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.     

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.     

Recovery patterns in electroencephalographic global field power during maximal isometric force production

In previous work, cortical activity decreased with fatigue following novel movements or small muscle group actions. These muscle actions, however, do not appear related to the cortical activity seen with biologically relevant and highly trained movement patterns (i.e., ingrained patterns). The cortical recovery response to ingrained patterns-and how it differs with altered load, speed, or volume - is unknown. The purpose of this balanced, within-group study was to investigate differences in cortical activity 24 hours after physically distinct variations of a highly trained squat exercise (n = 7, minimum 4 years resistance training experience). Four resistance protocols were chosen: rate of force development (PWR, 6 × 3 squat jumps at 30% of 1 repetition maximum [1RM]); magnitude of force development (FOR, 6 × 3 squat at 95% of 1RM); volume of force development (VOL, 6 × 10 squat at 80% of their 1RM); and control (CTRL, 6 sets unracking an empty bar). Twenty-four hours later, subjects performed a peak isometric squat while electroencephalographic and biochemical markers of exertion and fatigue were obtained. Global field power detected the quantity of activity superficial to motor regions. Waveforms of activity throughout the isometric squats were obtained and grand averages calculated to produce quantitative depictions of cortical activity. Significance was P ≤ 0.05. Peak isometric squat force was not statistically different 24 hours postexercise (Force [N]: PWR: 2828.79 ± 461.17; FOR: 2887.64 ± 453.09; VOL: 2910.17 ± 625.81; CTRL 2768.53 ± 374.85). Subjects produced similar and characteristic cortical activity patterns during isometric squats despite varying indices of fatigue. Differences were observed based upon the use or nonuse of aerobic endurance exercise in their training program. Patterns of activity in data seem to have emerged based on differences in training preference. Global Field Power (uV) during the isometric squat for PWR was 26.98 ± 14.64; FOR 24.06 ± 19.05; VOL 23.05 ± 13.37; and CTRL 15.78 ± 8.11. Previous research suggests that cortical activity decreases with physical activity; however, despite substantial endocrine, perceptual, and biomechanical differences between protocols, cortical activity was not decreased below control during the performance of a maximal isometric squat 24 hours after various exercise protocols.     

Effectiveness of the 1RM estimation method based on isometric squat using a back-dynamometer

This study aimed to clarify the relationships between isometric squat (IS) using a back dynamometer and 1 repetition maximum (1RM) squat for maximum force and muscle activities and to examine the effectiveness of a 1RM estimation method based on IS. The subjects were 15 young men with weight training experience (mean age 20.7 ± 0.8 years, mean height 171.3 ± 4.4 cm, mean weight 64.4 ± 8.4 kg). They performed the IS with various stance widths and squat depths. The measured data of exerted maximum force and the action potential of the agonist muscles were compared with the 1RM squat data. The exerted maximum force during IS was significantly larger in wide stance (140% shoulder width) than in narrow stance (5-cm width). The maximum force was significantly larger with decreased knee flexion. As for muscle activity, the % root mean square value of muscle electric potential of the rectus femoris and the vastus lateralis tended to be higher in wide stance. As for exerted maximum force, wide stance and parallel depth in IS showed a significant and high correlation (r = 0.73) with 1RM squat. Simple linear regression analysis revealed a significant estimated regression equation [Y = 0.992X + 30.3 (Y:1RM, X:IS)]. However, the standard error of an estimate value obtained by the regression equation was very large (11.19 kg). In conclusion, IS with wide stance and parallel depth may be useful for the estimation of 1RM squat. However, estimating a 1RM by IS using a back dynamometer may be difficult.     

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.     

A biomechanical comparison of the traditional squat, powerlifting squat, and box squat

The purpose of this study was to compare the biomechanics of the traditional squat with 2 popular exercise variations commonly referred to as the powerlifting squat and box squat. Twelve male powerlifters performed the exercises with 30, 50, and 70% of their measured 1 repetition maximum (1RM), with instruction to lift the loads as fast as possible. Inverse dynamics and spatial tracking of the external resistance were used to quantify biomechanical variables. A range of significant kinematic and kinetic differences (p < 0.05) emerged between the exercises. The traditional squat was performed with a narrow stance, whereas the powerlifting squat and box squat were performed with similar wide stances (48.3 ± 3.8, 89.6 ± 4.9, 92.1 ± 5.1 cm, respectively). During the eccentric phase of the traditional squat, the knee traveled past the toes resulting in anterior displacement of the system center of mass (COM). In contrast, during the powerlifting squat and box squat, a more vertical shin position was maintained, resulting in posterior displacements of the system COM. These differences in linear displacements had a significant effect (p < 0.05) on a number of peak joint moments, with the greatest effects measured at the spine and ankle. For both joints, the largest peak moment was produced during the traditional squat, followed by the powerlifting squat, then box squat. Significant differences (p < 0.05) were also noted at the hip joint where the largest moment in all 3 planes were produced during the powerlifting squat. Coaches and athletes should be aware of the biomechanical differences between the squatting variations and select according to the kinematic and kinetic profile that best match the training goals.     

Relationship between traditional and ballistic squat exercise with vertical jumping and maximal sprinting

The purpose of this study was to quantify the magnitude of the relationship between vertical jumping and maximal sprinting at different distances with performance in the traditional and ballistic concentric squat exercise in well-trained sprinters. Twenty-one men performed 2 types of barbell squats (ballistic and traditional) across different loads with the aim of determining the maximal peak and average power outputs and 1 repetition maximum (1RM) values. Moreover, vertical jumping (countermovement jump test [CMJ]) and maximal sprints over 10, 20, 30, 40, 60, and 80 m were also assessed. In respect to 1RM in traditional squat, (a) no significant correlation was found with CMJ performance; (b) positive strong relationships (p < 0.01) were obtained with all the power measures obtained during both ballistic and traditional squat exercises (r = 0.53-0.90); (c) negative significant correlations (r = -0.49 to -0.59, p < 0.05) were found with sprint times in all the sprint distances measured when squat strength was expressed as a relative value; however, in the absolute mode, no significant relationships were observed with 10- and 20-m sprint times. No significant relationship was found between 10-m sprint time and relative or absolute power outputs using either ballistic or traditional squat exercises. Sprint time at 20 m was only related to ballistic and traditional squat performance when power values were expressed in relative terms. Moderate significant correlations (r = -0.39 to -0.56, p < 0.05) were observed between sprint times at 30 and 40 m and the absolute/relative power measures attained in both ballistic and traditional squat exercises. Sprint times at 60 and 80 m were mainly related to ballistic squat power outputs. Although correlations can only give insights into associations and not into cause and effect, from this investigation, it can be seen that traditional squat strength has little in common with CMJ performance and that relative 1RM and power outputs for both squat exercises are statistically correlated to most sprint distances underlying the importance of strength and power to sprinting.     

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.     

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.     

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   

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.     

Baseline strength can influence the ability of salivary free testosterone to predict squat and sprinting performance

The objective of this study was to determine if salivary free testosterone can predict an athlete's performance during back squats and sprints over time and the influence baseline strength on this relationship. Ten weight-trained male athletes were divided into 2 groups based on their 1 repetition maximum (1RM) squats, good squatters (1RM > 2.0 × body weight, n = 5) and average squatters (1RM < 1.9 × body weight, n = 5). The good squatters were stronger than the average squatters (p < 0.05). Each subject was assessed for squat 1RM and 10-m sprint times on 10 separate occasions over a 40-day period. A saliva sample was collected before testing and assayed for free testosterone and cortisol. The pooled testosterone correlations were strong and significant in the good squatters (r = 0.92 for squats, r = -0.87 for sprints, p < 0.01), but not significant for the average squatters (r = 0.35 for squats, r = -0.18 for sprints). Cortisol showed no significant correlations with 1RM squat and 10-m sprint performance, and no differences were identified between the 2 squatting groups. In summary, these results suggest that free testosterone is a strong individual predictor of squat and sprinting performance in individuals with relatively high strength levels but a poor predictor in less strong individuals. This information can assist coaches, trainers, and performance scientists working with stronger weight-trained athletes, for example, the preworkout measurement of free testosterone could indicate likely training outcomes or a readiness to train at a certain intensity level, especially if real-time measurements are made. Our results also highlight the need to separate group and individual hormonal data during the repeated testing of athletes with variable strength levels.     

Methodological concerns for determining power output in the jump squat

The purpose of this study was to investigate the validity of power measurement techniques during the jump squat (JS) utilizing various combinations of a force plate and linear position transducer (LPT) devices. Nine men with at least 6 months of prior resistance training experience participated in this acute investigation. One repetition maximums (1RM) in the squat were determined, followed by JS testing under 2 loading conditions (30% of 1RM [JS30] and 90% of 1RM [JS90]). Three different techniques were used simultaneously in data collection: (a) 1 linear position transducer (1-LPT); (b) 1 linear position transducer and a force plate (1-LPT + FP); and (c) 2 linear position transducers and a force place (2-LPT + FP). Vertical velocity-, force-, and power-time curves were calculated for each lift using these methodologies and were compared. Peak force and peak power were overestimated by 1-LPT in both JS30 and JS90 compared with 2-LPT + FP and 1-LPT + FP (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)     

Effects of a 6-week periodized squat training with or without whole-body vibration upon short-term adaptations in squat strength and body composition

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of a 6-week, periodized squat training program, with or without whole-body low-frequency vibration (WBLFV), applied before and between sets to 1RM squat strength and body composition. Thirty men aged between 20 and 30 years with at least 6 months of recreational weight training experience completed the study. Subjects were randomly assigned to either 1 of 2 training groups or to an active control group (CON). Group 1 (CON; n = 6) did not participate in the training protocol but participated only in testing sessions. Group 2 (SQTV, n = 13) performed 6 weeks of squat training while receiving WBLFV (50 Hz), before, and in-between sets. The third group (SQT, n = 11) performed 6 weeks of squat training only. Subjects completed 12 workouts with variable loads (55-90% one repetition maximum [1RM]) and sets (), performing squats twice weekly separated by 72 hours. The RM measures were recorded on weeks (W) 1, 3, and 7. During the second workout of a week, the load was reduced by 10-15%, with "speed squats" performed during the final 3 weeks. Rest periods in between sets were set at 240 seconds. The WBLFV was applied while subjects stood on a WBLFV platform holding an isometric quarter squat position (knee angle 135 ± 5°). Initially, WBLFV was applied at 50 Hz for 30 seconds at low amplitude (peak-peak 2-4 mm). A rest period of 180 seconds followed WBLFV exposure before the first set of squats. The WBLFV was then applied intermittently (3 × 10 seconds) at 50 Hz, high amplitude (peak-peak, 4-6 mm) at time points, 60, 120, and 180 seconds into the 240-second rest period. Total body dual x-ray absorptiometry scans were performed at W0 (week before training) and W7 (week after training). Measures recorded included total body mass (kg), total body lean mass (TLBM, kg), trunk lean mass (kg), leg lean mass (kg), total body fat percentage, trunk fat percentage, and leg fat percentage (LF%). Repeated-measures analysis of variance and analysis of covariance revealed 1RM increased significantly between W1-W3, W3-W7, and W1-W7 for both experimental groups but not for control (p = 0.001, effect size [ES] = 0.237, 1 - β = 0.947). No significant differences were seen for %Δ (p > 0.05). Significant group by trial and group effects were seen for TLBM, SQTV > CON at W7 (p = 0.044). A significant main effect for time was seen for LF%, W0 vs. W7 (p = 0.047). No other significant differences were seen (p > 0.05). "Practical trends" were seen favoring "short-term" neuromuscular adaptations for the SQTV group during the first 3 weeks (p = 0.10, ES = 0.157, 1 - β = 0.443, mean diff; SQTV week 3 4.72 kg > CON and 2.53 kg > SQT). Differences in motor unit activation patterns, hypertrophic responses, and dietary intake during the training period could account for the trends seen.     

Effects of changing from full range of motion to partial range of motion on squat kinetics

It is commonplace for people involved in recreational weight training to limit squat depth to lift heavier loads. This study compares differences in movement kinetics when squatting in the full range of motion (FROM) vs. partial range of motion (PROM). Ten men with a 1-year minimum of resistance training attended 4 sessions each comprising 4 sets of squats following one of FROM for 10 repetitions (FROM10) at an intensity of 67% 1 repetition maximum (1RM) FROM squat, PROM for 10 repetitions (PROM10) at 67% 1RM PROM squat, FROM for 5 repetitions (FROM5) at 83% FROM squat or PROM for 5 repetitions (PROM5) at 83% 1RM PROM squat. Movement velocity was not specified. Squat kinetics data were collected using an optical encoder. Differences between conditions were analyzed by repeated-measures analysis of variance and expressed as mean differences and standardized (Cohen) effect sizes with 95% confidence limits. The PROM5 power was substantially more than the PROM10 (98 W, -21 to 217; mean, lower and upper 95% confidence limits), FROM5 (168 W, 47-289), and FROM10 (255 W, 145-365). The force produced during PROM5 was substantially more than PROM10 (372 N, 254-490), FROM5 (854 N, 731-977), and FROM10 (1,069 N, 911-1227). The peak velocity produced during FROM10 was substantially more than FROM5 (0.105 m·s(-1), 0.044-0.166), PROM10 (0.246 m·s(-1), 0.167-0.325), and PROM5 (0.305 m·s(-1), 0.228-0.382). The FROM5 was substantially more than FROM10 (86 J, 59-113), PROM5 (142 J, 90-194), and PROM10 (211 J, 165-257). Therefore, either range of motion can have practical implications in designing resistance training programs depending on if the training goal is related to power and force development, maximizing work output or speed. Moderate-load PROM training, common among recreational weight trainers, is unlikely to provide higher movement kinetics.     

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.     

Front squat data reproducibility collected with a triple-axis accelerometer

The purpose of our study was to assess data reproducibility from 2 consecutive front squat workouts, spaced 1 week apart, performed by American college football players (n = 18) as they prepared for their competitive season. For each workout, our methods entailed the performance of 3-6 front squat repetitions per set at 55, 65, and 75% of subject's 1 repetition maximum (1RM) load. In addition, a fourth set was done at a heavier load, with a resistance equal to 80 and 83% of their 1RM values, for the first and second workouts, respectively. A triple-axis accelerometer was affixed to a barbell to quantify exercise performance. Per load, the accelerometer measures peak values for the following indices: force, velocity, and power. To assess data reproducibility, inter-workout comparisons were made for 12 performance indices with 4 statistical test-retest measures: intraclass correlation coefficients, coefficients of variation (CVs), and the SEM expressed in both absolute and relative terms. Current results show that the majority of performance indices exceeded intraclass correlation (0.75-0.80) and CV (10-15%) values previously deemed as acceptable levels of data reproducibility. The 2 indices with the greatest variability were power and velocity values obtained at 55% of the 1RM load; thus, it was concluded that higher movement rates at the lightest load were the most difficult aspect of front squat performance to repeat successfully over time. Our practical applications imply lighter loads, with inherently higher rates of barbell movement, yield lower data reproducibility values.     

Effects of fatigue on bilateral ground reaction force asymmetries during the squat exercise

Physical performance and injury risk have been related to functional asymmetries of the lower extremity. The effect of fatigue on asymmetries is not well understood. The goal of this investigation was to examine asymmetries during fatiguing repetitions and sets of the free-weight barbell back squat exercise. Seventeen healthy recreationally trained men and women (age = 22.3 ± 2.5 years; body mass = 73.4 ± 13.8 kg; squat 8 repetition maximum [8RM] = 113 ± 35% body mass [mean ± SD]) performed 5 sets of 8 repetitions with 90% 8RM while recording bilateral vertical ground reaction force (GRFv). The GRFv asymmetry during the first 2 (R1 and R2) and the last 2 (R7 and R8) repetitions of each set was calculated by subtracting the % load on the right foot from that of the left foot. Most subjects placed more load on their left foot (also their preferred non-kicking foot). Average absolute asymmetry level across all sets was 4.3 ± 2.5 and 3.6 ± 2.3% for R1 and R2 and R7 and R8, respectively. There were no effects of fatigue on GRFv asymmetries in whole-group analysis (n = 17). However, when initially highly symmetric subjects (±1.7% Left-Right) were removed, average absolute GRFv asymmetry dropped from the beginning to the end of a set (n = 12, p = 0.044) as did peak instantaneous GRFv asymmetry when exploring general shifts toward the left or right leg (n = 12, p = 0.042). The GRFv asymmetries were highly repeatable for 8 subjects that repeated the protocol (Cronbach's α ≥ 0.733, p ≤ 0.056). These results suggest that functional asymmetries, though low, are present in healthy people during the squat exercise and remain consistent. Asymmetries do not increase with fatigue, potentially even decreasing, suggesting that healthy subjects load limbs similarly as fatigue increases, exposing each to similar training stimuli.