Search

No study has assessed supramaximal (over 100% 1RM) back squat variations as a potentiating stimulus in collegiate throwers. The purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis that a supramaximal Anderson (bottom-up) quarter squat potentiating stimulus would improve discus throw performance in Division I throwers compared to a dynamic warm-up alone. Nine NCAA division I thrower athletes (age: 20.1±1.4 years; 1RM back squat/body weight: 2.5±0.4 kg) randomly completed two sessions separated by at least 72 hours. One session involved a standardized dynamic warm-up alone (DyWU) followed by three trials of maximal discus throwing. The other session involved a dynamic warm-up with a supramaximal (105% 1RM) Anderson (bottom-up) quarter-squat set of 5 repetitions post activation performance enhancement stimulus (DyWU+PAPE) followed by three trials of maximal discus throwing. A two-way (warm-up strategy x time) ANOVA with repeated measures for each time point was used, with significance set at p< 0.05. There were no significant (p> 0.05) differences between DyWU alone versus DyWU+PAPE stimulus for discus throw distances at either 8 min. (31.7±5.6 vs 30.6±6.5 meters, respectively; d = -0.18), 11 min. (33.4±3.6 vs 31.3±4.7 meters, respectively; d = -0.52), or 14 min. post warm-up (34.1±3.9 vs 32.3±5.3 meters, respectively; d = -0.40). Compared to a dynamic warm-up alone, supramaximal Anderson quarter-squats following a dynamic warm-up had trivial/small to moderate detrimental effects on discus throw performance between 8-14 minutes post stimuli in Division I trained throwers, likely due to excess fatigue/PAPE inhibition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study examined the impact extreme volume-load differences for a single weekly exercise, when all other exercises' volume loads were similar, would have on American football performance variables after inseason resistance training (RT). Twenty male National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) American footballers (18-23 years, 98.4 6 19.3 kg) were randomly assigned to an extreme high-volume low-intensity (EHVLI; n 5 11) group or a low-volume highintensity (LVHI; n 5 9) group. Subjects performed the same evidence-based RT exercises and volume loads for 8 weeks thrice weekly, with the only differences being once weekly unilateral reverse dumbbell lunge (EHVLI) or unilateral Hatfield safety bar back squat (LVHI) exercises performed with different volume loads. Performance variables were assessed 1 week before (PRE) and after (POST) 8 weeks of RT. A 2-way analysis of variance with repeated measures and the Sidak post hoc test were used (p, 0.05). Extreme high-volume low-intensity had no significant (p. 0.05) PRE-to-POST RT changes in muscular strength in 1 repetition maximum (251.8 6 48.7 to 274.6 6 61.3 kg) or power in vertical jump (79.2 6 8.8 to 78.2 6 10.8 cm). Conversely, LVHI had significant (p=0.05) PRE-to-POST RT improvements in strength (249.2654.4 to 284.1655.0 kg) and power (72.8611.4 to 76.3 6 10.0 cm). Furthermore, LVHI vs. EHVLI displayed significantly greater percentage difference increases from PRE values in muscular power (6.7% 6 7.2 vs. 21.3% 6 6.0, respectively), with no significant differences between groups (LVHI vs. EHVLI) in muscular strength (8.8% 6 3.1 vs. 6.7% 6 8.0, respectively) and 10-yard acceleration (2.2% 6 5.6 vs. 3.2% 6 5.6, respectively). For in-season RT of strength and power in collegiate American football players, all exercises performed should use evidence-based volume loads to optimize adaptations because a single exercise performed with extreme volume load may limit muscular strength and power development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study examined using a traditional Olympic (OL) or safety squat bar (SSB) barbell on force, velocity, and perceived exertion during an acute session of high-intensity back squats in adults. Twelve recreationally trained men (23.0±2.6 years; 88.3±19.1 kg) randomly completed two sessions of 3 sets of 6 repetitions at the same absolute load using the OL barbell or SSB barbell. Force and velocity were measured on every repetition and rating of perceived exertion (RPE) was assessed for each set. A two-way ANOVA (set x barbell) with repeated measures and Sidak post-hoc test (repetitions set-by-set) or paired t-test (repetitions independent of set) were used (p<0.05). Compared to a traditional OL barbell, using a SSB barbell resulted in no significant differences in peak force (2443.0±46.6 vs 2622.9±65.8 N, respectively; d =0.28) or average set RPE (7.8±0.8 vs 8.0±1.2, respectively; d =0.15) during an acute multi-set high-intensity back squat session. In contrast, compared to a traditional OL barbell, using a SSB barbell resulted in significantly (p<0.05) lower average velocity (0.42±0.04 vs 0.38±0.05 m/s, respectively; d =0.27) during the same parameters. When performing the back squat exercise recreationally resistance-trained adults exhibit similar peak force and perceived effort with OL or SSB barbells, but greater velocities can be achieved with the OL barbell. Practitioners working with adults to develop lower body strength and power with the back squat exercise across multiple sets can interchangeably use the OL or SSB barbells to similarly train force, but training velocity is trivially better with the OL barbell acutely.