Braking and Propulsion Phase Characteristics of Traditional and Accentuated Eccentric Loaded Back Squats.

The purpose of this study was to examine the differences in braking and propulsion force-time characteristics and barbell velocity between traditional (TRAD) and accentuated eccentric loaded (AEL) back squats using various load combinations. Sixteen resistance-trained men participated in four separate testing sessions which included a one repetition maximum (1RM) back squat during the first session and three squat testing sessions. During the squat testing sessions, participants either performed sets of three repetitions of TRAD back squats each with 50, 60, 70, and 80% 1RM or performed the same loads with the addition of weight releasers that increased the total eccentric weight of the first repetition of each set to either 100 (AEL-MAX) or 110% 1RM (AEL-SUPRA). Braking and propulsion mean force, duration, and impulse as well as mean and peak barbell velocity were compared between each condition and load. Significantly greater braking impulses were produced during the AEL-MAX and AEL-SUPRA conditions compared to TRAD (p < 0.03) with small-moderate effect sizes favoring AEL-SUPRA. No other significant differences existed among conditions for other braking, propulsion, or barbell velocity variables. AEL-MAX and AEL-SUPRA back squats may provide a greater braking stimulus compared to TRAD squats; however, the propulsion phase of the movement does not appear to be impacted. From a loading standpoint, larger and smaller load spreads may favor rapid and maximal force production characteristics, respectively. Further research on this topic is needed as a large portion of the braking stimulus experienced during AEL back squats may be influenced by relative strength.

The effect of rest redistribution on kinetic and kinematic variables during the hang pull.

The aim of this study was to compare the effects of rest redistribution (RR) on kinetics and kinematics during the hang pull (HP). Twenty-one male athletes (age 29.5 ± 4.3 years, height 1.78 ± 0.07 m, body mass 75.17 ± 11.11 kg, relative one repetition maximum [1RM] power clean [PC] 1.17 ± 0.14 kg.kg-1) performed the HP using 140% of 1RM PC with 3 traditional sets of 6 repetitions (TS), 9 sets of 2 repetitions with RR [45s rest after 2 repetitions] (RR45) and 6 sets of 3 repetitions with RR [72s rest after 3 repetitions] (RR72). Peak velocity (PV) was higher during RR72 (1.18 ± 0.11 m.s-1) compared to RR45 (1.14 ± 0.11 m.s-1) for the average of 18 repetitions (p = 0.025, g = 0.36). There was a main effect for set configuration with greater peak force (PF) (p < 0.001, g = 0.14) during RR72 compared to RR45, with greater PV and impulse (p < 0.001, g = 0.19-0.36) during RR72 compared to RR45. There was also greater peak velocity maintenance (PVM) (p = 0.042, g = 0.44) for RR72 compared to RR45. There were no significant or meaningful differences (p > 0.05, g = 0.00-0.59) between configurations for any other variables. Rest redistribution protocols did not result in significantly or meaningfully greater kinetics or kinematics during the HP when compared to a TS protocol; although performing RR72 resulted in higher PF, PV, and impulse, with improved PVM compared to RR45.

Maximum Strength and Power as Determinants of Match Skating Performance in Elite Youth Ice Hockey Players.

ABSTRACT: Keiner, M, Kierot, M, Stendahl, M, Brauner, T, and Suchomel, TJ. Maximum strength and power as determinants of match skating performance in elite youth ice hockey players. J Strength Cond Res 38(6): 1090-1094, 2024-Maximum strength has a strong influence on speed-strength performances such as sprints and jumps. Important for sports practice is whether these findings are also reflected in game performance. Therefore, the aim of this study was to explore the influence of maximum strength and power performance on linear on-ice skating performance in testing and during game play. A cross-sectional study was conducted, and 24 highly trained male youth ice hockey players participated. Jump performances (countermovement jump [CMJ], drop jumps), maximum strength (1 repetition maximum [1RM] squat and isometric trap bar pull [ITBP]), and on-ice linear sprints (15 m [LS15], 30 m [LS30], flying 15 m [FLY15]) were measured. Match performances (among others: peak skating speed) were collected of 4 regular league games using a local positioning system. Correlation coefficient and explained variance were calculated ( ρ ≤ 0.05). Correlations between maximum strength and jump with on-ice linear sprint performance showed 1-35% explained variance. Correlations between "off ice" test (CMJ, relative 1RM) and game data (peak skating speed) showed 22-30% explained variance, respectively, while ITBP and DJ missed significant level. Between linear sprint and game performance showed 15-59% explained variance. In this study, a clear influence of 1RM in squatting and CMJ performance on on-ice linear sprint as well as in-game peak skating speed was observed. These findings show that strength and jumping performance can be valuable tests within a comprehensive test battery and indicate the relevance of strength and jumping tasks within the regular exercise program to improve in-game skating performance.

The Effect of Rest Redistribution on Kinetic and Kinematic Variables During the Countermovement Shrug.

ABSTRACT: Meechan, D, McMahon, JJ, Suchomel, TJ, and Comfort, P. The effect of rest redistribution on kinetic and kinematic variables during the countermovement shrug. J Strength Cond Res 37(7): 1358-1366, 2023-This study compared the effects of rest redistribution (RR) on kinetic and kinematic variables during the countermovement shrug (CMS). Twenty-one male subjects (age 27.2 ± 3.3. years, height 1.78 ± 0.07 m, body mass 77.2 ± 10.6 kg, relative 1 repetition maximum (1RM) power clean [PC] 1.22 ± 0.16 kg·kg-1) performed the CMS using 140% of 1RM PC with 3 traditional sets of 6 repetitions (TS), 9 sets of 2 repetitions with RR [45 s rest after 2 repetitions] (RR45), and 6 sets of 3 repetitions with RR [72 s rest after 3 repetitions] (RR72). There were no significant or meaningful differences (p > 0.05, g = 0.00-0.15) between set configurations for any variables for the average of the 18 repetitions. There were no significant (p > 0.05) or meaningful (g = 0.00-0.14) differences for configuration and configuration × set for peak (PF) and mean force (MF), peak velocity (PV), impulse, phase duration, peak velocity decline, peak velocity maintenance, and rating of perceived exertion. There was significantly greater (p = 0.034) albeit small (g = 0.15) difference for mean velocity (MV) during TS compared with RR72. There were no significant or meaningful differences (p > 0.05, g = 0.00-0.09) between sets for PF, MF, PV, MV, impulse, and duration across TS, RR45, and RR72. Rest redistribution protocols did not result in greater kinetics or kinematics during the CMS compared with TS, when total rest time was equated. Thus, shorter more frequent rest periods during the CMS may not be required to maintain force-time characteristics.

Reliability, Validity, and Comparison of Barbell Velocity Measurement Devices during the Jump Shrug and Hang High Pull.

This study examined the reliability, potential bias, and practical differences between the GymAware Powertool (GA), Tendo Power Analyzer (TENDO), and Push Band 2.0 (PUSH) during the jump shrug (JS) and hang high pull (HHP) performed across a spectrum of loads. Fifteen resistance-trained men performed JS and HHP repetitions with 20, 40, 60, 80, and 100% of their 1RM hang power clean, and mean (MBV) and peak barbell velocity (PBV) were determined by each velocity measurement device. Least-products regression and Bland-Altman plots were used to examine instances of proportional, fixed, and systematic bias between the TENDO and PUSH compared to the GA. Hedge's g effect sizes were also calculated to determine any meaningful differences between devices. The GA and TENDO displayed excellent reliability and acceptable variability during the JS and HHP while the PUSH showed instances of poor-moderate reliability and unacceptable variability at various loads. While the TENDO and PUSH showed instances of various bias, the TENDO device demonstrated greater validity when compared to the GA. Trivial-small differences were shown between the GA and TENDO during the JS and HHP exercises while trivial-moderate differences existed between GA and PUSH during the JS. However, despite trivial-small effects between the GA and PUSH devices at 20 and 40% 1RM during the HHP, practically meaningful differences existed at 60, 80, and 100%, indicating that the PUSH velocity outputs were not accurate. The TENDO appears to be more reliable and valid than the PUSH when measuring MBV and PBV during the JS and HHP.

National Strength and Conditioning Association Position Statement on Weightlifting for Sports Performance.

ABSTRACT: Comfort, P, Haff, GG, Suchomel, TJ, Soriano, MA, Pierce, KC, Hornsby, WG, Haff, EE, Sommerfield, LM, Chavda, S, Morris, SJ, Fry, AC, and Stone, MH. National Strength and Conditioning Association position statement on weightlifting for sports performance. J Strength Cond Res 37(6): 1163-1190, 2023-The origins of weightlifting and feats of strength span back to ancient Egypt, China, and Greece, with the introduction of weightlifting into the Olympic Games in 1896. However, it was not until the 1950s that training based on weightlifting was adopted by strength coaches working with team sports and athletics, with weightlifting research in peer-reviewed journals becoming prominent since the 1970s. Over the past few decades, researchers have focused on the use of weightlifting-based training to enhance performance in nonweightlifters because of the biomechanical similarities (e.g., rapid forceful extension of the hips, knees, and ankles) associated with the second pull phase of the clean and snatch, the drive/thrust phase of the jerk and athletic tasks such as jumping and sprinting. The highest force, rate of force development, and power outputs have been reported during such movements, highlighting the potential for such tasks to enhance these key physical qualities in athletes. In addition, the ability to manipulate barbell load across the extensive range of weightlifting exercises and their derivatives permits the strength and conditioning coach the opportunity to emphasize the development of strength-speed and speed-strength, as required for the individual athlete. As such, the results of numerous longitudinal studies and subsequent meta-analyses demonstrate the inclusion of weightlifting exercises into strength and conditioning programs results in greater improvements in force-production characteristics and performance in athletic tasks than general resistance training or plyometric training alone. However, it is essential that such exercises are appropriately programmed adopting a sequential approach across training blocks (including exercise variation, loads, and volumes) to ensure the desired adaptations, whereas strength and conditioning coaches emphasize appropriate technique and skill development of athletes performing such exercises.

Propulsion Phase Characteristics of Loaded Jump Variations in Resistance-Trained Women.

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.

Mechanical power production assessment during weightlifting exercises. A systematic review.

The assessment of the mechanical power production is of great importance for researchers and practitioners. The purpose of this review was to compare the differences in ground reaction force (GRF), kinematic, and combined (bar velocity x GRF) methods to assess mechanical power production during weightlifting exercises. A search of electronic databases was conducted to identify all publications up to 31 May 2019. The peak power output (PPO) was selected as the key variable. The exercises included in this review were clean variations, which includes the hang power clean (HPC), power clean (PC) and clean. A total of 26 articles met the inclusion criteria with 53.9% using the GRF, 38.5% combined, and 30.8% the kinematic method. Articles were evaluated and descriptively analysed to enable comparison between methods. The three methods have inherent methodological differences in the data analysis and measurement systems, which suggests that these methods should not be used interchangeably to assess PPO in Watts during weightlifting exercises. In addition, this review provides evidence and rationale for the use of the GRF to assess power production applied to the system mass while the kinematic method may be more appropriate when looking to assess only the power applied to the barbell.

Comparing the Effects of Long-Term vs. Periodic Inclusion of Isometric Strength Training on Strength and Dynamic Performances.

ABSTRACT: Lum, D, Joseph, R, Ong, KY, Tang, JM, and Suchomel, TJ. Comparing the effects of long-term vs. periodic inclusion of isometric strength training on strength and dynamic performances. J Strength Cond Res 37(2): 305-314, 2023-This study compared the effects of including isometric strength training (IST) for consecutive 24 weeks (CIST) against a periodic inclusion (PIST) of this mode of training on strength and dynamic performances. Twenty-four floorball athletes (age: 23 ± 2.7 years, stature: 1.74 ± 2.08 m, and body mass: 72.7 ± 14.4 kg) were randomly assigned to the control (CON), CIST, or PIST group. Athletes completed 20-m sprint, countermovement jump (CMJ), and isometric midthigh pull (IMTP) during pre-test and were tested on weeks 6, 12, 18, and 24. All groups performed a similar strength training program twice per week. However, 2 sets of squats were replaced with isometric squat in CIST for all 24 weeks but only on weeks 1-6 and 13-18 for PIST. A significant main effect for time was observed for 5-, 10-, and 20-m sprint time, CMJ height, peak force, peak power, time to take-off, modified reactive strength index, IMTP peak force, relative peak force, and force at 200 milliseconds ( p = <0.001-0.037). Isometric strength training for 24 consecutive weeks resulted in greater improvement in 5-m sprint time than CON at week 24 ( p = 0.024, g = 1.17). Both CIST and PIST resulted in greater improvements in 10-m sprint time than CON at various time points ( p = 0.007-0.038 and 0.038, g = 1.07-1.44 and 1.18, respectively). Isometric strength training for 24 consecutive weeks and PIST resulted in greater improvements in 20-m sprint time than CON at week 6 ( p = 0.007 and 0.025, g = 1.65 and 1.40, respectively). The results showed that the inclusion of IST resulted in greater improvements in sprint performance than CON but no significant difference in all measured variables with PIST.

Comparison of Countermovement Jump and Squat Jump Performance Between 627 State and Non-State Representative Junior Australian Football Players.

ABSTRACT: Edwards, T, Weakley, J, Woods, CT, Breed, R, Benson, AC, Suchomel, TJ, and Banyard, HG. Comparison of countermovement jump and squat jump performance between 627 state and non-state representative junior Australian football players. J Strength Cond Res 37(3): 641-645, 2023-This cross-sectional study investigated differences in lower-body power of state and nonstate representative junior Australian football (AF) players through countermovement jump (CMJ) and squat jump (SJ) performance. A total of 627 players performed the CMJ and SJ at the end of the preseason phase over a 2-week period, with each player grouped according to their age (under 18 [U18] or under 16 [U16]), and highest competition level played (state representation and nonstate representation). One-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA), follow up ANOVA's, and Cohen's d effect sizes were used to identify significant main effects and between-group differences. Statistical significance was set at α < 0.05. Significant small-to-moderate effect size differences were observed between competition level, with state U18 and U16 players recording greater CMJ and SJ height, and peak power (PP), compared with their nonstate representative peers, respectively. Similarly, significant small-to-moderate effect size differences existed between age groups, with nonstate U18 players recording greater CMJ and SJ height and PP than nonstate U16 counterparts. However, state U18 and state U16 only differed in CMJ PP. No differences were found between competition level or age groups for the difference between CMJ and SJ jump height (CMJSJ diff ). Together, these findings suggest that state and nonstate representative junior AFs may have a similar ability to use the stretch-shortening cycle, despite state representative players jumping higher in the CMJ and SJ.

Muscle Architectural and Force-Velocity Curve Adaptations following 10 Weeks of Training with Weightlifting Catching and Pulling Derivatives.

The aims of this study were to examine the muscle architectural, rapid force production, and force-velocity curve adaptations following 10 weeks of resistance training with either submaximal weightlifting catching (CATCH) or pulling (PULL) derivatives or pulling derivatives with phase-specific loading (OL). 27 resistance-trained men were randomly assigned to the CATCH, PULL, or OL groups and completed pre- and post-intervention ultrasound, countermovement jump (CMJ), and isometric mid-thigh pull (IMTP). Vastus lateralis and biceps femoris muscle thickness, pennation angle, and fascicle length, CMJ force at peak power, velocity at peak power, and peak power, and IMTP peak force and force at 100-, 150-, 200-, and 250 ms were assessed. There were no significant or meaningful differences in muscle architecture measures for any group (p > 0.05). The PULL group displayed small-moderate (g = 0.25-0.81) improvements in all CMJ variables while the CATCH group displayed trivial effects (g = 0.00-0.21). In addition, the OL group displayed trivial and small effects for CMJ force (g = -0.12-0.04) and velocity variables (g = 0.32-0.46), respectively. The OL group displayed moderate (g = 0.48-0.73) improvements in all IMTP variables while to PULL group displayed small-moderate (g = 0.47-0.55) improvements. The CATCH group displayed trivial-small (g = -0.39-0.15) decreases in IMTP performance. The PULL and OL groups displayed visible shifts in their force-velocity curves; however, these changes were not significant (p > 0.05). Performing weightlifting pulling derivatives with either submaximal or phase-specific loading may enhance rapid and peak force production characteristics. Strength and conditioning practitioners should load pulling derivatives based on the goals of each specific phase, but also allow their athletes ample exposure to achieve each goal.

Comparing biomechanical time series data across countermovement shrug loads.

The effect of load on time-series data has yet to be investigated during weightlifting derivatives. This study compared the effect of load on the force-time and velocity-time curves during the countermovement shrug (CMS). Twenty-nine males performed the CMS at relative loads of 40%, 60%, 80%, 100%, 120%, and 140% one repetition maximum (1RM) power clean (PC). A force plate measured the vertical ground reaction force (VGRF), which was used to calculate the barbell-lifter system velocity. Time-series data were normalized to 100% of the movement duration and assessed via statistical parametric mapping (SPM). SPM analysis showed greater negative velocity at heavier loads early in the unweighting phase (12-38% of the movement), and greater positive velocity at lower loads during the last 16% of the movement. Relative loads of 40% 1RM PC maximised propulsion velocity, whilst 140% 1RM maximized force. At higher loads, the braking and propulsive phases commence at an earlier percentage of the time-normalized movement, and the total absolute durations increase with load. It may be more appropriate to prescribe the CMS during a maximal strength mesocycle given the ability to use supramaximal loads. Future research should assess training at different loads on the effects of performance.

Rate of Force Development Adaptations After Weightlifting-Style Training: The Influence of Power Clean Ability.

ABSTRACT: James, LP, Suchomel, TJ, Comfort, P, Haff, GG, and Connick, M. Rate of force development adaptations after weightlifting-style training: the influence of power clean ability. J Strength Cond Res 36(6): 1560-1567, 2022-This experiment examined changes to the rate of force development (RFD) expressed under loaded jump conditions between individuals with a higher (stronger) and lower (weaker) weightlifting performance (as assessed by the 1 repetition maximum [RM] power clean) after training with the weightlifting derivatives. Two groups of markedly different weightlifting ability undertook 10 weeks of training with the power clean variants, snatch pulls, and jump squats across heavy and light conditions. Testing was performed at baseline, after 5 weeks of training (mid-test) and after training (post-test). During testing, RFD was assessed under a series of loads (20-80% squat 1RM) through the jump squat. Furthermore, the force-velocity relationship, and unloaded jump strategy (through the force-time curve waveform), were also examined. Very large change (Hedge's g, 95% confidence interval [g] = 2.10, 1.24 to 4.16) in RFD at 20% 1RM at mid-test occurred within the stronger group. Conversely, a small increase (g = 0.27, 0.53-1.91) among the weaker subjects existed in this measure at mid-test, reaching a moderate increase at post-test (g = 0.71, -0.18 to 2.15). Limited improvements were seen by the stronger subjects in RFD at 60 and 80% 1RM at either mid-test (60%: g = 0.27, -0.75 to 1.33; 80% = 0.02, -1.01 to 1.00) or post-test (60%: g = 0.52, -0.38 to 1.80; 80% = -0.26, -1.23 to 0.77). The stronger group experienced a shift throughout the force-velocity relationship while a more force-dominant adaptation occurred in weaker subjects. Differences in jump strategy between groups were also noted. Such training will elicit practically different adaptations in rapid force production depending on the individual's baseline weightlifting ability.

Changes in Early and Maximal Isometric Force Production in Response to Moderate- and High-Load Strength and Power Training.

ABSTRACT: Comfort, P, Jones, PA, Thomas, C, Dos'Santos, T, McMahon, JJ, and Suchomel, TJ. Changes in early and maximal isometric force production in response to moderate- and high-load strength and power training. J Strength Cond Res 36(3): 593-599, 2022-The aims of this study were to determine the changes in early (50-, 100-, 150-, 200-, 250 ms) and maximal isometric force production, in response to a 4-week period of moderate-load resistance training (60-82.5% 1 repetition maximum [1RM]), followed by a 4-week period of high-load (80-90% 1RM) resistance training. Thirty-four subjects (age 19.5 ± 2.8 years; height 1.72 ± 0.08 m; body mass 69.9 ± 11.4 kg; maximal power clean 0.92 ± 0.03 kg·kg-1) participated in this study. Only trivial-to-moderate (0.2-2.7%, d = 0.00-0.88) and nonsignificant (p > 0.05) changes in early isometric force production were observed in response to the moderate-load training period, whereas very large (9.2-14.6%, d = 2.71-4.16), significant (p ≤ 0.001) increases in early isometric force production were observed in response to high-load training. In contrast, there was a very large, significant increase in peak force (PF) across the moderate-load phase (7.7 ± 11.8%, d = 2.02, p = 0.003), but only a moderate significant increase in PF (3.8 ± 10.6%, d = 1.16, p = 0.001) across the high-load phase. The results of this study indicate that high-load multijoint resistance training, that follows moderate-load training, results in superior increases in early multi-joint force production, compared with the changes observed after moderate-load resistance training.

No differences in weightlifting overhead pressing exercises kinetics.

This study aimed to compare the kinetics between the push press (PP), push jerk (PJ), and split jerk (SJ). Sixteen resistance-trained participants (12 men and 4 women; age: 23.8 ± 4.4 years; height: 1.7 ± 0.1 m; body mass: 75.7 ± 13.0 kg; weightlifting experience: 2.2 ± 1.3 years; one repetition maximum [1RM] PP: 76.5 ± 19.5 kg) performed 3 repetitions each of the PP, PJ, and SJ at a relative load of 80% 1RM PP on a force platform. The kinetics (peak and mean force, peak and mean power, and impulse) of the PP, PJ, and SJ were determined during the dip and thrust phases. Dip and thrust displacement and duration were also calculated for the three lifts. In addition, the inter-repetition reliability of each variable across the three exercises was analysed. Moderate to excellent reliability was evident for the PP (Intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.91-1.00), PJ (ICC = 0.86-1.00), and SJ (ICC = 0.55-0.99) kinetics. A one-way analysis of variance revealed no significant or meaningful differences (p > 0.05, η2 ≤ 0.010) for any kinetic measure between the PP, PJ, and SJ. In conclusion, there were no differences in kinetics between the PP, PJ, and SJ when performed at the same standardised load of 80% 1RM PP.

Training for Muscular Strength: Methods for Monitoring and Adjusting Training Intensity.

Linear loading, the two-for-two rule, percent of one repetition maximum (1RM), RM zones, rate of perceived exertion (RPE), repetitions in reserve, set-repetition best, autoregulatory progressive resistance exercise (APRE), and velocity-based training (VBT) are all methods of adjusting resistance training intensity. Each method has advantages and disadvantages that strength and conditioning practitioners should be aware of when measuring and monitoring strength characteristics. The linear loading and 2-for-2 methods may be beneficial for novice athletes; however, they may be limited in their capacity to provide athletes with variation and detrimental if used exclusively for long periods of time. The percent of 1RM and RM zone methods may provide athletes with more variation and greater potential for strength-power adaptations; however, they fail to account for daily changes in athlete's performance capabilities. An athlete's daily readiness can be addressed to various extents by both subjective (e.g., RPE, repetitions in reserve, set-repetition best, and APRE) and objective (e.g., VBT) load adjustment methods. Future resistance training monitoring may aim to include a combination of measures that quantify outcome (e.g., velocity, load, time, etc.) with process (e.g., variability, coordination, efficiency, etc.) relevant to the stage of learning or the task being performed. Load adjustment and monitoring methods should be used to supplement and guide the practitioner, quantify what the practitioner 'sees', and provide longitudinal data to assist in reviewing athlete development and providing baselines for the rate of expected development in resistance training when an athlete returns to sport from injury or large training load reductions.

Electromyographical Differences Between the Hyperextension and Reverse-Hyperextension.

ABSTRACT: Cuthbert, M, Ripley, NJ, Suchomel, TJ, Alejo, R, McMahon, JJ, and Comfort, P. Electromyographical differences between the hyperextension and reverse-hyperextension. J Strength Cond Res 35(6): 1477-1483, 2021-The aims of this study were to compare muscle activation of the erector spinae (ES), gluteus maximus (GMax), and biceps femoris (BF) during the hyperextension (HE) and reverse-HE (RHE) exercises. Ten subjects (age, 23 ± 4 years; height, 175.9 ± 6.9 cm; mass, 75.2 ± 9.7 kg) had electromyography (EMG) electrodes placed on the ES, GMax, and BF muscles in accordance with SENIAM (Surface EMG for Non-Invasive Assessment of Muscles) guidelines. Subjects performed 3 maximum voluntary isometric contraction trials of lumbar extension and hip extension using a handheld and isokinetic dynamometer, respectively, to normalize the EMG during the HE and RHE exercises. Three repetitions of each exercise were executed in a randomized order. High reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient ≥0.925) was observed with low variability (coefficient of variation [CV] < 10%) in all but the GMax during the extension phase of the HE (CV = 10.64%). During the extension and flexion phases, the RHE exhibited significantly greater (p ≤ 0.024; 34.1-70.7% difference) peak EMG compared with the HE in all muscles tested. Similarly, the RHE resulted in significantly greater mean EMG compared with the HE (p ≤ 0.036; 28.2-65.0% difference) in all muscles except the BF during the flexion phase (p = 9.960). Therefore, the RHE could be considered as a higher-intensity exercise for the posterior chain muscles compared with the HE, potentially eliciting greater increases in strength of the posterior chain muscles.

Comparison of Joint Work During Load Absorption Between Weightlifting Derivatives.

ABSTRACT: Suchomel, TJ, Giordanelli, MD, Geiser, CF, and Kipp, K. Comparison of joint work during load absorption between weightlifting derivatives. J Strength Cond Res 35(2S): S127-S135, 2021-This study examined the lower-extremity joint-level load absorption characteristics of the hang power clean (HPC) and jump shrug (JS). Eleven Division I male lacrosse players were fitted with 3-dimensional reflective markers and performed 3 repetitions each of the HPC and JS at 30, 50, and 70% of their 1 repetition maximum (1RM) HPC while standing on force plates. Load absorption joint work and duration at the hip, knee, and ankle joints were compared using 3-way repeated-measures mixed analyses of variance. Cohen's d effect sizes were used to provide a measure of practical significance. The JS was characterized by greater load absorption joint work compared with the HPC performed at the hip (p < 0.001, d = 0.84), knee (p < 0.001, d = 1.85), and ankle joints (p < 0.001, d = 1.49). In addition, greater joint work was performed during the JS compared with the HPC performed at 30% (p < 0.001, d = 0.89), 50% (p < 0.001, d = 0.74), and 70% 1RM HPC (p < 0.001, d = 0.66). The JS had a longer loading duration compared with the HPC at the hip (p < 0.001, d = 0.94), knee (p = 0.001, d = 0.89), and ankle joints (p < 0.001, d = 0.99). In addition, the JS had a longer loading duration compared with the HPC performed at 30% (p < 0.001, d = 0.83), 50% (p < 0.001, d = 0.79), and 70% 1RM HPC (p < 0.001, d = 0.85). The JS required greater hip, knee, and ankle joint work on landing compared with the load absorption phase of the HPC, regardless of load. The HPC and JS possess unique load absorption characteristics; however, both exercises should be implemented based on the goals of each training phase.

Relationship Between Reactive Strength Index Variants in Rugby League Players.

ABSTRACT: McMahon, JJ, Suchomel, TJ, Lake, JP, and Comfort, P. Relationship between reactive strength index variants in rugby league players. J Strength Cond Res 35(1): 280-285, 2021-Two reactive strength index (RSI) variants exist, the RSI and RSI modified (RSImod), which are typically calculated during the drop jump (DJ) and countermovement jump (CMJ), respectively. Both RSI variants have been used to monitor athletes' ability to complete stretch-shortening cycle actions quickly, but they have never been compared. The purpose of this study was to determine whether they yield relatable information about reactive strength characteristics. Male professional rugby league players (n = 21, age = 20.8 ± 2.3 years, height = 1.82 ± 0.06 m and body mass = 94.3 ± 8.4 kg) performed 3 DJs (30 cm) and CMJs on a force plate. Reactive strength index and RSImod were subsequently calculated by dividing jump height (JH) by ground contact time (GCT) and time to take-off (TTT), respectively. All variables were highly reliable (intraclass correlation coefficient ≥0.78) with acceptable levels of variability (coefficient of variation ≤8.2%), albeit larger variability was noted for DJ variables. Moreover, there was a large relationship between RSI and RSImod (r = 0.524, p = 0.007), whereas very large relationships were noted between JHs (r = 0.762, p < 0.001) and between GCT and TTT (ρ = 0.705, p < 0.001). In addition, RSI (0.90 ± 0.22) was largely and significantly (d = 2.57, p < 0.001) greater than RSImod (0.47 ± 0.08). The DJ-derived RSI yields much larger values than the CMJ-derived RSImod and although a large relationship was noted between them, it equated to just 22% shared variance. These results suggest that the 2 RSI variants do not explain each other well, indicating that they do not assess entirely the same reactive strength qualities and should not be used interchangeably.

Force-Velocity Relationship in Three Different Variations of Prone Row Exercises.

ABSTRACT: Loturco, I, Suchomel, T, Kobal, R, Arruda, AFS, Guerriero, A, Pereira, LA, and Pai, CN. Force-velocity relationship in three different variations of prone row exercises. J Strength Cond Res 35(2): 300-309, 2021-This study examined the force-velocity relationship and tested the possibility of determining the relative loading intensity percentage of 1 repetition maximum (%1RM) in 3 different variations of prone row exercises. Thirty male top-level athletes from 2 different sports (National Team rugby union players and professional mixed martial arts fighters) were submitted to maximum dynamic strength assessments in the free prone bench pull, bent-over barbell row, and bent-over Smith machine row, after standard procedures encompassing lifts performed from 40 to 100% of 1RM. The mean velocity, mean propulsive velocity, and peak velocity were measured in all attempts. Linear regression analyses were performed to establish the relationships between the different measures of bar velocities and %1RM. The actual (obtained during the assessments) and predicted 1RM values (based on the predictive equations) for each exercise were compared using a paired t-test. In all exercises, the predicted 1RM scores-based on all velocity variables-were not different from their respective actual values. The close linear relationships between bar velocities and distinct %1RM (coefficient of determination ≥80%, in all experimental conditions) allow precise determination of relative load and maximum dynamic strength, and enable coaches and sports scientists to use the different velocity outputs to rapidly and accurately monitor their athletes on a daily basis.