kg or 16 kg if >70 kg). The JS group performed at least 4 sets of 3 JS with the load that maximized peak power-Training volume was altered to accommodate different training loads and ranged from 4 sets of 3 with the heaviest load (60% 1RM) to 8 sets of 6 with the lightest load (0% 1RM). Maximum strength improved by 9.8% (HS 1RM: 165-181% body mass, p < 0.001) after the training intervention, and post hoc analysis revealed that there was no significant difference between the effect of KB and JS training (p = 0.56). Explosive strength improved by 19.8% (VJH: 20.6-24.3 cm) after the training intervention, and post hoc analysis revealed that the type of training did not significantly affect this either (p = 0.38). The results of this study clearly demonstrate that 6 weeks of biweekly KB training provides a stimulus that is sufficient to increase both maximum and explosive strength offering a useful alternative to strength and conditioning professionals seeking variety for their athletes.     

Assessing lower-body peak power in elite rugby-union players

Resistance training at the load that maximizes peak power (Pmax) may produce greater increases in peak power than other loads. Pmax for lower-body lifts can occur with no loading but whether Pmax can be increased further with negative loading is unclear. The purpose of this investigation was therefore to determine lower-body Pmax (jump squat) using a spectrum of loads. Box squat 1 repetition maximum (1RM) was measured in 18 elite rugby-union players. Pmax was then determined using loads of -28 to 60%1RM. Elastic bands were used to unload body weight for negative loads. Jump squat Pmax occurred with no loading (body weight: 8,880 ± 2,186 W) in all but 2 subjects. There was a discontinuity in the power-load relationship for the jump squat, possibly because of the increased countermovement in the body weight jump. The self-selected depth (dip) before the propulsive phase of the jump was greater by 24 ± 11 to 40 ± 16% (moderate to large effect size) than all positive loads. These findings highlight methodological issues that need to be taken into consideration when comparing power outputs of loaded and unloaded jumps.     

Are changes in maximal squat strength during preseason training reflected in changes in sprint performance in rugby league players?

Because previous research has shown a relationship between maximal squat strength and sprint performance, this study aimed to determine if changes in maximal squat strength were reflected in sprint performance. Nineteen professional rugby league players (height = 1.84 ± 0.06 m, body mass [BM] = 96.2 ± 11.11 kg, 1 repetition maximum [1RM] = 170.6 ± 21.4 kg, 1RM/BM = 1.78 ± 0.27) conducted 1RM squat and sprint tests (5, 10, and 20 m) before and immediately after 8 weeks of preseason strength (4-week Mesocycle) and power (4-week Mesocycle) training. Both absolute and relative squat strength values showed significant increases after the training period (pre: 170.6 ± 21.4 kg, post: 200.8 ± 19.0 kg, p < 0.001; 1RM/BM pre: 1.78 ± 0.27 kg·kg(-1), post: 2.05 ± 0.21 kg·kg(-1), p < 0.001; respectively), which was reflected in the significantly faster sprint performances over 5 m (pre: 1.05 ± 0.06 seconds, post: 0.97 ± 0.05 seconds, p < 0.001), 10 m (pre: 1.78 ± 0.07 seconds, post: 1.65 ± 0.08 seconds, p < 0.001), and 20 m (pre: 3.03 ± 0.09 seconds, post: 2.85 ± 0.11 seconds, p < 0.001) posttraining. Whether the improvements in sprint performance came as a direct consequence of increased strength or whether both are a function of the strength and power mesocycles incorporated into the players' preseason training is unclear. It is likely that the increased force production, noted via the increased squat performance, contributed to the improved sprint performances. To increase short sprint performance, athletes should, therefore, consider increasing maximal strength via the back squat.     

Peak power, ground reaction forces, and velocity during the squat exercise performed at different loads

This study examined the changes in peak power, ground reaction force and velocity with different loads during the performance of the parallel squat movement. Twelve experienced male lifters (26.83 +/- 4.67 years of age) performed the standard parallel squat, using loads equal to 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, and 90% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM). Each subject performed all parallel squats with as much explosiveness as possible using his own technique. Peak power (PP), peak ground reaction force (PGRF), peak barbell velocity (PV), force at the time of PP (FPP), and velocity at the time of PP (VPP) were determined from force, velocity, and power curves calculated using barbell velocity and ground reaction force data. No significant differences were detected among loads for PP; however, the greatest PP values were associated with loads of 40 and 50% of 1RM. Higher loads produced greater PGRF and FPP values than lower loads (p < 0.05) in all cases except between loads equal to 60-50, 50-40, and 40-30% of 1RM for PGRF, and between loads equal to 70-60 and 60-50% of 1RM for FPP. Higher loads produced lower PV and VPP values than lower loads (p < 0.05) in all cases except between the 20-30, 70-80, and 80-90% of 1RM conditions. These results may be helpful in determining loads when prescribing need-specific training protocols targeting different areas of the load-velocity continuum.     

Changes in muscle architecture and performance during a competitive season in female softball players

ABSTRACT: Nimphius, S, McGuigan, MR, and Newton, RU. Changes in muscle architecture and performance during a competitive season in female softball players. J Strength Cond Res 26(10): 2655-2666, 2012-The purpose of this research was (a) to examine the performance changes that occur in elite female softball players during 20 weeks of softball training (that included 14 weeks of periodized resistance training [RT]) and (b) to examine the relationship between percent change (%change) in muscle architecture variables and %change in strength, speed, and change of direction performance. Ten female softball players (age = 18.1 ± 1.6 years, height = 166.5 ± 8.9 cm, weight = 72.4 ± 10.8 kg) from a state Australian Institute of Sport softball team were tested for maximal lower-body strength using a 3 repetition maximum for a predicted 1 repetition maximum (1RM) and peak force, peak velocity (PV), and peak power (PP) were measured during jump squats (JS) unloaded and loaded. In addition, the first base (1B) and the second base (2B) sprint performance, change of direction (505) on dominant (D) and nondominant (ND) sides, aerobic capacity, and muscle architecture characteristics of vastus lateralis (VL) including muscle thickness (MT), fascicle length (FL), and pennation angle (θp) were examined. The testing sessions occurred pre, mid, and post training (total 20 week pre- and in-season training period). Changes over time were analyzed by repeated-measures analysis of variance. The relationship between %change in muscle architecture variables and strength, speed, and change of direction variables from pre to post were assessed by Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient. Significant improvements in PV and PP occurred at all JS loads pre- to mid-testing and pre- to post-testing. Significant increases occurred pre-post in absolute 1RM, relative 1RM, 505 ND, and 2B sprint. The strongest relationships were found between %change in VL MT and 1B sprint (r = -0.80, p = 0.06), %change in VL FL and 2B sprint (r = -0.835, p = 0.02), and %change in relative 1RM and 505 D (r = -0.70, p = 0.04). In conclusion, gains in strength, power, and performance can occur during the season in elite softball players who are also engaged in a periodized RT program. Furthermore, changes in performance measures are associated with changes in muscle architecture.     

Postactivation potentiation in professional rugby players: optimal recovery

Following a bout of high-intensity exercise of short duration (preload stimulus), the muscle is in both a fatigued and a potentiated (referred to as postactivation potentiation) state. Consequently, subsequent muscle performance depends on the balance between these 2 factors. To date, there is no uniform agreement about the optimal recovery required between the preload stimulus and subsequent muscle performance to gain optimal performance benefits. The aim of the present study was to determine the optimal recovery time required to observe enhanced muscle performance following the preload stimulus. Twenty-three professional rugby players (13 senior international players) performed 7 countermovement jumps (CMJs) and 7 ballistic bench throws at the following time points after a preload stimulus (3 repetition maximum [3RM]): baseline, approximately 15 seconds, and 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20 minutes. Their peak power output (PPO) was determined at each time point. Statistical analyses revealed a significant decrease in PPO for both the upper (856 +/- 121 W vs. 816 +/- 121 W, p < 0.001) and the lower (4,568 +/- 509 W vs. 4,430 +/- 495 W, p = 0.005) body when the explosive activity was performed approximately 15 seconds after the preload stimulus. However, when 12 minutes was allowed between the preload stimulus and the CMJ and ballistic bench throws, PPO was increased by 8.0 +/- 8.0% and 5.3 +/- 4.5%, respectively. Based on the above results, we conclude that muscle performance (e.g., power) can be significantly enhanced following a bout of heavy exercise (preload stimulus) in both the upper and the lower body, provided that adequate recovery (8-12 minutes) is given between the preload stimulus and the explosive activity.     

The acute potentiating effects of back squats on athlete performance

Crewther, BT, Kilduff, LP, Cook, CJ, Middleton, MK, Bunce, PJ, and Yang, G-Z. The acute potentiating effects of back squats on athlete performance. J Strength Cond Res 25(12): 3319-3325, 2011-This study examined the acute potentiating effects of back squats on athlete performance with a specific focus on movement specificity and the individual timing of potentiation. Nine subelite male rugby players performed 3 protocols on separate occasions using a randomized, crossover, and counterbalanced design. Each protocol consisted of performance testing before a single set of 3 repetition maximum (3RM) back squats, followed by retesting at ～15 seconds, 4, 8, 12, and 16 minutes. The 3 tests were countermovement jumps (CMJs), sprint performance (5 and 10 m), and 3-m horizontal sled pushes with a 100-kg load. Relationships between the individual changes in salivary testosterone and cortisol concentrations and performance were also examined. The 3RM squats significantly (p < 0.001) improved CMJ height at 4 (3.9 ± 1.9%), 8 (3.5 ± 1.5%), and 12 (3.0 ± 1.4%) minutes compared with baseline values, but no temporal changes in sprinting and sled times were identified. On an individual level, the peak relative changes in CMJ height (6.4 ± 2.1%, p < 0.001) were greater than the 3-m sled (1.4 ± 0.6%), 5-m (2.6 ± 1.0%), and 10-m sprint tests (1.8 ± 1.0%). In conclusion, a single set of 3RM squats was found effective in acutely enhancing CMJ height in the study population, especially when the recovery period was individualized for each athlete. The study results also suggest that the potentiating effects of squats may exhibit some degree of movement specificity, being greater for those exercises with similar movement patterns. The current findings have practical implications for prescribing warm-up exercises, individualizing training programs, and for interpreting postactivation potentiation research.     

A biomechanical analysis of straight and hexagonal barbell deadlifts using submaximal loads

The purpose of the investigation was to compare the kinematics and kinetics of the deadlift performed with 2 distinct barbells across a range of submaximal loads. Nineteen male powerlifters performed the deadlift with a conventional straight barbell and a hexagonal barbell that allowed the lifter to stand within its frame. Subjects performed trials at maximum speed with loads of 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, and 80% of their predetermined 1-repetition maximum (1RM). Inverse dynamics and spatial tracking of the external resistance were used to quantify kinematic and kinetic variables. Subjects were able to lift a heavier 1RM load in the hexagonal barbell deadlift (HBD) than the straight barbell deadlift (SBD) (265 ± 41 kg vs. 245 ± 39 kg, p < 0.05). The design of the hexagonal barbell significantly altered the resistance moment at the joints analyzed (p < 0.05), resulting in lower peak moments at the lumbar spine, hip, and ankle (p < 0.05) and an increased peak moment at the knee (p < 0.05). Maximum peak power values of 4,388 ± 713 and 4,872 ± 636 W were obtained for the SBD and HBD, respectively (p < 0.05). Across the submaximal loads, significantly greater peak force, peak velocity and peak power values were produced during the HBD compared to during the SBD (p < 0.05). The results demonstrate that the choice of barbell used to perform the deadlift has a significant effect on a range of kinematic and kinetic variables. The enhanced mechanical stimulus obtained with the hexagonal barbell suggests that in general the HBD is a more effective exercise than the SBD.     

The effect of heavy- vs. light-load jump squats on the development of strength, power, and speed

The purpose of this investigation was to examine the effect of an 8-week training program with heavy- vs. light-load jump squats on various physical performance measures and electromyography (EMG). Twenty-six athletic men with varying levels of resistance training experience performed sessions of jump squats with either 30% (JS30, n = 9) or 80% (JS80, n = 10) of their one repetition maximum in the squat (1RM) or served as a control (C, n = 7). An agility test, 20-m sprint, and jump squats with 30% (30J), 55% (55J), and 80% (80J) of their 1RM were performed before and after training. Peak force, peak velocity (PV), peak power (PP), jump height, and average EMG (concentric phase) were calculated for the jumps. There were significant increases in PP and PV in the 30J, 55J, and 80J for the JS30 group (p 相似文献   

Effects of two different half-squat training programs on fatigue during repeated cycling sprints in soccer players

This study compared the effects of two different half-squat training programs on the repeated-sprint ability of soccer players during the preseason. Twenty male professional soccer players were divided into 2 groups: One group (S-group) performed 4 sets of 5 repetitions with 90% of their 1-repetition maximum (1RM), and the other group (H-group) performed 4 sets of 12 repetitions with 70% of 1RM, 3 times per week for 6 weeks, in addition to their common preseason training program. Repeated-sprint ability was assessed before and after training by 10 × 6-second cycle ergometer sprints separated by 24 seconds of passive recovery. Maximal half-squat strength increased significantly in both groups (p < 0.01), but this increase was significantly greater in the S-group compared with the H-group (17.3 ± 1.9 vs. 11.0 ± 1.9%, p < 0.05). Lean leg volume (LLV) increased only in the H-group. Total work over the 10 sprints improved in both groups after training, but this increase was significantly greater in the second half (8.9 ± 2.6%) compared with the first half of the sprint test (3.2 ± 1.7%) only in the S-group. Mean power output (MPO) expressed per liter of LLV was better maintained during the last 6 sprints posttraining only in the S-group, whereas there was no change in MPO per LLV in the H-group over the 10 sprints. These results suggest that resistance training with high loads is superior to a moderate-load program, because it increases strength without a change in muscle mass and also results in a greater improvement in repeated sprint ability. Therefore, resistance training with high loads may be preferable when the aim is to improve maximal strength and fatigue during sprinting in professional soccer players.