A preliminary investigation of the biomechanical and perceptual influence of chain resistance on the performance of the snatch

The purpose of this study was to determine whether the addition of chains to a barbell during the performance of the snatch would invoke differences in execution compared with lifting a conventional barbell without chains. Additionally, subjects were asked whether they perceived that the addition of chains had effects on their performance, and, if so, what those effects were. Four male and 3 female competitive weightlifters who regularly used chains as part of their training programs participated in the study. They were compared lifting 80% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM) using conventional barbells with 80% of 1RM, 5% of which was accounted for by chains. The same procedure was used with 85% of 1RM. Variables examined included maximum vertical displacement of the bar, maximum bar velocity, rate of force production of the bar, and vertical ground reaction forces for the first pull, unweighting, and second pull phases of the lift. Results indicated that there were no statistically significant differences between the chain vs. no-chain conditions at either 80% or 85% of 1RM. In contrast, 100% of the subjects stated that they perceived that the addition of chains made them work harder during the snatch. They suggested that the chains forced them to pull harder throughout the lift and that oscillation of the chains required their shoulders, abdominals, and back to work harder to stabilize the bar in the catch phase. Although statistical results indicate that chains have no influence on the snatch technique, chains may have a psychological impact and possibly invoke a physiological training response by increasing strength of muscles required to stabilize the bar during the catch phase if used over time.     

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

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

Kinematic and kinetic analysis of maximal velocity deadlifts performed with and without the inclusion of chain resistance

The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the deadlift could be effectively incorporated with explosive resistance training (ERT) and to investigate whether the inclusion of chains enhanced the suitability of the deadlift for ERT. Twenty-three resistance trained athletes performed the deadlift with 30, 50, and 70% 1-repetition maximum (1RM) loads at submaximal velocity, maximal velocity (MAX), and MAX with the inclusion of 2 chain loads equal to 20 or 40% of the subjects' 1RM. All trials were performed on force platforms with markers attached to the barbell to calculate velocity and acceleration using a motion capture system. Significant increases in force, velocity, power, rate of force development, and length of the acceleration phase (p < 0.05) were obtained when repetition velocity increased from submaximal to maximal. During MAX repetitions with a constant resistance, the mean length of the acceleration phase ranged from 73.2 (±7.2%) to 84.9 (±12.2%) of the overall movement. Compared to using a constant resistance, the inclusion of chains enabled greater force to be maintained to the end of the concentric action and significantly increased peak force and impulse (p < 0.05), while concurrently decreasing velocity, power, and rate of force development (p < 0.05). The effects of chains were influenced by the magnitude of the chain and barbell resistance, with greater increases and decreases in mechanical variables obtained when heavier chain and barbell loads were used. The results of the investigation suggest that the deadlift can be incorporated effectively in ERT programs. Coaches and athletes should be aware that the inclusion of heavy chains may have both positive and negative effects on kinematics and kinetics of an exercise.     

A comparison of ballistic and nonballistic lower-body resistance exercise and the methods used to identify their positive lifting phases

This study compared differences between ballistic jump squat (B) and nonballistic back squat (NB) force, velocity, power, and relative acceleration duration, and the effect that the method used to identify the positive lifting phase had on these parameters. Ground reaction force and barbell kinematics were recorded from 30 resistance trained men during B and NB performance with 45% 1RM. Force, velocity, and power was averaged over positive lifting phases identified using the traditional peak barbell displacement (PD) and positive impulse method. No significant differences were found between B and NB mean force, and mean power, but B mean velocity was 14% greater than the NB equivalent. Positive impulse mean force was 24% greater than PD mean force, and B relative acceleration duration was 8.6% greater than the NB equivalent when PD was used to identify the end of the positive lifting phase. These results challenge common perceptions of B superiority for power development.     

Test-retest reliability of barbell velocity during the free-weight bench-press exercise

The purpose of this study was to calculate test-retest reliability statistics for peak barbell velocity during the free-weight bench-press exercise for loads corresponding to 10-90% of the 1-repetition maximum (1RM). Twenty-one healthy, resistance-trained men (mean ± SD age = 23.5 ± 2.7 years; body mass = 90.5 ± 14.6 kg; 1RM bench press = 125.4 ± 18.4 kg) volunteered for this study. A minimum of 48 hours after a maximal strength testing and familiarization session, the subjects performed single repetitions of the free-weight bench-press exercise at each tenth percentile (10-90%) of the 1RM on 2 separate occasions. For each repetition, the subjects were instructed to press the barbell as rapidly as possible, and peak barbell velocity was measured with a Tendo Weightlifting Analyzer. The test-retest intraclass correlation coefficients (model 2,1) and corresponding standard errors of measurement (expressed as percentages of the mean barbell velocity values) were 0.717 (4.2%), 0.572 (5.0%), 0.805 (3.1%), 0.669 (4.7%), 0.790 (4.6%), 0.785 (4.8%), 0.811 (5.8%), 0.714 (10.3%), and 0.594 (12.6%) for the weights corresponding to 10-90% 1RM. There were no mean differences between the barbell velocity values from trials 1 and 2. These results indicated moderate to high test-retest reliability for barbell velocity from 10 to 70% 1RM but decreased consistency at 80 and 90% 1RM. When examining barbell velocity during the free-weight bench-press exercise, greater measurement error must be overcome at 80 and 90% 1RM to be confident that an observed change is meaningful.     

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.     

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

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

An examination of strength and concentric work ratios during variable range of motion training

Variable range of motion (ROM) training consists of partial ROM resistance training with the countermovement being performed at a different phase of the movement for each set. In this study, we assessed the effect of this method of training on peak force, load lifted, and concentric work performed. Six male subjects with resistance training backgrounds (age 20.2 +/- 1.3 years, height 179.4 +/- 4.6 cm, weight 89.6 +/- 9.9 kg, 6-repetition maximum [6RM] bench press 92.5 +/- 14.3 kg) participated in this study. Testing consisted of 6RM bench press strength tests during full (FULL), three quarter ((3/4)), one half ((1/2)), and one quarter ((1/4)) ROM from full elbow extension bench press performed on a Smith machine. The 6RM load, peak force (PF), and concentric work (W) performed during each ROM was examined using a one-way analysis of variance performed at an alpha level of p < 0.05. The 6RM load increased significantly as the ROM was decreased for all tests (FULL = 92.5 +/- 14.3 kg, (3/4) = 102.1 +/- 14.3 kg, (1/2) = 123.3 +/- 23.6 kg, (1/4) = 160.9 +/- 26.2 kg). PF during each test was significantly higher during the (1/4) (1924.8 +/- 557.9 N) and (1/2) (1859.4 +/- 317.1 N) ROM from full elbow extension bench press when compared with the (3/4) (1242.2 +/- 254.6 N) and FULL (1200.5 +/- 252.5 N) ROM exercise. Although higher force levels were evident, the restriction in barbell displacement resulted in a subsequent reduction in W as the lifting ROM was reduced. These results suggest that variable ROM resistance training results in increased force production as the ROM diminishes.     

No difference in 1RM strength and muscle activation during the barbell chest press on a stable and unstable surface

Exercise or Swiss balls are increasingly being used with conventional resistance exercises. There is little evidence supporting the efficacy of this approach compared to traditional resistance training on a stable surface. Previous studies have shown that force output may be reduced with no change in muscle electromyography (EMG) activity while others have shown increased muscle EMG activity when performing resistance exercises on an unstable surface. This study compared 1RM strength, and upper body and trunk muscle EMG activity during the barbell chest press exercise on a stable (flat bench) and unstable surface (exercise ball). After familiarization, 13 subjects underwent testing for 1RM strength for the barbell chest press on both a stable bench and an exercise ball, each separated by at least 7 days. Surface EMG was recorded for 5 upper body muscles and one trunk muscle from which average root mean square of the muscle activity was calculated for the whole 1RM lift and the concentric and eccentric phases. Elbow angle during each lift was recorded to examine any range-of-motion differences between the two surfaces. The results show that there was no difference in 1RM strength or muscle EMG activity for the stable and unstable surfaces. In addition, there was no difference in elbow range-of-motion between the two surfaces. Taken together, these results indicate that there is no reduction in 1RM strength or any differences in muscle EMG activity for the barbell chest press exercise on an unstable exercise ball when compared to a stable flat surface. Moreover, these results do not support the notion that resistance exercises performed on an exercise ball are more efficacious than traditional stable exercises.     

Effects of elastic bands on force and power characteristics during the back squat exercise

Athletes commonly use elastic bands as a training method to increase strength and performance. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of elastic bands on peak force (PF), peak power (PP), and peak rate of force development (RFD) during the back-squat exercise (BSE). Ten recreationally resistance-trained subjects (4 women, 6 men, mean age 21.3 +/- 1.5 years) were tested for their 1 repetition maximum (1RM) in the BSE (mean 117.6 +/- 48.2 kg) on a Smith machine. Testing was performed on 2 separate days, with 2 sets of 3 repetitions being performed for each condition. Testing was conducted at 60% and 85% of 1RM with and without using elastic bands. In addition, 2 elastic band loading conditions were tested (B1 and B2) at each of the 2 resistances. No bands (NB) represents where all of the resistance was acquired from free-weights. B1 represents where approximately 80% of the resistance was provided by free-weights, and approximately 20% was provided by bands. B2 represents where approximately 65% of the resistance was provided by free-weights, and approximately 35% was provided from bands. The subjects completed the BSE under each condition, whereas PF, PP, and RFD was recorded using a force platform. There was a significant (p < 0.05) increase in PF between NB-85 and B2-85 of 16%. Between B1-85 and B2-85, PF was increased significantly by 5% (p < 0.05). There was a significant (p < 0.05) increase in PP between NB-85 and B2-85 of 24%. No significant differences were observed in RFD during the 85% conditions or for any of the measured variables during the 60% conditions (p < 0.05). The results suggest that the use of elastic bands in conjunction with free weights can significantly increase PF and PP during the BSE over free-weight resistance alone under certain loading conditions. The greatest differences are observed during the higher loading conditions, with the B1-85 condition appearing to be optimal for athletic performance of the ones we tested. The strength training professional could use variable resistance training (VRT) to increase PF and PP more than the traditional BSE can. VRT could also be used to train these 2 performance characteristics together, which might be especially useful in season, when weight-room training volume can sometimes be limited.     

Effects of increased eccentric loading on bench press 1RM

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

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.     

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)     

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.     

Biomechanical comparison of unilateral and bilateral power snatch lifts

Biomechanical characteristics of the one-handed dumbbell power snatch (DBPS) were examined to determine whether significant differences existed between unilateral and bilateral weightlifting movements. Kinetic and kinematic movement data were recorded from 10 male weightlifters (mean +/- SD: age: 30.2 +/- 10.2 years; height: 174.2 +/- 4.4 cm; body mass: 81.5 +/- 14.6 kg) during one-handed dumbbell (DB) and traditional barbell (BBPS) power snatch performance with loads of approximately 80% of respective lift one repetition maximums (1RM) with the use of 2 synchronized Kistler force plates and high-speed 3-dimensional video. Results highlighted asymmetry in the ground reaction force and kinematic profile of the DBPS, which deviated from the observed patterns of the bilateral movement. This study found that the nonlifting side (the side corresponding with the hand that did not hold the DB) tended to generate a greater pull phase peak vertical ground reaction forces significantly faster (p = 0.001) than the lifting side (the side corresponding with the hand that held the DB) during the DBPS. In addition, the DBPS nonlifting side catch phase loading rate was approximately double that of the lifting side loading rate (p < 0.05). These results quantify symmetrical deviations in the movement patterns of the unilateral power snatch movement both during the concentric muscular contraction of load vertical displacement, and the loading implications of unilateral landing. This asymmetry supports the contention that unilateral variations of weightlifting movements may provide a different training stimulus to athletes.     

Acute responses of muscle oxygen saturation during different cluster training configurations in resistance-trained individuals

This study compared the perceptual responses, physiological indicators and technical parameters between different training protocols focused on upper body exercises. A randomized crossover design was performed, and 12 trained individuals (age: 27.1 ± 5.7 years; height: 173.7 ± 10.7 cm; BMI: 23.9 ± 2.3) completed three resistance training sessions under different protocols separated by at least 72 h: traditional training (TT) (4 x 6 repetitions at 85% of 1RM with 120 s of rest between sets), cluster 1 (CL1) (4 x 2+2+2 repetitions at 85% of 1RM with 15 s of intra-rep rest and 80 s between sets), and cluster 2 (CL2) (24 repetitions at 85% of 1RM with 15 s of inter-set recovery). Before training, arterial blood pressure (BP) and repetitions to failure of pull-up and push-up (FT) were collected. Muscle oxygen saturation (SmO₂) in the chest and movement velocity were evaluated in barbell bench press during the training session. After finishing, lactate, BP, rate of perceived exertion and FT were assessed. The percentage of velocity loss (TT: 19.24%; CL1: 5.02% and CL2: 7.30%) in the bench press and lactate concentration (TT: 8.90 mmol·l^-1; CL1: 6.13 mmol·l^-1 and CL2: 5.48 mmol·l^-1) were significantly higher (p < 0.05) for TT compared to both CLs. RPE values were higher (p < 0.05) in TT compared to CL1 (7.95 a.u. vs. 6.91 a.u., respectively). No differences (p > 0.05) were found between protocols for SmO₂, BP, FT, pain or heart rate between set configurations. Cluster configurations allow one to maintain higher movement velocity and lower lactate and RPE values compared to a traditional configuration, but with similar concentrations of SmO₂.     

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.     

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.     

Ratings of perceived exertion in active muscle during high-intensity and low-intensity resistance exercise

This investigation compared ratings of perceived exertion specific to the active muscles used during resistance exercise (RPE-AM) using the 15-category Borg scale during high-intensity (HIP) and low-intensity (LIP) weight lifting. Ten men (23.2 +/- 3.6 years) and 10 women (21.8 +/- 2.7 years) performed 2 trials consisting of seven exercises: bench press (BP), leg press, latissimus dorsi pull down, triceps press, biceps curl, shoulder press, and calf raise. The HIP and LIP protocols were completed in counterbalanced order. During HIP, subjects completed 5 repetitions using 90% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM). RPE-AM was measured after every repetition. During LIP, subjects completed 15 repetitions using 30% of 1RM. RPE-AM was measured after every third repetition. RPE-AMs were greater (p 相似文献