The optimal back squat load for potential osteogenesis

The osteogenic potential of exercise is reported to be partially a function of the magnitude of training loads. This study evaluated the ground reaction force (GRF) and rate of force development (RFD) of the eccentric and concentric phases of the back squat at 3 different loads. Twelve subjects performed the back squat on a force platform with loading conditions of 80, 100, and 120% of their 1 repetition maximum (RM). Back squats performed at 120% of the 1RM produced the highest GRF in both the eccentric and concentric conditions. No significant differences were found between RFD for any of the loading conditions. Performing the back squat at loads of 120% of the estimated 1RM, accomplished with reduced range of motion, results in higher GRF than the back squat performed at 80 or 100% of the 1RM. Thus, supermaximal back squat loads in excess of the 1RM, with decreased range of motion, may be a useful part of a resistance training program designed to maximize osteogenic potential.     

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.     

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.     

Comparison of weighted jump squat training with and without eccentric braking

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of weighted jump squat training with and without eccentric braking. Twenty male subjects were divided into two groups (n = 10 per group), Non-Braking Group and Braking Group. The subjects were physically active, but not highly trained. The program for Non-Braking Group consisted of 6 sets of 6 repetitions of weighted jump squats without reduction of eccentric load for 8 weeks. The training program for the Braking Group consisted of the same sets and repetitions, but eccentric load was reduced by using an electromagnetic braking mechanism. Jump and reach, countermovement jump, static jump, drop jump, one repetition maximum half squat, weighted jump squat, and isometric/isokinetic knee extension/flexion at several different positions/angular velocities were tested pre- and posttraining intervention. The Non-Braking Group exhibited greater improvement in peak torque during isokinetic concentric knee flexion at 300 degrees/s [Non-Braking Group: (mean +/- SD) 124.0 +/- 22.6 Nm at pre- and 134.1 +/- 18.4 Nm at posttraining, and Braking Group: 118.5 +/- 32.7 Nm at pre- and 113.2 +/- 26.7 Nm at posttraining]. Braking Group exhibited superior adaptations in peak power relative to body mass during weighted jump squat [Non-Braking Group: (mean +/- SD) 49.1 +/- 8.6 W/kg at pre- and 50.9 +/- 6.2 W/kg at posttraining, and Braking Group: 47.9 +/- 6.9 W/kg at pre- and 53.7 +/- 7.3 W/kg at posttraining]. It appears that power output in relatively slow movement (weighted jump squat) was improved more in the Braking Group, however strength in high velocity movements (isokinetic knee flexion at 300 degrees/s) was improved more in Non-Braking Group. This study supports load and velocity specific effects of weighted jump squat training.     

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   

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.     

Postactivation potentiation response in athletic and recreationally trained individuals

To determine if training status directly impacted the response to postactivation potentiation, athletes in sports requiring explosive strength (ATH; n = 7) were compared to recreationally trained (RT; n = 17) individuals. Over the course of 4 sessions, subjects performed rebound and concentric-only jump squats with 30%, 50%, and 70% 1 RM loads. Jump squats were performed 5 minutes and 18.5 minutes following control or heavy load warm-ups. Heavy load warm-up consisted of 5 sets of 1 repetition at 90% 1 RM back squat. Jump squat performance was assessed with a force platform and position transducer. Heavy load warm-up did not have an effect on the subjects as a single sample. However, when percent potentiation was compared between ATH and RT groups, force and power parameters were significantly greater for ATH (p < 0.05). Postactivation potentiation may be a viable method of acutely enhancing explosive strength performance in athletic but not recreationally trained individuals. Reference Data: Chiu, L.Z.F., A.C. Fry, L.W. Weiss, B.K. Schilling, L.E. Brown, and S.L. Smith. Postactivation potentiation response in athletic and recreationally trained individuals.     

Acute effects of heavy preloading on vertical and horizontal jump performance

The purpose of this study was to investigate the acute effects of a heavy dynamic preload, consisting of 1 set of 5 repetition maximum (5RM) back squats, on countermovement vertical jump (VJ) and horizontal jump (HJ) performance. The study also investigated the ability of subjects to learn to apply the effects of the preload over subsequent training sessions. Nineteen (N = 19) resistance-trained men (age = 25.0 +/- 4.8 years; weight = 79.3 +/- 6.6 kg) participated in the study. Each subject took part in 4 practice and 4 testing sessions. The 4 practice sessions were included to allow for any learning effects of VJ and HJ to stabilize and to establish a true 5RM back squat. The 4 testing sessions were included to see if subjects were able to capitalize on the repeat exposure to the protocol. One practice session consisted of a 10-minute warm-up (5 minutes of cycling and 5 minutes of stretching), 2 sets of VJ and HJ (each set of VJ and HJ consisted of 4 jump repetitions) with a 5-minute rest between sets, progressive 5RM back squat evaluation, and 2 final sets of VJ and HJ. Both VJ and HJ increased approximately 2% over the 4 practice sessions, and 5RM back squat strength improved from 164.2 +/- 25.1 kg to 196.9 +/- 23.0 kg (p < or = 0.05). The 4 testing sessions each consisted of the standardized warm-up, 1 set of 4 VJs and HJs, a 5-minute rest, 5RM back squat, a 5-minute rest, and the final set of VJs and HJs. Pre- and post-5RM VJ and HJ order was randomly assigned. The results indicated no significant differences occurred between the mean or maximal values for either VJ or HJ as a consequence of the dynamic preload exercise. In addition, the results reflected an inability of subjects to benefit from the repeated exposure to the heavy dynamic preload exercise protocol.     

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   

Effect of warm-up on the standing broad jump in trained and untrained men and women

The effect of 3 warm-up routines on standing broad jump (SBJ) performance was investigated. Thirty-two men and women participated as subjects. Following the determination of 1-repetition maximum (1RM) squat, subjects completed warm-up routines and broad jumps on 4 occasions in a randomized order. Subjects performed SBJ immediately (POST) and 15 min following (POST15) the given warm-up routine. The routines were high force, consisting of high % 1RM, low repetition squats; high power, consisting of low % 1RM, low repetition speed squats; stretching, consisting of static stretches; and no activity, a control condition. Repeated measures analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) revealed no differences among broad jump performance following any of the warm-up routines (p = 0.157). A strong correlation (R = 0.805) was found between 1RM squat and SBJ. These data indicate that warm-up of any type has little effect on jump performance and that maximum strength is strongly related to jumping ability.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Relationship between countermovement jump performance and multijoint isometric and dynamic tests of strength

The purpose of this investigation was to determine the relationship between countermovement vertical jump (CMJ) performance and various methods used to assess isometric and dynamic multijoint strength. Twelve NCAA Division I-AA male football and track and field athletes (age, 19.83 +/- 1.40 years; height, 179.10 +/- 4.56 cm; mass, 90.08 +/- 14.81 kg; percentage of body fat, 11.85 +/- 5.47%) participated in 2 testing sessions. The first session involved 1 repetition maximum (1RM) (kg) testing in the squat and power clean. During the second session, peak force (N), relative peak force (N x kg(-1)), peak power (W), relative peak power (W x kg(-1)), peak velocity (m x s(-1)), and jump height (meters) in a CMJ, and peak force and rate of force development (RFD) (N x s(-1)) in a maximal isometric squat (ISO squat) and maximal isometric mid-thigh pull (ISO mid-thigh) were assessed. Significant correlations (P < or = 0.05) were found when comparing relative 1RMs (1RM/body mass), in both the squat and power clean, to relative CMJ peak power, CMJ peak velocity, and CMJ height. No significant correlations existed between the 4 measures of absolute strength, which did not account for body mass (squat 1RM, power clean 1RM, ISO squat peak force, and ISO mid-thigh peak force) when compared to CMJ peak velocity and CMJ height. In conclusion, multijoint dynamic tests of strength (squat 1RM and power clean 1RM), expressed relative to body mass, are most closely correlated with CMJ performance. These results suggest that increasing maximal strength relative to body mass can improve performance in explosive lower body movements. The squat and power clean, used in a concurrent strength and power training program, are recommended for optimizing lower body 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.     

Short-term effects of selected exercise and load in contrast training on vertical jump performance

The present study examined the short-term effects of loaded half squats (HSs) and loaded jump squats (JSs) with low and moderate loads on the squat jump (SJ) and the countermovement jump (CMJ) performance using a contrast training approach. Ten men (mean +/- SD age, 23 +/- 1.8 years) performed the HS and JS exercises twice with loads of 30% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM) (HS30% and JS30%, respectively) and 60% of 1RM (HS60% and JS60%, respectively). On each occasion, 3 sets of 5 repetitions with 3 minutes of rest were performed as fast as possible. Vertical jump performance was measured before exercise, 1 minute after each set, and at the fifth and 10th minutes of recovery. The CMJ increased significantly after the first and second set (3.9%; p < 0.05) compared with preexercise values following the JS30% protocol and 3.3% after the second and third sets of the JS60% protocol. Following the HS60% protocol, CMJ increased after the first and the second sets (3.6%; p < 0.05) compared with preexercise values, whereas SQ increased only after the first set (4.9%; p < 0.05) in this condition. These data show that contrast loading with the use of low and moderate loads can cause a short-term increase in CMJ performance. The applied loads do not seem to present different short-term effects after loaded JSs. When the classic form of dynamic HS exercise is performed, however, at least a moderate load (60% of 1RM) needs to be applied.     

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)     

The effect of contrast water therapy on symptoms of delayed onset muscle soreness

This study examined the effect of contrast water therapy (CWT) on the physiological and functional symptoms of delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS) following DOMS-inducing leg press exercise. Thirteen recreational athletes performed 2 experimental trials separated by 6 weeks in a randomized crossover design. On each occasion, subjects performed a DOMS-inducing leg press protocol consisting of 5 x 10 eccentric contractions (180 seconds recovery between sets) at 140% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM). This was followed by a 15-minute recovery period incorporating either CWT or no intervention, passive recovery (PAS). Creatine kinase concentration (CK), perceived pain, thigh volume, isometric squat strength, and weighted jump squat performance were measured prior to the eccentric exercise, immediately post recovery, and 24, 48, and 72 hours post recovery. Isometric force production was not reduced below baseline measures throughout the 72-hour data collection period following CWT ( approximately 4-10%). However, following PAS, isometric force production (mean +/- SD) was 14.8 +/- 11.4% below baseline immediately post recovery (p < 0.05), 20.8 +/- 15.6% 24 hours post recovery (p < 0.05), and 22.5 +/- 12.3% 48 hours post recovery (p < 0.05). Peak power produced during the jump squat was significantly reduced (p < 0.05) following both PAS (20.9 +/- 13.4%) and CWT (12.8 +/- 8.0%), with the mean reduction in power for PAS being marginally (not significantly) greater than for CWT (effect size = 0.76). Thigh volume measured immediately following CWT was significantly less than PAS. No significant differences in the changes in CK were found; in addition, there were no significant (p > 0.01) differences in perceived pain between treatments. Contrast water therapy was associated with a smaller reduction, and faster restoration, of strength and power measured by isometric force and jump squat production following DOMS-inducing leg press exercise when compared to PAS. Therefore, CWT seems to be effective in reducing and improving the recovery of functional deficiencies that result from DOMS, as opposed to passive recovery.     

Comparing the performance-enhancing effects of squats on a vibration platform with conventional squats in recreationally resistance-trained men

The purpose of this investigation was to compare the performance-enhancing effects of squats on a vibration platform with conventional squats in recreationally resistance-trained men. The subjects were 14 recreationally resistance-trained men (age, 21-40 years) and the intervention period consisted of 5 weeks. After the initial testing, subjects were randomly assigned to either the "squat whole body vibration" (SWBV) group (n = 7), which performed squats on a vibration platform on a Smith Machine, or the "squat"(S) group (n = 7), which performed conventional squats with no vibrations on a Smith Machine. Testing was performed at the beginning and the end of the study and consisted of 1 repetition maximum (1RM) in squat and maximum jump height in countermovement jump (CMJ). A modified daily undulating periodization program was used during the intervention period in both groups. Both groups trained at the same percentage of 1RM in squats (6-10RM). After the intervention, CMJ performance increased significantly only in the SWBV (p < 0.01), but there was no significant difference between groups in relative jump height increase (p = 0.088). Both groups showed significant increases in 1RM performance in squats (p < 0.01). Although there was a trend toward a greater relative strength increase in the SWBV group, it did not reach a significant level. In conclusion, the preliminary results of this study point toward a tendency of superiority of squats performed on a vibration platform compared with squats without vibrations regarding maximal strength and explosive power as long as the external load is similar in recreationally resistance-trained men.     

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.