Search

Preparation of athletes to begin a competition or enter mid-competition with the ability to reach peak performance immediately may be partly dependent on the efficacy of the warmup protocol. Previous research on flexible barbells reported significant differences in muscle activation when compared to steel barbells. The manufacturers of handheld flexible bars with a combined weight of 3.63 kg claim that using them immediately before competition helps increase power and jump height. The purpose of the study was to determine the effects of maximal jumping with handheld flexible bars on maximal jump parameters in Division-I American collegiate football players. Participants completed 10 warmup jumps with no weight, flexible barbells, or similarly weighted dumbbells and immediately completed a maximal countermovement jump. When comparing the effects of different high-velocity warmup (HVW) protocols, there were no differences in any jump parameters as measured by a portable force plate. Likewise, the use of flexible bars during the warmup did not result in enhanced muscle activity when executing a maximal jump in comparison to control conditions. Based on these results there is no evidence to support the use of flexible bars during a warmup just prior to entry into a competition to enhance jumping power. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Velocity-based training (VBT) is a method to monitor resistance training based on measured kinematics. Often, measurement devices are too expensive for non-professional use. The purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy and precision of the Apple Watch 7 and the Enode Pro device for measuring mean, peak, and propulsive velocity during the free-weighted back squat (in comparison to Vicon as the criterion). Velocity parameters from Vicon optical motion capture and the Apple Watch were derived by processing the motion data in an automated Python workflow. For the mean velocity, the barbell-mounted Apple Watch (r = 0.971–0.979, SEE = 0.049), wrist-worn Apple Watch (r = 0.952–0.965, SEE = 0.064) and barbell-mounted Enode Pro (r = 0.959–0.971, SEE = 0.059) showed an equal level of validity. The barbell-mounted Apple Watch (Vpeak: r = 0.952–0.965, SEE = 0.092; Vprop: r = 0.973–0.981, SEE = 0.05) was found to be the most valid for assessing propulsive and peak lifting velocity. The present results on the validity of the Apple Watch are very promising, and may pave the way for the inclusion of VBT applications in mainstream consumer wearables. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Still rings are a unique gymnastics apparatus allowing for a combination of dynamic and static elements in a specific technique. This review aimed to compile the dynamic, kinematic, and EMG characteristics of swing, dismount, handstand, strength, and hold elements on still rings. This systematic review was conducted in concordance with PRISMA in PubMed, EBSCOhost, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. In total, 37 studies were included, describing the strength and hold elements, the kip and swing elements, swing through or to handstand, and dismounts. The current evidence suggests that the execution of gymnastics elements on still rings and training drills requires a high training load. Specific preconditioning exercises could be used to train for the Swallow, iron cross, and support scale. Negative impacts of load during hold elements can be reduced by special support devices such as the Herdos or support belts. Another aspect is improving strength prerequisites by exercises such as bench presses, barbell exercises, and support belts, where the main focus should be on muscular coordination similar to the other considerable elements. Electromyography is an appropriate tool for the investigation of muscular coordination and force platforms for assessing a sufficient strength level to successfully perform elements on still rings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this study was to compare the propulsion phase characteristics of the jump squat (JS), hexagonal barbell jump (HEXJ), and jump shrug (JShrug) performed across a spectrum of relative loads. Thirteen resistance-trained women (18–23 years old) performed JS, HEXJ, and JShrug repetitions at body mass (BM) or with 20, 40, 60, 80, or 100% BM during three separate testing sessions. Propulsion mean force (MF), duration (Dur), peak power output (PP), force at PP (FPP), and velocity at PP (VPP) were compared between exercises and loads using a series of 3 × 6 repeated measures ANOVA and Hedge's g effect sizes. There were no significant differences in MF or Dur between exercises. While load-averaged HEXJ and JShrug PP were significantly greater than the JS, there were no significant differences between exercises at any individual load. The JShrug produced significantly greater FPP than the JS and HEXJ at loads ranging from BM–60% BM, but not at 80 or 100% BM. Load-averaged VPP produced during the JS and HEXJ was significantly greater than the JShrug; however, there were no significant differences between exercises at any individual load. Practically meaningful differences between exercises indicated that the JShrug produced greater magnitudes of force during shorter durations compared to the JS and HEXJ at light loads (BM–40%). The JS and HEXJ may be classified as more velocity-dominant exercises while the JShrug may be more force-dominant. Thus, it is important to consider the context in which each exercise is prescribed for resistance-trained women to provide an effective training stimulus. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this investigation was to compare concentric movement velocity (CMV) measured with the PUSH Band (v2.0) and a Vicon motion capture system (MC) during the back squat (SQ) and the bench press (BP) resistance exercises (RE). Twelve resistance-trained males (26.0 ± 5.5 years; 175.6 ± 4.9 cm; 96.3 ± 15.8 kg) completed ten repetitions at 50% of one-repetition maximum (1RM), and six repetitions at 75% 1RM for both BP and SQ. Four PUSH devices were utilized and attached to the subject's right forearm, the center barbell, left and right sides of the barbell. MC markers were placed on top of each PUSH device. An overall analysis using a series of least-squares means contrasts suggested CMV did not differ (p > 0.05) between measurement technologies when position, RE, intensity and repetitions were combined. PUSH exhibited the highest Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC = 0.835–0.961) and Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficients (r = 0.742–0.949) at the arm and center barbell locations when compared with MC. The measurement of CMV between MC and PUSH compares favorably during moderate (i.e., 50%) and high (75%) intensity SQ and BP RE. These data indicate individuals can use the PUSH band v2.0 to accurately monitor CMV within a RE set for SQ and BP RE. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this study was to improve our understanding of the relative contributions of biomechanical, anthropometric, and psychological factors in explaining maximal bench press (BP) strength in a heterogeneous, resistance-trained sample. Eighteen college-aged participants reported to the laboratory for three visits. The first visit consisted of psychometric testing. The second visit assessed participants' anthropometrics, additional psychometric outcomes, and bench press one repetition maximum (1RM). Participants performed isometric dynamometry testing for horizontal shoulder adduction and elbow extension at a predicted sticking point joint position. Multiple linear regression was used to examine the relationships between the biomechanical, anthropometric, and psychological variables and BP 1RM. Our primary multiple linear regression accounted for 43% of the variance in BP strength (F(3,14) = 5.34, p = 0.01; R2 = 0.53; adjusted R2 = 0.43). The sum of peak isometric net joint moments from the shoulder and elbow had the greatest standardized effect (0.59), followed by lean body mass (0.27) and self-efficacy (0.17). The variance in BP 1RM can be similarly captured (R2 = 0.48) by a single principal component containing anthropometric, biomechanics, and psychological variables. Pearson correlations with BP strength were generally greater among anthropometric and biomechanical variables as compared to psychological variables. These data suggest that BP strength among a heterogeneous, resistance-trained population is explained by multiple factors and is more strongly associated with physical than psychological variables. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Low back pain (LBP) is a leading cause of disability. The use of deadlift-based assessments in assessing LBP is becoming common in clinical settings, but these concepts have not been well studied. We sought to compare force and muscle excitation during isometric deadlifts in participants suffering from LBP versus asymptomatic controls. We also compared these outcomes for conventional versus hexagonal barbells. Sixteen adults with mild-to-moderate, acute, non-specific LBP and 19 controls performed maximal, isometric deadlifts while standing on a force plate using conventional and hexagonal barbells. Surface electromyographic signals were recorded from the upper trapezius, external oblique, erector spinae, vastus lateralis, and biceps femoris. Normalized peak force and peak rate of force development were similar for those with acute, non-specific LBP and controls. Surface electromyographic excitation was not different between groups, but was higher with the hexagonal barbell for the vastus lateralis and upper trapezius. Both groups felt equally safe and confident. In summary, the presence of acute, non-specific LBP did not impair peak and rapid force or muscle excitation. Hexagonal barbells may optimize knee extensor and trapezius activation. Deadlift-based force assessments appear safe and may be useful in the assessment of functional strength in patients with acute, non-specific LBP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study compared typical mechanical variables of interest obtained directly from barbell motion during deadlift performance with a conventional (CBD) and a hexagonal barbell (HBD). Eleven men, proficient with both deadlift variations, volunteered to participate in the study (age: 20.3 ± 0.6 years; height: 175.5 ± 8.5 m; mass: 88.7 ± 19.0 kg; CBD 1RM: 183 ± 22 kg; HBD 1RM: 194 ± 20 kg). During the first session, CBD and HBD 1RM was assessed; during the second session, they performed 3 sets of 1 CBD repetition with 90% 1RM; and in session three, they repeated this process with the HBD. Barbell displacement was recorded at 1000 Hz and mechanical parameters derived from this. Significantly heavier loads were lifted during HBD (6%, p = 0.003). There were no significant differences between barbell displacement (p = 0.216). However, HBD was performed significantly faster (15%, p = 0.012), HBD load was accelerated for significantly longer (36%, p = 0.004), and significantly larger mean forces underpinned this (6%, p < 0.001), with more work having been performed (7%, p < 0.001) at greater power outputs (28%, p < 0.001). The results of this study showed that heavier HBD loads can be lifted through the same range of motion faster, and that this load is accelerated for significantly longer. The strategies used to achieve these differences could have a significant effect on training outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of the current study was two-fold: (1) To examine the variation in velocity and power with increasing intensity in the back squat among subjects; and (2) To explore individual subject characteristics as possible explanations for variations of velocity in the back squat. Fourteen recreationally trained male subjects with experience in the back squat agreed to participate in the study (age = 25.0 ± 2.6 years, height = 178.9 ± 8.1 cm, body mass = 88.2 ± 15.8 kg). One-repetition maximums (1RM) were performed for each subject on force platforms with four linear position transducers attached to the barbell. The 1RM assessment was immediately preceded by warm-up sets at 65%, 75%, 85%, and 95% of estimated 1RM for 5, 3, 2, and 1 repetitions, respectively. Mean concentric velocity (MCV) and mean power were recorded for each intensity condition and were analyzed using Pearson correlation to determine the relationship between each variable and relative intensity (%1RM). Statistically significant negative relationships existed between %1RM and MCV (r = -0.892) and mean power (r = -0.604). Between-subject coefficient of variation tended to increase as %1RM increased for both MCV and mean power. These results suggest that MCV is superior to mean power as an indicator of relative intensity in the back squat. Additionally, the between-subject variation observed at higher intensities for MCV and mean power support the use of velocity ranges by strength and conditioning coaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Velocity-based training (VBT) is a resistance training method by which training variables are manipulated based on kinematic outcomes, e.g., barbell velocity. The better precision for monitoring and manipulating training variables ascribed to VBT assumes that velocity is measured and communicated correctly. This study assessed the validity of several mobile and one stationary VBT device for measuring mean and peak concentric barbell velocity over a range of velocities and exercises, including low- and high-velocity, ballistic and non-ballistic, and plyometric and non-plyometric movements, and to quantify the isolated effect of device attachment point on measurement validity. GymAware (r = 0.90–1, standard error of the estimate, SEE = 0.01–0.08 m/s) and Quantum (r = 0.88–1, SEE = 0.01–0.18 m/s) were most valid for mean and peak velocity, with Vmaxpro (r = 0.92–0.99, SEE = 0.02–0.13 m/s) close behind. Push (r = 0.69–0.96, SEE = 0.03–0.17 m/s) and Flex (r = 0.60–0.94, SEE = 0.02–0.19 m/s) showed poorer validity (especially for higher-velocity exercises), although typical errors for mean velocity in exercises other than hang power snatch were acceptable. Effects of device placement were detectable, yet likely small enough (SEE < 0.1 m/s) to be negligible in training settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study examined the effects of accentuated eccentric loading (AEL) on bench press velocities across a spectrum of concentric and eccentric loads. Ten strength trained men (bench press one-repetition maximum (1-RM): 124.3 ± 19.4 kg; relative strength ratio: 1.5 ± 0.2 kg∙body mass−1) participated. Subjects completed bench press repetitions using concentric loads from 30% to 80% 1-RM in 10% increments in each experimental session. The AEL protocols were implemented using 100% (AEL100) and 110% 1-RM (AEL110) loads during the eccentric action, while the eccentric load remained the same as the concentric for traditional loading (TRAD). Multilevel models analyzed the effects of each AEL protocol on concentric velocities across concentric loads (p < 0.05). Faster concentric velocities were observed at 30% 1-RM and 80% 1-RM with AEL100 compared to TRAD (p ≤ 0.05) but this effect was reduced for individuals moving the barbell through a greater displacement. Additionally, AEL110 presented a greater change in velocity from 30% to 80% 1-RM than TRAD (p ≤ 0.05). The AEL100 protocol resulted in faster concentric velocities throughout concentric loads of 30–80% 1-RM, but AEL110 may have been too great to elicit consistent performance enhancements. Thus, the efficacy of AEL at various concentric loads is dependent on the eccentric loading and barbell displacement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Barefoot weightlifting has become a popular training modality in recent years due to anecdotal suggestions of improved performance. However, research to support these anecdotal claims is limited. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to assess the differences between the conventional deadlift (CD) and the sumo deadlift (SD) in barefoot and shod conditions. On day one, one-repetition maximums (1 RM) were assessed for thirty subjects in both the CD and SD styles. At least 72 h later, subjects returned to perform five repetitions in four different conditions (barefoot and shod for both CD and SD) at 70% 1 RM. A 2 × 2 (footwear × lifting style) MANOVA was used to assess differences between peak vertical ground reaction force (VGRF), total mechanical work (WORK), barbell vertical displacement (DISP), peak vertical velocity (PV) and lift time (TIME) during the concentric phase. The CD displayed significant increases in VGRF, DISP, WORK, and TIME over the SD. The shod condition displayed increased WORK, DISP, and TIME compared to the barefoot condition. This study suggests that lifting barefoot does not improve performance as no differences in VGRF or PV were evident. The presence of a shoe does appear to increase the DISP and WORK required to complete the lift, suggesting an increased work load is present while wearing shoes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study investigated whether the barbell hip thrust (BHT) enhanced change-of-direction (COD) speed measured by the 505 COD speed test. Forty recreationally trained individuals completed three sessions. Session 1 included one-repetition maximum (1RM) BHT testing to measure absolute and relative strength. Sessions 2 and 3 involved two counter-balanced conditioning activities (CAs): 3 sets × 5 repetitions of the BHT at 85% 1RM and a control condition (CC; 6 min rest). The 505 COD speed test was performed 5 and 2.5 min pre-CA, and 4, 8, 12, and 16 min post-CA in each session. A 2 × 5 repeated-measures ANOVA (p < 0.05) calculated performance changes across time post-CA. A 2 × 2 repeated-measures ANOVA analyzed best potentiated performance. Partial correlations controlling for sex calculated relationships between the 1RM BHT and 505 COD speed test percent potentiation. There was a significant main effect for time (p < 0.001), but not for condition (p = 0.271) or condition × time (p = 0.295). There were no significant correlations between 1RM BHT and potentiation. The 85% 1RM BHT did potentiate the 505 4–16 min post-CA but no more than the CC. Nonetheless, a heavy BHT could be programmed prior to COD drills as COD speed could be potentiated and performance improved in men and women. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Analysis of elite performances is important to elucidate the characteristics of effective weightlifting technique contributing to the highest level of achievement. The general technique of the weightlifting movements is well established. However, it is also apparent that weightlifting technique can differ based on athlete characteristics. Thus, existing technical models may not accurately reflect current technique of top performers or be applied generically to athletes of different skill, size, sex, or ability. Therefore, the purpose of this descriptive study was to update the scientific knowledge of snatch technique of top international weightlifters. This study used video analysis to determine barbell trajectory and kinematics of 319 successful snatch attempts from two major international competitions. Relative frequencies of barbell trajectory types differed based on competition, sex, category, and ranking. No statistical differences were observed among the top-three performers for either sex for most kinematic variables, and there were no overall discernible patterns of effect size differences for individual or clusters of kinematic variables. The results of this study indicate that weightlifting success can be achieved with a variety of technique profiles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study investigated the inter-day and intra-device reliability, and criterion validity of six devices for measuring barbell velocity in the free-weight back squat and power clean. In total, 10 competitive weightlifters completed an initial one repetition maximum (1RM) assessment followed by three load-velocity profiles (40–100% 1RM) in both exercises on four separate occasions. Mean and peak velocity was measured simultaneously on each device and compared to 3D motion capture for all repetitions. Reliability was assessed via coefficient of variation (CV) and typical error (TE). Least products regression (LPR) (R2) and limits of agreement (LOA) assessed the validity of the devices. The Gymaware was the most reliable for both exercises (CV < 10%; TE < 0.11 m·s−1, except 100% 1RM (mean velocity) and 90‒100% 1RM (peak velocity)), with MyLift and PUSH following a similar trend. Poorer reliability was observed for Beast Sensor and Bar Sensei (CV = 5.1–119.9%; TE = 0.08–0.48 m·s−1). The Gymaware was the most valid device, with small systematic bias and no proportional or fixed bias evident across both exercises (R2 > 0.42–0.99 LOA = −0.03–0.03 m·s−1). Comparable validity data was observed for MyLift in the back squat. Both PUSH devices produced some fixed and proportional bias, with Beast Sensor and Bar Sensei being the least valid devices across both exercises (R2 > 0.00–0.96, LOA = −0.36–0.46 m·s−1). Linear position transducers and smartphone applications could be used to obtain velocity-based data, with inertial measurement units demonstrating poorer reliability and validity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this study was to evaluate the level of agreement in measuring back squat kinematics between an inertial measurement unit (IMU) and a 3D motion capture system (3DMOCAP). Kinematic variables included concentric peak velocity (CPV), concentric mean velocity (CMV), eccentric peak velocity (EPV), eccentric mean velocity (EMV), mean propulsive velocity (MPV), and POP-100: a proprietary variable. Sixteen resistance-trained males performed an incrementally loaded one repetition maximum (1RM) squat protocol. A series of Pearson correlations, 2 × 4 RM ANOVA, Cohen's d effect size differences, coefficient of variation (CV), and standard error of the estimate (SEE) were calculated. A large relationship existed for all variables between devices (r = 0.78–0.95). Between-device agreement for CPV worsened beyond 60% 1RM. The remaining variables were in agreement between devices with trivial effect size differences and similar CV magnitudes. These results support the use of the IMU, regardless of relative intensity, when measuring EMV, EPV, MPV, and POP-100. However, practitioners should carefully select kinematic variables of interest when using the present IMU device for velocity-based training (VBT), as certain measurements (e.g., CMV, CPV) do not possess practically acceptable reliability or accuracy. Finally, the IMU device exhibited considerable practical data collection concerns, as one participant was completely excluded and 13% of the remaining attempts displayed obvious internal error. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The load-depended loss of vertical barbell velocity at the end of the acceleration phase limits the maximum weight that can be lifted. Thus, the purpose of this study was to analyze how increased barbell loads affect the vertical barbell velocity in the sub-phases of the acceleration phase during the snatch. It was hypothesized that the load-dependent velocity loss at the end of the acceleration phase is primarily associated with a velocity loss during the 1st pull. For this purpose, 14 male elite weightlifters lifted seven load-stages from 70–100% of their personal best in the snatch. The load–velocity relationship was calculated using linear regression analysis to determine the velocity loss at 1st pull, transition, and 2nd pull. A group mean data contrast analysis revealed the highest load-dependent velocity loss for the 1st pull (t = 1.85, p = 0.044, g = 0.49 [−0.05, 1.04]) which confirmed our study hypothesis. In contrast to the group mean data, the individual athlete showed a unique response to increased loads during the acceleration sub-phases of the snatch. With the proposed method, individualized training recommendations on exercise selection and loading schemes can be derived to specifically improve the sub-phases of the snatch acceleration phase. Furthermore, the results highlight the importance of single-subject assessment when working with elite athletes in Olympic weightlifting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Assess2Perform Bar Sensei is a device used to measure barbell velocity for velocity-based training that has not yet been validated. The purpose of this study was to determine criterion validity and reliability of the Assess2Perform Bar Sensei in barbell back squats by comparing it against the GymAware PowerTool, a previously validated instrument. Sixteen injury-free, resistance-trained subjects (eleven males and five females) were recruited. Subjects were tested for their back squat one repetition maximum (1RM). Then, on two separate days, subjects performed two sets of three repetitions at loads of 45%, 60% and 75% 1RM. The GymAware PowerTool and Bar Sensei were attached to the barbell in similar locations for concurrent collection of mean concentric velocity (MCV) and peak concentric velocity (PCV). The Bar Sensei and PowerTool showed generally fair to poor agreement for MCV and PCV when subjects lifted 45% of 1RM (intraclass correlation;ICC 0.4–0.59), and they showed poor agreement when subjects lifted 60% and 75% of 1RM (ICC 0.3–0.4). Inter-repetition/within-set reliability for the Bar Sensei ranged between ICC = 0.273–0.451 for MCV and PCV compared to the far more reliable PowerTool (ICC = 0.651–0.793). Currently, the Bar Sensei is not a reliable or valid tool for measuring barbell velocity in back squats. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The success factor of the snatch has not been identified. Determining the success factors of the snatch among elite weightlifters might help to attain a successful snatch. This study aimed at clarifying the factors that lead to a successful snatch based on barbell trajectory among elite male weightlifters. Data were collected at the 2017 World and Junior World Weightlifting Championships. We digitized the barbell trajectory of the successful and unsuccessful snatch attempts of 61 lifters—an unsuccessful lift would be as a result of a frontward barbell drop—and calculated the kinematic and kinetic parameters of the barbell. No significant difference was found in the barbell maximum height (Dy1) between the successful and unsuccessful lifts. The amount of backward displacement of the barbell in the second pull phase to the catch position (DxL) of the successful lift was significantly larger than that of the unsuccessful lift (successful: 0.11 ± 0.05 m; unsuccessful: 0.10 ± 0.06 m; p < 0.01; d = 0.278). The barbell drop distance in the catch phase (Dy3) of the successful lift was significantly smaller than that in the unsuccessful lift (successful: 0.17 ± 0.04 m; unsuccessful: 0.18 ± 0.04 m; p < 0.001, d = 0.361). These results suggest that DxL and Dy3 are factors leading to a successful snatch lift, but not Dy1. The relative position in the sagittal axis of the barbell and the lifter in the catch position, and catching the barbell when its momentum was low, are important in order to achieve a successful snatch. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To determine the agreement between the Open Barbell (OB) and Tendo weightlifting analyzer (TWA) for measuring barbell velocity, eleven men (19.4 ± 1.0 y) performed one set of 2–3 repetitions at four sub-maximal percentage loads, [i.e., 30, 50, 70, and 90% one-repetition maximum (1RM)] in the back (BS) and front squat (FS) exercises. During each repetition, peak and mean barbell velocity were recorded by OB and TWA devices, and the average of the 2–3 repetitions was used for analyses. Although the repeated measures analysis of variance revealed significantly (p ≤ 0.005) greater peak and mean velocity scores from OB across all intensities, high intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC2,K = 0.790–0.998), low standard error of measurement (SEM2,K = 0.040–0.119 m·s−1), and coefficients of variation (CV = 2–4%) suggested consistency between devices. Positive (r = 0.491–0.949) Pearson correlations between averages and differences (between devices) in peak velocity, as well as associated Bland-Altman plots, showed greater differences occurred as the velocity increased, particularly at low-moderate intensity loads. OB consistently provides greater barbell velocity scores compared to TWA, and the differences between devices were more apparent as the peak velocity increased with low-to-moderate loads. Strength coaches and athletes may find better agreement between devices if the mean velocity scores are only considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hip thrust (HT) is a loaded bridging exercise that requires more hip extension than a back squat (SQ) does, while in a back squat, triple flex extension occurs. Due to the specificity of each exercise, it is claimed that HT gains can be better transferred to actions where hip extension occurs. In addition, strength improvements during squatting can be transferred in a greater way to vertical plane movement, such as vertical jumping. However, its effects on the performance of female soccer players are unclear. For this reason, the purpose of this study was to analyze a 7-week training program on performance variables using either HT or SQ exercises in female adolescent soccer players without lifting experience (N = 24, age = 16.82 ± 1.56 years, height = 1.64 ± 0.55 cm, body mass = 58.35 ± 6.28 kg). Players were randomized into three groups: A back squat group (SQG; N = 8), hip thrust group (HTG; N = 8), and control group (CG; N = 8). Participants in the HTG and SQG joined a progressive resistance training program twice per week for 7 weeks with either HT or SQ exercises. A countermovement jump, 10–20 m sprint, T-test, and barbell velocity during HTs and SQs (with the load that represents ~60 and ~80% RM) were measured before and after the intervention. The HTG showed greater improvements in the 10-m sprint (d = 0.7), 20-m sprint (d = 0.46), T-test (d = 0.36), and barbell velocity at 80% repetition maximal (RM) (d = 0.53) and 60% RM (d = 1.02) during hip thrusts, while the SQG showed higher barbell velocity at 80% RM (d = −0.7) during back squats. These results may be useful for strength and conditioning coaches working with adolescent female soccer athletes, since both strengthening exercises improved performance in different ways due to the nature of the exercise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Given the relationship between explosive-type training and power adaptation, tracking movement velocity has become popular. However, unlike previous variables, tracking velocity necessitates the use of a valid and reliable tool to monitor adaptation over time. Therefore, the primary purpose of this research was to assess the validity and reliability of a commercially-available linear position transducer (LPT). Nine resistance-trained men completed four sessions consisting of a single set of barbell back squat to volitional failure at 75% or 90% one-repetition maximum. Kinetic and kinematic data were captured for each repetition by the LPT and a 3-dimensional motion capture system and bipedal force platforms. In total, 357 instances of data from both systems were analyzed using intraclass correlations (ICC), effect size estimates, and standard error of measurement. Overall, the LPT yielded excellent ICCs (all ≥0.94) and small/trivial differences (d < 0.60). When categorized by median values, ICCs remained high (all ≥0.89) and differences remained small or trivial with the exception of high peak velocities (d = −1.46). Together, these data indicate that the commercially-available LPT is a valid and reliable measure for kinetic and kinematic variables of interest with the exception of high peak velocities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]