Acute effects of augmented eccentric loading on jump squat performance

The purpose of this study was to determine the acute effects of a spectrum of eccentric loads on force, velocity, and power during the concentric portion of maximal-effort jump squats utilizing a repeated measures design. Thirteen resistance-trained men (age = 22.8 +/- 2.9 years, weight = 87.1 +/- 11.8 kg, 163.5 +/- 28.6 kg squat 1 repetition maximum [1RM]; mean +/- SD), who routinely incorporated back squats into their training, participated as subjects in this investigation. Jump squat performance was assessed using 4 experimental conditions. The first of these conditions consisted of an isoinertial load equal to 30% of back squat 1RM. The remaining conditions consisted of jump squats with a concentric load of 30% 1RM, subsequent to the application of experimental augmented eccentric loading (AEL) conditions of 20, 50, and 80% of back squat 1RM, respectively. All subjects performed 2 sets of 1RM of maximum-effort jump squats with all experimental conditions in a counter-balanced sequence. Forty-eight hours after completing the first testing session, subjects repeated the experimental testing protocol to establish stability reliability. Peak performance values for the reliable variables of force, velocity, and power, as well as force and power values obtained at 20-ms intervals during the initial 400 ms of the concentric jump squat range of motion, showed no statistical difference (p > 0.05) across the experimental AEL loads. These results suggest that load-spectrum AEL prior to a 30% 1RM jump squat fails to acutely enhance force, velocity, and power.     

Acute effects of elastic bands during the free-weight barbell back squat exercise on velocity, power, and force production

The use of elastic bands in resistance training has been reported to be effective in increasing performance-related parameters such as power, rate of force development (RFD), and velocity. The purpose of this study was to assess the following measures during the free-weight back squat exercise with and without elastic bands: peak and mean velocity in the eccentric and concentric phases (PV-E, PV-C, MV-E, MV-C), peak force (PF), peak power in the concentric phase, and RFD immediately before and after the zero-velocity point and in the concentric phase (RFDC). Twenty trained male volunteers (age = 26.0 ± 4.4 years) performed 3 sets of 3 repetitions of squats (at 55% one repetition maximum [1RM]) on 2 separate days: 1 day without bands and the other with bands in a randomized order. The added band force equaled 20% of the subjects' 55% 1RM. Two independent force platforms collected ground reaction force data, and a 9-camera motion capture system was used for displacement measurements. The results showed that PV-E and RFDC were significantly (p < 0.05) greater with the use of bands, whereas PV-C and MV-C were greater without bands. There were no differences in any other variables. These results indicate that there may be benefits to performing squats with elastic bands in terms of RFD. Practitioners concerned with improving RFD may want to consider incorporating this easily implemented training variation.     

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.     

Acute effects of heavy-load squats on consecutive squat jump performance

Postactivation potentiation (PAP) and complex training have generated interest within the strength and conditioning community in recent years, but much of the research to date has produced confounding results. The purpose of this study was to observe the acute effects of a heavy-load back squat [85% 1 repetition maximum (1RM)] condition on consecutive squat jump performance. Twelve in-season Division I male track-and-field athletes participated in two randomized testing conditions: a five-repetition back squat at 85% 1RM (BS) and a five-repetition squat jump (SJ). The BS condition consisted of seven consecutive squat jumps (BS-PRE), followed by five repetitions of the BS at 85% 1RM, followed by another set of seven consecutive squat jumps (BS-POST). The SJ condition was exactly the same as the BS condition except that five consecutive SJs replaced the five BSs, with 3 minutes' rest between each set. BS-PRE, BS-POST, SJ-PRE, and SJ-POST were analyzed and compared for mean and peak jump height, as well as mean and peak ground reaction force (GRF). The BS condition's mean and peak jump height and peak GRF increased 5.8% +/- 4.8%, 4.7% +/- 4.8%, and 4.6% +/- 7.4%, respectively, whereas the SJ condition's mean and peak jump height and peak GRF decreased 2.7% +/- 5.0%, 4.0% +/- 4.9%, and 1.3% +/- 7.5%, respectively. The results indicate that performing a heavy-load back squat before a set of consecutive SJs may enhance acute performance in average and peak jump height, as well as peak GRF.     

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.     

Effects of whole-body low-intensity resistance training with slow movement and tonic force generation on muscular size and strength in young men

Our previous study showed that relatively low-intensity (approximately 50% one-repetition maximum [1RM]) resistance training (knee extension) with slow movement and tonic force generation (LST) caused as significant an increase in muscular size and strength as high-intensity (approximately 80% 1RM) resistance training with normal speed (HN). However, that study examined only local effects of one type of exercise (knee extension) on knee extensor muscles. The present study was performed to examine whether a whole-body LST resistance training regimen is as effective on muscular hypertrophy and strength gain as HN resistance training. Thirty-six healthy young men without experience of regular resistance training were assigned into three groups (each n = 12) and performed whole-body resistance training regimens comprising five types of exercise (vertical squat, chest press, latissimus dorsi pull-down, abdominal bend, and back extension: three sets each) with LST (approximately 55-60% 1RM, 3 seconds for eccentric and concentric actions, and no relaxing phase); HN (approximately 80-90% 1RM, 1 second for concentric and eccentric actions, 1 second for relaxing); and a sedentary control group (CON). The mean repetition maximum was eight-repetition maximum in LST and HN. The training session was performed twice a week for 13 weeks. The LST training caused significant (p < 0.05) increases in whole-body muscle thickness (6.8 +/- 3.4% in a sum of six sites) and 1RM strength (33.0 +/- 8.8% in a sum of five exercises) comparable with those induced by HN training (9.1 +/- 4.2%, 41.2 +/- 7.6% in each measurement item). There were no such changes in the CON group. The results suggest that a whole-body LST resistance training regimen is as effective for muscular hypertrophy and strength gain as HN resistance training.     

Electromyographic and kinetic analysis of traditional,chain, and elastic band squats

This study examined mean integrated electromyography (I-EMG) for the quadriceps and hamstring muscle groups, as well as mean and peak vertical ground reaction forces (GRFs), for 3 conditions of the back squat. Conditions included (a) squat with barbell and weight plates, (b) squat with barbell and weight plates plus chains hung on each end of the barbell to replace approximately 10% of the squat load, and (c) squat with barbell and weight plates plus elastic bands offering resistance equivalent to approximately 10% of the squat load. Weight plates equal to the load added by either the chains or elastic bands were removed for the latter 2 squat conditions. Vertical GRFs were obtained during a single testing session for all 3 squat conditions. The tests were performed on a 2-cm thick aluminum platform (0.76 x 1.0 m) bolted directly to a force plate (OR6-5-2000, AMTI, Watertown, MA). Surface electrode I-EMG data from the quadriceps and hamstrings were recorded at 500 Hz. The exercise order was randomly determined for 11 NCAA Division I athletes who had experience using these types of squats. A repeated measures analysis of covariance revealed no differences in I-EMG and GRF during the eccentric or concentric phase for any of the 3 squat conditions. Analyses showed that mean GRF and I-EMG was significantly different between eccentric and concentric phases for all groups. The results question the usefulness of performing squats combining barbell and weight plates with chain and elastic resistance.     

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.     

Power and maximum strength relationships during performance of dynamic and static weighted jumps

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship of the 1 repetition maximum (1RM) squat to power output during countermovement and static weighted vertical squat jumps. The training experience of subjects (N = 22, 87.0 +/- 15.3 kg, 14.1 +/- 7.1% fat, 22.2 +/- 3.8 years) ranged from 7 weeks to 15+ years. Based on the 1RM squat, subjects were further divided into the 5 strongest and 5 weakest subjects (p 相似文献   

Role of concentric force in limiting improvement in muscular strength

We hypothesized that resistance training with combined eccentric and concentric actions, and concentric action only, should yield similar changes in muscular strength. Subjects in a free weight group trained three times a week for 12 wk with eccentric and concentric actions (FW, n = 16), a second group trained with concentric-only contractions using hydraulic resistance (HY; n = 12), and a control group did not train (n = 11). Training for FW and HY included five sets of supine bench press and upright squat at an intensity of 1-6 repetition maximum (RM) plus five supplementary exercises at 5-10 RM for a total of 20 sets per session for approximately 50 min. Testing at pre-, mid-, and posttraining included 1) 1 RM bench press and squat with and 2) without prestretch using free weights; 3)isokinetic peak force and power for bench press and squat at 5 degrees/s, and isotonic peak velocity and power for bench press with 20-kg load and squat with 70-kg load; 4) hydraulic peak bench press force and power, and peak knee extension torque and power at fast and slow speeds; and 5) surface anthropometry (fatfolds and girths to estimate upper arm and thigh volume and muscle area). Changes in overall fatness, muscularity, and muscle + bone cross-sectional area of the limbs did not differ between groups (P greater than 0.05). Improvements in free weight bench press and squat were similar (P greater than 0.05) in FW (approximately 24%) and HY (approximately 22%, P less than 0.05).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Comparison of loaded and unloaded jump squat training on strength/power performance in college football players

The purpose of this study was to explore the effects of 5 weeks of eccentrically loaded and unloaded jump squat training in experienced resistance-trained athletes during the strength/ power phase of a 15-week periodized off-season resistance training program. Forty-seven male college football players were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups. One group performed the jump squat exercise using both concentric and eccentric phases of contraction (CE; n = 15). A second group performed the jump squat exercise using the concentric phase only (n = 16), and a third group did not perform the jump squat exercise and served as control (CT; n = 16). No significant differences between the groups were seen in power, vertical jump height, 40-yd sprint speed and agility performance. In addition, no differences between the groups were seen in integrated electromyography activity during the jump squat exercise. Significant differences between the CE and CT groups were seen in Delta 1RM squat (65.8 and 27.5 kg, respectively) and Delta 1RM power clean (25.9 and 3.8 kg, respectively). No other between-group differences were observed. Results of this study provide evidence of the benefits of the jump squat exercise during a short-duration (5-week) training program for eliciting strength and power gains. In addition, the eccentric phase of this ballistic movement appears to have important implications for eliciting these strength gains in college football players during an off-season training program. Thus, coaches incorporating jump squats (using both concentric and eccentric phases of contraction) in the off-season training programs of their athletes can see significant performance improvements during a relatively short duration of training.     

Difference in kinematics and kinetics between high- and low-velocity resistance loading equated by volume: implications for hypertrophy training

Although it is generally accepted that a high load is necessary for muscle hypertrophy, it is possible that a low load with a high velocity results in greater kinematics and kinetics than does a high load with a slow velocity. The purpose of this study was to determine if 2 training loads (35 and 70% 1 repetition maximum [1RM]) equated by volume, differed in terms of their session kinematic and kinetic characteristics. Twelve subjects were recruited in this acute randomized within-subject crossover design study. Two bouts of a half-squat exercise were performed 1 week apart, one with high load-low velocity (HLLV = 3 sets of 12 reps at 70% 1RM) and the other with low-load high-velocity (LLHV = 6 sets of 12 reps at 35% 1RM). Time under tension (TUT), average force, peak force (PF), average power (AP), peak power (PP), work (TW), and total impulse (TI) were calculated and compared between loads for the eccentric and concentric phases. For average eccentric and concentric single repetition values, significantly (p < 0.05) greater (～15-22%) PP outputs were associated with the LLHV loading, whereas significantly greater (～7-61%) values were associated with the HLLV condition for most other variables of interest. However, in terms of total session kinematics and kinetics, the LLHV protocol resulted in significantly greater (～16-61%) eccentric and concentric TUT, PF, AP, PP, and TW. The only variable that was significantly greater for the HLLV protocol than for the LLHV protocol was TI (～20-24%). From these results, it seems that the LLHV protocol may offer an equal if not better training stimulus for muscular adaptation than the HLLV protocol, because of the greater time under tension, power, force, and work output when the total volume of the exercise is equated.     

Evaluation of electromyography normalisation methods for the back squat

The aim of the study was to evaluate maximal isometric (dynamometer based {MVC-NORM} and isometric squat {MIS-NORM}) and sub-maximal EMG normalisation methods (60%-NORM, 70%-NORM, 80%-NORM) for dynamic back squat exercise (DSQ-EX). The absolute reliability (limits of agreement {LOA}, coefficient of variation {CV%}), relative reliability (intra-class correlation coefficient {ICC}) and sensitivity of each method was assessed. Ten resistance-trained males attended four sessions. Session one assessed maximum back squat strength (three repetition maximum {3RM}). In the remaining three sessions Vastus lateralis (VL) and Bicep femoris (BF) EMG were measured whilst participants completed normalisation tasks and DSQ-EX sets at 65%, 75%, 85% and 95% of 3RM. MIS-NORM produced lower intra-participant CV% compared to MVC-NORM. 80%-NORM produced lower intra-participant CV% than other sub-maximal methods for VL and BF during eccentric and concentric phases. 80%-NORM also produced narrower 95% LOA results than all other normalisation methods. The MIS-NORM method displayed higher ICC values for both muscles during eccentric and concentric phases. The 60%-NORM and 70%-NORM methods were the most sensitive for VL and BF during eccentric and concentric phases. Only normalisation methods for the concentric action of the VL enhanced sensitivity compared to unnormalised EMG. Overall, dynamic normalisation methods demonstrated better absolute reliability and sensitivity for reporting VL and BF EMG within the current study compared to maximal isometric methods.     

Effects of increased eccentric loading on bench press 1RM

The purpose of this study was to measure the effects of additional eccentric loading on subsequent concentric strength. Eight subjects with some experience in weight training volunteered to perform maximal attempts in the barbell bench press using detaching hooks that allowed them to lower 105% of their concentric 1 repetition maximum (RM) and raise 100%. The detaching hooks allowed attachment of extra weight to the bar and would release from the bar at the bottom of the lift, reducing the weight lifted during the concentric phase of the lift. After determining their 1RM for the bench press, the subjects attempted to increase their performance by using a heavier eccentric load with the detaching hooks. All 8 subjects who completed the study increased their 1RMs by 5 to 15 pounds. The use of additional eccentric loading significantly (p = 0.008) increased the weight that could be lifted on the subsequent concentric phase and therefore 1RM performance. This phenomenon was a result of the enhancement of stretch-shortening cycle performance by the increased eccentric load. Athletes who are interested in developing 1RM strength in the bench press may benefit from the use of additional eccentric loading.     

Eight weeks of ballistic exercise improves power independently of changes in strength and muscle fiber type expression

This study investigated the effects of ballistic resistance training and strength training on muscle fiber composition, peak force (PF), maximal strength, and peak power (PP). Fourteen males (age = 21.3 +/- 2.9, body mass = 77.8 +/- 10.1 kg) with 3 months of resistance training experience completed the study. Subjects were tested pre and post for their squat one-repetition maximum (1RM) and PP in the jump squat (JS). Peak force and rate of force development (RFD) were tested during an isometric midthigh pull. Muscle biopsies were obtained from the vastus lateralis for analysis of muscle fiber type expression. Subjects were matched for strength and then randomly selected into either training (T) or control (C) groups. Group T performed 8 weeks of JS training using a periodized program with loading between 26 and 48% of 1RM, 3 days per week. Group T showed significant improvement in PP from 4088.9 +/- 520.6 to 5737.6 +/- 651.8 W. Rate of force development improved significantly in group T from 12687.5 +/- 4644.0 to 25343.8 +/- 12614.4 N x s(-1). PV improved significantly from 1.59 +/- 0.41 to 2.11 +/- 0.75 m x s(-1). No changes occurred in PF, 1RM, or muscle fiber type expression for group T. No changes occurred in any variables in group C. The results of this study indicate that using ballistic resistance exercise is an effective method for increasing PP and RFD independently of changes in maximum strength (1RM, PF), and those increases are a result of factors other than changes in muscle fiber type expression.     

The effects of accentuated eccentric loading on strength, muscle hypertrophy, and neural adaptations in trained individuals

The purpose of this study was to compare the strength and neuromuscular adaptations for dynamic constant external resistance (DCER) training and dynamic accentuated external resistance (DAER) training (resistance training employing an accentuated load during eccentric actions). Male subjects active in resistance training were assigned to either a DCER training group (n = 10) or a DAER training group (n = 8) for 9 weeks. Subjects in the DCER group performed 4 sets of 10 repetitions with a load of 75% concentric 1 repetition maximum (RM). Subjects in the DAER group performed 3 sets of 10 repetitions with a concentric load of 75% of 1RM and an eccentric load of approximately 120% of concentric 1RM. Three measures reflecting adaptation of elbow flexors and extensors were recorded pretraining and posttraining: concentric 1RM, muscle cross-sectional area (CSA), and specific tension. Strength was assessed at midtraining periods. No significant changes in muscle CSA were observed in either group. Both training groups experienced significant increases in concentric 1RM and specific tension of both the elbow flexors and extensors, but compared with DCER training, DAER training produced significantly greater increases in concentric 1RM of the elbow extensors. These results suggest that, for some exercises, DAER training may be more effective than DCER training in developing strength within a 9-week training phase. However, for trained subjects, neither protocol is effective in eliciting muscle hypertrophy.     

Force-velocity analysis of strength-training techniques and load: implications for training strategy and research

The purpose of this study was to investigate the force-velocity response of the neuromuscular system to a variety of concentric only, stretch-shorten cycle, and ballistic bench press movements. Twenty-seven men of an athletic background (21.9 +/- 3.1 years, 89.0 +/- 12.5 kg, 86.3 +/- 13.6 kg 1 repetition maximum [1RM]) performed 4 types of bench presses, concentric only, concentric throw, rebound, and rebound throw, across loads of 30-80% 1RM. Average force output was unaffected by the technique used across all loads. Greater force output was recorded using higher loading intensities. The use of rebound was found to produce greater average velocities (12.3% higher mean across loads) and peak forces (14.1% higher mean across loads). Throw or ballistic training generated greater velocities across all loads (4.4% higher average velocity and 6.7% higher peak velocity), and acceleration-deceleration profiles provided greater movement pattern specificity. However, the movement velocities (0.69-1.68 m.s(-1)) associated with the loads used in this study did not approach actual movement velocities associated with functional performance. Suggestions were made as to how these findings may be applied to improve strength, power, and functional performance.     

Comparison of kinetic variables and muscle activity during a squat vs. a box squat

The purpose of this investigation was to determine if there was a difference in kinetic variables and muscle activity when comparing a squat to a box squat. A box squat removes the stretch-shortening cycle component from the squat, and thus, the possible influence of the box squat on concentric phase performance is of interest. Eight resistance trained men (Height: 179.61 ± 13.43 cm; Body Mass: 107.65 ± 29.79 kg; Age: 24.77 ± 3.22 years; 1 repetition maximum [1RM]: 200.11 ± 58.91 kg) performed 1 repetition of squats and box squats using 60, 70, and 80% of their 1RM in a randomized fashion. Subjects completed the movement while standing on a force plate and with 2 linear position transducers attached to the bar. Force and velocity were used to calculate power. Peak force and peak power were determined from the force-time and power-time curves during the concentric phase of the lift. Muscle activity (electromyography) was recorded from the vastus lateralis, vastus medialis, biceps femoris, and longissimus. Results indicate that peak force and peak power are similar between the squat and box squat. However, during the 70% of 1RM trials, the squat resulted in a significantly lower peak force in comparison to the box squat (squat = 3,269 ± 573 N, box squat = 3,364 ± 575 N). In addition, during the 80% of 1RM trials, the squat resulted in significantly lower peak power in comparison to the box squat (squat = 2,050 ± 486 W, box squat = 2,197 ± 544 W). Muscle activity was generally higher during the squat in comparison to the box squat. In conclusion, minimal differences were observed in kinetic variables and muscle activity between the squat and box squat. Removing the stretch-shortening cycle during the squat (using a box) appears to have limited negative consequences on performance.     

Quantifying plyometric intensity via rate of force development, knee joint, and ground reaction forces

Because the intensity of plyometric exercises usually is based simply upon anecdotal recommendations rather than empirical evidence, this study sought to quantify a variety of these exercises based on forces placed upon the knee. Six National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I athletes who routinely trained with plyometric exercises performed depth jumps from 46 and 61 cm, a pike jump, tuck jump, single-leg jump, countermovement jump, squat jump, and a squat jump holding dumbbells equal to 30% of 1 repetition maximum (RM). Ground reaction forces obtained via an AMTI force plate and video analysis of markers placed on the left hip, knee, lateral malleolus, and fifth metatarsal were used to estimate rate of eccentric force development (E-RFD), peak ground reaction forces (GRF), ground reaction forces relative to body weight (GRF/BW), knee joint reaction forces (K-JRF), and knee joint reaction forces relative to body weight (K-JRF/BW) for each plyometric exercise. One-way repeated measures analysis of variance indicated that E-RFD, K-JRF, and K-JRF/BW were different across the conditions (p < 0.05), but peak GRF and GRF/BW were not (p > 0.05). Results indicate that there are quantitative differences between plyometric exercises in the rate of force development during landing and the forces placed on the knee, though peak GRF forces associated with landing may not differ.     

Lower-body work capacity and one-repetition maximum squat prediction in college football players

The purpose of this study was to assess lower-body muscular strength and work capacity after off-season resistance training and the efficacy of predicting maximal squat strength (1 repetition maximum [1RM]) from repetitions to fatigue. National Collegiate Athletic Association Division-II football players (n = 58) were divided into low-strength (LS, 1RM < 365 lb, n = 32) and high-strength (HS, 1RM ≥ 365 lb, n = 26) groups before training based on median 1RM squat performance. Maximal repetitions to failure (RTFs) were performed with a relative load of 70% of 1RM before training and 60, 70, 80, and 90% of 1RM after 12 weeks of a linear periodization resistance training program. As a team, 1RM squat (32 ± 27 lb), 70% RTF (4.5 ± 4.5 reps), and work capacity at 70% 1RM load (1,482 ± 1,181 lb reps) increased significantly after training. Likewise, training resulted in significant increases in 1RM, RTF at 70% 1RM, and work capacity (load × reps) in both LS (8 ± 33 lb, 3.9 ± 4.7 reps, 1,736 ± 1,521 lb reps, respectively) and HS (27 ± 21 lb, 4.9 ± 4.4 reps, 2,387 ± 1,767 lb reps, respectively), with no significant difference between groups. There was no relationship between the change in work capacity and the change in muscular strength for either the LS (r = 0.02) or HS (r = 0.06) group. Predicted 1RMs were best when RTFs were performed using 80% 1RM (5-17 RTFs), with an error of ±5% in 95% of the subjects. In conclusion, the changes in muscular strength associated with an off-season training program appear to have a positive influence on squat work capacity at 70% of 1RM and allow favorable prediction of 1RM using submaximal loads.