Literature DB >> 24942175

Effects of traditional vs. alternating whole-body strength training on squat performance.

Anthony B Ciccone1, Lee E Brown, Jared W Coburn, Andrew J Galpin.   

Abstract

Traditional strength training with 80% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM) uses 2- to 5-minute rest periods between sets. These long rest periods minimize decreases in volume and intensity but result in long workouts. Performing upper-body exercises during lower-body rest intervals may decrease workout duration but may affect workout performance. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare the effects of traditional vs. alternating whole-body strength training on squat performance. Twenty male (24 ± 2 years) volunteers performed 2 workouts. The traditional set (TS) workout consisted of 4 sets of squats (SQ) at 80% of 1RM on a force plate with 3-minute rest between sets. The alternating set (AS) workout also consisted of 4 sets of SQ at 80% of 1RM but with bench press, and bench pull exercises performed between squat sets 1, 2 and 3 with between-exercise rest of 50 seconds, resulting in approximately 3-minute rest between squat sets. Sets 1-3 were performed for 4 repetitions, whereas set 4 was performed to concentric failure. Total number of completed repetitions of the fourth squat set to failure was recorded. Peak ground reaction force (GRF), peak power (PP), and average power (AP) of every squat repetition were recorded and averaged for each set. There was no significant interaction for GRF, PP, or AP. However, volume-equated AP was greater during the TS condition (989 ± 183) than the AS condition (937 ± 176). During the fourth squat set, the TS condition resulted in more repetitions to failure (7.5 ± 2.2) than the AS condition (6.5 ± 2.2). Therefore, individuals who aim to optimize squat AP should refrain from performing more than 3 ASs per exercise. Likewise, those who aim to maximize squat repetitions to failure should refrain from performing upper-body multijoint exercises during squat rest intervals.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24942175     DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000586

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Strength Cond Res        ISSN: 1064-8011            Impact factor:   3.775


  5 in total

1.  Acute bouts of upper and lower body static and dynamic stretching increase non-local joint range of motion.

Authors:  David George Behm; Tyler Cavanaugh; Patrick Quigley; Jonathan Christopher Reid; Priscyla Silva Monteiro Nardi; Paulo Henrique Marchetti
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2015-09-26       Impact factor: 3.078

2.  In-Season Hip Thrust vs. Back Squat Training in Female High School Soccer Players.

Authors:  Nicole A Millar; Lauren M Colenso-Semple; Robert G Lockie; Risto H J Marttinen; Andrew J Galpin
Journal:  Int J Exerc Sci       Date:  2020-02-01

3.  Non-local Muscle Fatigue Effects on Muscle Strength, Power, and Endurance in Healthy Individuals: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis.

Authors:  David G Behm; Shahab Alizadeh; Saman Hadjizedah Anvar; Courtney Hanlon; Emma Ramsay; Mohamed Mamdouh Ibrahim Mahmoud; Joseph Whitten; James P Fisher; Olaf Prieske; Helmi Chaabene; Urs Granacher; James Steele
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2021-04-05       Impact factor: 11.136

Review 4.  Non-local muscle fatigue: effects and possible mechanisms.

Authors:  Israel Halperin; Dale W Chapman; David G Behm
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2015-09-02       Impact factor: 3.078

5.  Acute Effect of Upper-Lower Body Super-Set vs. Traditional-Set Configurations on Bar Execution Velocity and Volume.

Authors:  Guillermo Peña García-Orea; David Rodríguez-Rosell; Daniel Segarra-Carrillo; Marzo Edir Da Silva-Grigoletto; Noelia Belando-Pedreño
Journal:  Sports (Basel)       Date:  2022-07-14
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.