Does Varying Repetition Tempo in a Single-Joint Lower Body Exercise Augment Muscle Size and Strength in Resistance-Trained Men?

ABSTRACT: Pearson, J, Wadhi, T, Barakat, C, Aube, D, Schoenfeld, BJ, Andersen, JC, Barroso, R, Ugrinowitsch, C, and De Souza, EO. Does varying repetition tempo in a single-joint lower body exercise augment muscle size and strength in resistance-trained men? J Strength Cond Res 36(8): 2162-2168, 2022-This study compared the effects of FAST and SLOW eccentric repetition tempo in a single exercise volume-matched intervention on muscle thickness (MT) and strength in resistance-trained men. Using a within-subject design, 13 subjects had each leg randomly assigned to SLOW (1-0-3) or FAST (1-0-1) repetition tempo. Subjects underwent an 8-week strength-training (ST) intervention performed twice weekly. Unilateral leg-extension one repetition-maximum (1RM) and anterior thigh MT at the proximal (MTP) and distal (MTD) portions were assessed via ultrasound imaging at baseline and after 8 weeks of RT. Rating of perceived exertion (RPE) assessments of the training sessions (i.e., 16 per leg) were averaged for further analysis. Both legs similarly increased MTP (estimated differences: FAST: 0.24 cm, 3.6%; SLOW: 0.20 cm, 3.1%). However, for MTD, analysis of covariance analysis showed a leg effect ( p = 0.02) in which absolute pre-to-post change was greater in FAST compared with SLOW (estimated differences: FAST 0.23 cm, 5.5%; SLOW: 0.13 cm, 2.2%). For 1RM, both legs similarly increased maximum strength (estimated differences: FAST: 9.1 kg, 17.0%; SLOW: 10.4 kg, 22.1%, p ≤ 0.0001). The SLOW group had a higher RPE than FAST (8.59 vs. 7.98, p = 0.002). Despite differences in RPE, our results indicate that both repetition tempos produced similar muscular adaptations. However, they also suggest that the FAST tempo may provide a small hypertrophic advantage at the distal quadriceps. From a practical standpoint, strength and conditioning professionals may implement a FAST tempo at least in one single-joint exercise during an 8-week training period to enhance regional hypertrophic adaptations in trained individuals.

Effects of various warm-up devices and rest period lengths on batting velocity and acceleration of intercollegiate baseball players.

It is common among competitive baseball players to swing bats while in the batter's box in an attempt to improve their batting performance. Players use bats of different weights during this time, and only a few studies have evaluated the optimal bat weight to increase performance. Previous studies have not investigated the optimal rest period after a warm-up with bats of varying weights. Therefore, we tested the peak bat velocity of 16 National Collegiate Athletic Association Division II intercollegiate baseball players at 1, 2, 4, and 8 minutes, after warming up with bats of 5 different weights. Measured variables were peak bat velocity at peak acceleration (PVPA), peak bat velocity of the swing (PV), peak bat acceleration (PA), and time to reach peak acceleration (TPA) using a chronograph, which measured the batting velocity in real time every 10 milliseconds throughout the swing. A repeated measure analysis of variance was run to assess group, time, and group by time interactions. If any main effects were found, a Tukey post hoc was employed to locate differences. There were significant (p ≤ 0.05) time effects for PVPA, PV, and PA but not for TPA. The PVPA, PV, and PA all increased over time, peaking from 4 to 8 minutes. There were no significant differences in any of the variables among the 5 bat weights used in the warm-up (p > 0.05). However, there were significant differences in PVPA, PV, and PA after 2, 4, and 8 minutes of rest compared with the preexperimental warm-up and 1-minute post-warm-up. From a practical standpoint, batters should warm up early and quickly in the batter's box to maximize the amount of recovery time before they swing at the plate. In addition, batters may want to take their time getting ready at the plate or take some pitches while at-bat in an attempt to maximize performance. Alternatively, the data imply that pitchers should throw their fastest pitch near the beginning of the at-bat to correspond with the potentially slower bat speeds of the batter.

Validity and Reliability of the GymAware Linear Position Transducer for Squat Jump and Counter-Movement Jump Height.

The purpose of this study was to assess the concurrent validity and test-retest reliability of a linear position transducer (LPT) for the squat jump (SJ) and counter-movement jump (CMJ) height. Twenty-eight subjects (25.18 ± 7.1 years) performed three SJs followed by three CMJs using a force plate concurrently with the LPT to test validity. Subjects returned on a separate day, at least 48 h apart, to measure test-retest reliability. A t-test showed a significant difference between the two devices for both SJ (p < 0.001) and CMJ (p < 0.001) while Bland⁻Altman analysis for validity revealed that the LPT overestimated jump height for both SJ (mean difference (MD) = 8.01 ± 2.93 cm) and CMJ (MD = 8.68 ± 2.99 cm). With regards to reliability of the LPT, mean intraclass correlation (ICC) for both SJ (ICC = 0.84) and CMJ (ICC = 0.95) were high, and Bland⁻Altman analysis showed mean differences lower than minimal detectable change (MDC) between the days for both SJ (MD = 1.89 ± 4.16 cm vs. MDC = 2.72 cm) and CMJ (MD = 0.47 ± 3.23 cm vs. MDC = 2.11 cm). Additionally, there was a low coefficient of variation (CV) between days for both SJ (CV = 3.25%) and CMJ (CV = 0.74%). Therefore, while the LPT overestimates jump height, it is a reliable tool for tracking changes in jump height to measure performance improvement and monitor fatigue.

Similar Strength and Power Adaptations between Two Different Velocity-Based Training Regimens in Collegiate Female Volleyball Players.

This study investigated the effects of two different velocity-based training (VBT) regimens on muscular adaptations. Fifteen female college volleyball players were randomly assigned into either progressive velocity-based training (PVBT) or optimum training load (OTL). Both groups trained three times a week for seven weeks. PVBT performed a 4-week strength block (e.g., 0.55⁻0.70 m·s-1) followed by a 3-week power block (e.g., 0.85⁻1.0 m·s-1), whereas OTL performed training at ~0.85⁻0.9 m·s-1. 1RM and peak power output (PP) assessments on the back squat (BS), bench press (BP) and deadlift (DL) exercises were assessed pre and post training. There was a main time effect (p ≤ 0.05) for BS and BP 1RM, (PVBT: 19.6%, ES: 1.72; OTL: 18.3%, ES: 1.57) and (PVBT: 8.5%, ES: 0.58; OTL: 10.2%, ES: 0.72), respectively. OTL increased DL 1RM to a greater extent than PVBT (p ≤ 0.05), (OTL: 22.9%, ES: 1.49; PVBT: 10.9%, ES: 0.88). Lastly, there was a main time effect (p ≤ 0.05) for BS, BP and DL PP, (PVBT: 18.3%, ES: 0.86; OTL: 19.8%, ES: 0.79); (PVBT: 14.5%, ES: 0.81; OTL: 27.9%, ES: 1.68); (PVBT: 15.7%, ES: 1.32; OTL: 20.1%, ES: 1.77) respectively. Our data suggest that both VBT regimens are effective for improving muscular performance in college volleyball players during the offseason period.