Maximal power at different percentages of one repetition maximum: influence of resistance and gender

National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I athletes were tested to determine the load at which maximal mechanical output is achieved. Athletes performed power testing at 30, 40, 50, 60, and 70% of individual 1 repetition maximum (1RM) in the squat jump, bench press, and hang pull exercises. Additionally, hang pull power testing was performed using free-form (i.e., barbell) and fixed-form (i.e., Smith machine) techniques. There were differences between genders in optimal power output during the squat jump (30-40% of 1RM for men; 30-50% of 1RM for women) and bench throw (30% of 1RM for men; 30-50% of 1RM for women) exercises. There were no gender or form interactions during the hang pull exercise; maximal power output during the hang pull occurred at 30-60% of 1RM. In conclusion, these results indicate that (a) gender differences exist in the load at which maximal power output occurs during the squat jump and bench throw; and (b) although no gender or form interactions occurred during the hang pull exercise, greater power could be generated during fixed-form exercise. In general, 30% of 1RM will elicit peak power outputs for both genders and all exercises used in this study, allowing this standard percentage to be used as a starting point in order to train maximal mechanical power output capabilities in these lifts in strength trained athletes.     

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.     

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.     

The influence of body mass on calculation of power during lower-body resistance exercises

The objective of this investigation was to examine the influence of body mass in the calculation of power and the subsequent effect on the load-power relationship in the jump squat, squat, and power clean. Twelve Division I male athletes were evaluated on their performance across various intensities in all the 3 lifts. Power output was calculated using 3 separate techniques: (a) including the contribution of body mass in force output (IBM), (b) including the contribution of the mass of body less the mass of the shanks and feet in force output (IBMS), and (c) excluding the contribution of body mass in force output (EBM). Peak power, peak power relative to body mass, and peak force calculated using EBM were significantly (p < or = 0.05) lower than outputs calculated with IBM and IBMS. The load that maximized power output was unchanged between the 3 techniques in the jump squat (0% 1 repetition maximum [1RM]) and power clean (80% 1RM) but was shifted from 56% (IBM and IBMS) to 71% 1RM (EBM) in the squat. Across all 3 movements, the shape of the load-power curve was affected when derived via the EBM method as a result of the underrepresentation of power output at light loads. This was due to the majority of the load being neglected when the mass of the body was removed from the system mass used in the calculation of force. This study indicates that not only is the actual power output significantly lower when body mass is excluded from the force output of a lower body movement, but the load-power relationship is altered as well. Therefore, it is imperative that the mass of the individual being tested is incorporated into the calculation of force used to determine power output during lower-body movements.     

Does performance of hang power clean differentiate performance of jumping, sprinting, and changing of direction?

The primary purpose of this study was to investigate whether the athlete who has high performance in hang power clean, a common weightlifting exercise, has high performances in sprinting, jumping, and changing of direction (COD). As the secondary purpose, relationships between hang power clean performance, maximum strength, power and performance of jumping, sprinting, and COD also were investigated. Twenty-nine semiprofessional Australian Rules football players (age, height, and body mass [mean +/- SD]: 21.3 +/- 2.7 years, 1.8 +/- 0.1 m, and 83.6 +/- 8.2 kg) were tested for one repetition maximum (1RM) hang power clean, 1RM front squat, power output during countermovement jump with 40-kg barbell and without external load (CMJ), height of CMJ, 20-m sprint time, and 5-5 COD time. The subjects were divided into top and bottom half groups (n = 14 for each group) based on their 1RM hang power clean score relative to body mass, then measures from all other tests were compared with one-way analyses of variance. In addition, Pearson's product moment correlations between measurements were calculated among all subjects (n = 29). The top half group possessed higher maximum strength (P < 0.01), power (P < 0.01), performance of jumping (P < 0.05), and sprinting (P < 0.01). However, there was no significant difference between groups in 5-5 COD time, possibly because of important contributing factors other than strength and power. There were significant correlations between most of, but not all, combinations of performances of hang power clean, jumping, sprinting, COD, maximum strength, and power. Therefore, it seems likely there are underlying strength qualities that are common to the hang power clean, jumping, and sprinting.     

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.     

The effect that side dominance has on barbell power symmetry during the hang power clean

The aim of this study was to examine whether ground reaction force (GRF) side differences were transmitted and related to bar end power output asymmetries during hang power clean (HPC) performance and whether progressive loading would intensify this effect. Differences between the dominant (D) and nondominant (ND) side average GRFs (AGRFs) of both feet and average bar end power outputs were recorded simultaneously from 15 recreationally trained male volunteers at 30, 60, and 90% 1RM using 2 force platforms and 3 high-speed digital cameras, quantifying side dominance from perceived handedness (left- or right-side dominance [LRSD]), GRF side dominance (force side dominance [FSD]), and bar end power output side dominance (barbell side dominance [BSD]). With the exception of the LRSD condition, differences between the D and ND side AGRFs were significant (FSD: 1.8-4.3%; BSD: 5.1-6.4%, p < 0.05). Bar end power output side differences were significant for all conditions (LRSD: 1.5-5.4%; FSD: 0.5-3.4%; BSD: 3.9-5.6%, p < 0.05). Progressive loading did not significantly affect GRF side differences or the FSD average bar power side differences. However, during the LRSD and BSD conditions, the 60 and 90% side average bar power side differences were >the 30% equivalents. Average GRF side differences were not related to bar end power output side differences. Because of the consistent side difference of 4-6% investigators and strength and conditioning practitioners should exercise caution when interpreting changes in bar end power output.     

Human muscle power output during upper- and lower-body exercises

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the use of traditional resistance training equipment in the measurement of muscular power. This was accomplished by measuring the velocity of movement through a measured distance during maximal effort lifts using a Smith rack. The reliability of the method was established using 10 male volunteers who performed both bench press and squat exercises in a Smith rack. Maximal power output was determined at 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, and 90% of the subject's 1 repetition maximum (1RM). Test-retest power values were not statistically different. Another 15 male volunteers who had previous muscle biopsy data from the vastus lateralis muscle performed the same maximal power output evaluation. There were no significant relationships between peak power outputs and fiber-type expressions when linear regressions were performed. The power curve produced by graphing power output vs. the percentage of 1RM indicates that peak power output occurs between 50 and 70% of 1RM for the squat and between 40 and 60% of 1RM for the bench press. These data indicate that this method of evaluation of muscle power is reliable, although it is not predictive of muscle fiber-type percentages.     

Validation of power measurement techniques in dynamic lower body resistance exercises

The objective of this study was to investigate the validity of power measurement techniques utilizing various kinematic and kinetic devices during the jump squat (JS), squat (S) and power clean (PC). Ten Division I male athletes were assessed for power output across various intensities: 0, 12, 27, 42, 56, 71, and 85% of one repetition maximum strength (1RM) in the JS and S and 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, and 90% of 1RM in the PC. During the execution of each lift, six different data collection systems were utilized; (1) one linear position transducer (1-LPT); (2) one linear position transducer with the system mass representing the force (1-LPT+MASS); (3) two linear position transducers (2-LPT); (4) the force plate (FP); (5) one linear position transducer and a force plate (1-LPT+FP); (6) two linear position transducers and a force place (2-LPT+FP). Kinetic and kinematic variables calculated using the six methodologies were compared. Vertical power, force, and velocity differed significantly between 2-LPT+FP and 1-LPT, 1-LPT+MASS, 2-LPT, and FP methodologies across various intensities throughout the JS, S, and PC. These differences affected the load-power relationship and resulted in the transfer of the optimal load to a number of different intensities. This examination clearly indicates that data collection and analysis procedures influence the power output calculated as well as the load-power relationship of dynamic lower body movements.     

Endurance capacity of untrained males and females in isometric and dynamic muscular contractions

The capacity to perform isometric and dynamic muscle contractions at different forces has been measured in two separate groups of subjects: 25 men and 25 women performed sustained isometric contractions of the knee-extensor muscles of their stronger leg to fatigue, at forces corresponding to 80%, 50% and 20% of the maximum voluntary force of contraction (MVC). The second experimental model involved a bilateral elbow-flexion weight lifting exercise. Eleven women and 12 men performed repetitions at loads corresponding to 90%, 80%, 70%, 60% and 50% of maximum load (1RM), at a rate of 10 X min-1 to the point of fatigue. Males were stronger (p less than 0.001) than females in both the static (675 +/- 120 N vs 458 +/- 80 N; mean +/- SD) and dynamic (409 +/- 90 N vs 190 +/- 33 N) contractions. Isometric endurance time of the males at a force corresponding to 20% of MVC was less than that of the females (180 +/- 51 s vs 252 +/- 56 s; p less than 0.001) but there was no difference between the sexes at 50% or 80% of MVC. Similarly, when the sexes were compared using dynamic elbow-flexion exercise, the female subjects were able to perform a greater number of repetitions than males at loads of 50% (p less than 0.005), 60% (p less than 0.001) and 70% (p less than 0.025) of 1RM, but there was no difference between the sexes at loads of 80% or 90% of 1RM.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Power-time, force-time, and velocity-time curve analysis during the jump squat: impact of load

The purpose of this investigation was to examine the impact of load on the power-, force- and velocity-time curves during the jump squat. The analysis of these curves for the entire movement at a sampling frequency of 200-500 Hz averaged across 18 untrained male subjects is the most novel aspect of this study. Jump squat performance was assessed in a randomized fashion across five different external loads: 0, 20, 40, 60, and 80 kg (equivalent to 0 +/- 0, 18 +/- 4, 37 +/- 8, 55 +/- 12, 74 +/- 15% of 1RM, respectively). The 0-kg loading condition (i.e., body mass only) was the load that maximized peak power output, displaying a significantly (p 相似文献   

Comparison of four different methods to measure power output during the hang power clean and the weighted jump squat

Measurement of power output during resistance training is becoming ubiquitous in strength and conditioning programs, but there is great variation in the methods used. The main purposes of this study were to compare the power output values obtained from 4 different methods and to examine the relationships between these values. Male semiprofessional Australian rules football players (n = 30) performed hang power clean and weighted jump squat while ground reaction force (GRF)-time data and barbell displacement-time data were sampled simultaneously using a force platform and a linear position transducer attached to the barbell. Peak and mean power applied to the barbell was obtained from barbell displacement-time data (method 1). Peak and mean power applied to the system (barbell + lifter) was obtained from 3 other methods: (a) using GRF-time data (method 2), (b) using barbell displacement-time data (method 3), and (c) using both barbell displacement-time data and GRF-time data (method 4). The peak power values (W) obtained from methods 1, 2, 3, and 4 were (mean +/- SD) 1,644 +/- 295, 3,079 +/- 638, 3,821 +/- 917, and 4,017 +/- 833 in hang power clean and 1,184 +/- 115, 3,866 +/- 451, 3,567 +/- 494, and 4,427 +/- 557 in weighted jump squat. There were significant differences between power output values obtained from method 1 vs. methods 2, 3, and 4, as well as method 2 vs. methods 3 and 4. The power output applied to the barbell and that applied to the system was significantly correlated (r = 0.65-0.81). As a practical application, it is important to understand the characteristics of each method and consider how power output should be measured during the hang power clean and the weighted jump squat.     

Changes in bar-path kinematics and kinetics after power-clean training

The purpose of this study was to investigate the direction and magnitude of kinematic changes in bar path and kinetic variable changes in the power clean (PC) after 4 weeks of PC training. Eighteen healthy adult men who had a minimum of 1 year of previous experience in the PC participated as subjects in this study. The subjects were pretested for their 1 repetition maximum (1RM) and provided with visual and verbal cues during PC training sessions, which took place 3 times per week for 4 weeks. Variables measured during data collection include pre- and post-peak force, peak power, and several bar-path kinematic variables through videography at 50, 70, and 90% of the subjects' pre-1RM. Peak force was improved at 50% of 1RM from 936 +/- 338 N to 1,299 +/- 384 N, at 70% from 1,216 +/- 315 N to 1,395 +/- 331 N, and at 90% from 1,255 +/- 329 N to 1,426 +/- 321 N. Peak power was increased at 50% of 1RM from 3,430 +/- 1,280 W to 4,230 +/- 1,326 W. All variables with respect to bar-path kinematics were improved significantly. These results indicate that both kinematic and kinetic variables improve through training and feedback. It is possible that persons beginning the PC exercise or coaches who provide instruction on the PC to beginning lifters should focus on proper bar path during the movement. This may result in force and power output to develop as technique improves. However, further investigation is required to establish the link between bar-path changes and kinetic variable performance improvements.     

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.     

Estimation of peak vertical velocity and relative load changes by subjective measures in weightlifting movements

To investigate the ability of the OMNI-RES (0–10) scale to estimate velocity and loading changes during sets to failure in the hang power clean (HPC) exercise. Eleven recreationally resistance-trained males (28.5 ± 3.5 years) with an average one-repetition maximum (1RM) value of 1.1 ± 0.07 kg body mass^-1 in HPC, were assessed on five separate days with 48 hours of rest between sessions. After determining the 1RM value, participants performed four sets to self-determined failure with the following relative loading ranges: 60% < 70%, 70 < 80%, 80 < 90% and > 90%. The peak vertical velocity (PVV), and Rating of Perceived Exertion (RPE) were measured for every repetition of each set. The RPE expressed after the first repetition (RPE-1) and when the highest value of PVV was achieved during the set (RPE-max) were similar and significantly lower than the RPE associated with a 5% (RPE-5%) and 10% (RPE-10%) drop in PVV. In addition, the RPE produced at failure was similar to RPE-5% only for the heaviest range (≥ 90%). Furthermore, RPE-1 was useful to distinguish loading zones between the four assessed ranges (60 < 70%, vs. 70 < 80%, vs. 80 < 90%, vs. ≥ 90%). The RPE seems to be useful to identify PVV changes (maximal, 5% and 10% drop) during continuous sets to self-determined failure and to distinguish 10% loading zone increments, from 60 to 100% of 1RM in the HPC exercise.     

Kinetic comparison of free weight and machine power cleans

The purpose of this investigation was to compare the kinetic characteristics of the power clean exercise using either free weight or machine resistance. After familiarization, 14 resistance trained men (mean +/- SD; age = 24.9 +/- 6.2 years) participated in two testing sessions. During the initial testing session, one-repetition maximum performance (1RM) was assessed in either the free weight or machine power clean from the midthigh. This was followed by kinetic assessment of either the free weight or the machine power clean at 85% of 1RM. One week after the initial testing session, 1RM performance, as well as the subsequent kinetic evaluation, were performed for the alternate exercise modality. All performance measures were obtained using a computer-interfaced FiTROdyne dynamometer (Fitronic; Bratislava, Slovakia). Maximum strength (1RM) and average power were significantly greater for the free weight condition, whereas peak velocity and average velocity were greater for the machine condition (p < 0.05). Although peak power was not different between modalities, force at peak power (free weights = 1445 +/- 266 N, machine = 1231 +/- 194 N) and velocity at peak power (free weights = 1.77 +/- 0.28 m x s(-1), machine = 2.20 +/- 0.24 m x s(-1)) were different (p < 0.05). It seems that mechanical limitations of the machine modality (i.e., lift trajectory) result in different load capacities that produce different kinetic characteristics for these two lifting modalities.     

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.     

Kinetic comparisons during variations of the power clean

Comfort, P, Allen, M, and Graham-Smith, P. Kinetic comparisons during variations of the power clean. J Strength Cond Res 25(12): 3269-3273, 2011-The aim of this investigation was to determine the differences in peak power, peak vertical ground reaction forces, and rate of force development (RFD) during variations of the power clean. Elite rugby league players (n = 16; age 22 ± 1.58 years; height 182.25 ± 2.81 cm; body mass 98.65 ± 7.52 kg) performed 1 set of 3 repetitions of the power clean, hang power clean, midthigh power clean, or midthigh clean pull, using 60% of 1 repetition maximum power clean, in a randomized order, while standing on a force platform. One-way analysis of variance with Bonferroni post hoc analysis revealed a significantly (p < 0.001) greater peak power output during the midthigh power clean (3,565.7 ± 410.6 W) and the midthigh clean pull (3,686.8 ± 386.5 W) compared with both the power clean (2,591.2 ± 645.5 W) and the hang power clean (3,183.6 ± 309.1 W), along with a significantly (p < 0.001) greater peak Fz during the midthigh power clean (2,813.8 ± 200.5 N) and the midthigh clean pull (2,901.3 ± 226.1 N) compared with both the power clean (2,264.1 ± 199.6 N) and the hang power clean (2,479.3 ± 267.6 N). The midthigh power clean (15,049.8 ± 4,415.7 N·s) and the midthigh clean pull (15,623.6 ± 3,114.4 N·s) also demonstrated significantly (p < 0.001) greater instantaneous RFD when compared with both the power clean (8,657.9 ± 2,746.6 N·s) and the hang power clean (10,314.4 ± 4,238.2 N·s). From the findings of this study, when training to maximize power, Fz, and RFD, the midthigh power clean and midthigh clean pull appear to be the most advantageous variations of the power clean to perform.     

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