Literature DB >> 28700515

Mechanical, Metabolic, and Perceptual Acute Responses to Different Set Configurations in Full Squat.

Jorge M González-Hernández1, Amador García-Ramos2,3, Adrián Castaño-Zambudio1, Fernando Capelo-Ramírez1, Gonzalo Marquez1, Daniel Boullosa4,5, Pedro Jiménez-Reyes1.   

Abstract

González-Hernández, JM, García-Ramos, A, Castaño-Zambudio, A, Capelo-Ramírez, F, Marquez, G, Boullosa, D, and Jiménez-Reyes, P. Mechanical, metabolic, and perceptual acute responses to different set configurations in full squat. J Strength Cond Res 34(6): 1581-1590, 2020-This study aimed to compare mechanical, metabolic, and perceptual responses between 2 traditional (TR) and 4 cluster (CL) set configurations. In a counterbalanced randomized order, 11 men were tested with the following protocols in separate sessions (sets × repetitions [interrepetition rest]): TR1: 3 × 10 [0 seconds]; TR2: 6 × 5 [0 seconds]; CL1: 3 × 10 [10 seconds]; CL2: 3 × 10 [15 seconds]; CL3: 3 × 10 [30 seconds]; CL4: 1 × 30 [15 seconds]. The exercise (full squat), number of repetitions (30), interset rest (5 minutes), and resistance applied (10 repetition maximum) was the same for all set configurations. Mechanical fatigue was quantified by measuring the mean propulsive velocity during each repetition and the change in countermovement jump height observed after each set and after the whole training session. Metabolic and perceptual fatigue were assessed via the blood lactate concentration and the OMNI perceived exertion scale measured after each training set, respectively. The mechanical, metabolic, and perceptual measures of fatigue were always significantly higher for the TR1 set configuration. The 2 set configurations that most minimized the mechanical measures of fatigue were CL2 and CL3. Perceived fatigue did not differ between the TR2, CL1, CL2, and CL3 set configurations. The lowest lactate concentration was observed in the CL3 set configuration. Therefore, both the CL2 and CL3 set configurations can be recommended because they maximize mechanical performance. However, the CL2 set configuration presents 2 main advantages with respect to CL3 (a): it reduces training session duration, and (b) it promotes higher metabolic stress, which, to some extent, may be beneficial for inducing muscle strength and hypertrophy gains.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2020        PMID: 28700515     DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002117

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


  9 in total

1.  Chronic Effects of Altering Resistance Training Set Configurations Using Cluster Sets: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Timothy B Davies; Derek L Tran; Clorinda M Hogan; G Gregory Haff; Christopher Latella
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2021-01-21       Impact factor: 11.136

2.  Optimal Training Sequences to Develop Lower Body Force, Velocity, Power, and Jump Height: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  James Marshall; Chris Bishop; Anthony Turner; G Gregory Haff
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2021-03-05       Impact factor: 11.136

3.  Acute effects of different set configurations during a strength-oriented resistance training session on barbell velocity and the force-velocity relationship in resistance-trained males and females.

Authors:  Alejandro Torrejón; Danica Janicijevic; Guy Gregory Haff; Amador García-Ramos
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2019-04-06       Impact factor: 3.078

4.  Acute Effects of Cluster and Rest Redistribution Set Structures on Mechanical, Metabolic, and Perceptual Fatigue During and After Resistance Training: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Ivan Jukic; Amador García Ramos; Eric R Helms; Michael R McGuigan; James J Tufano
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2020-12       Impact factor: 11.136

5.  Repetition-to-Repetition Differences Using Cluster and Accentuated Eccentric Loading in the Back Squat.

Authors:  John P Wagle; Christopher B Taber; Kevin M Carroll; Aaron J Cunanan; Matt L Sams; Alexander Wetmore; Garett E Bingham; Brad H DeWeese; Kimitake Sato; Charles A Stuart; Michael H Stone
Journal:  Sports (Basel)       Date:  2018-07-08

6.  Assessment of the load-velocity profile in the free-weight prone bench pull exercise through different velocity variables and regression models.

Authors:  Amador García-Ramos; David Ulloa-Díaz; Paola Barboza-González; Ángela Rodríguez-Perea; Darío Martínez-García; Mauricio Quidel-Catrilelbún; Francisco Guede-Rojas; Jesualdo Cuevas-Aburto; Danica Janicijevic; Jonathon Weakley
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-02-27       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Differences between adjusted vs. non-adjusted loads in velocity-based training: consequences for strength training control and programming.

Authors:  Pedro Jiménez-Reyes; Adrian Castaño-Zambudio; Víctor Cuadrado-Peñafiel; Jorge M González-Hernández; Fernando Capelo-Ramírez; Luis M Martínez-Aranda; Juan J González-Badillo
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2021-03-23       Impact factor: 2.984

8.  Acute Behavior of Oxygen Consumption, Lactate Concentrations, and Energy Expenditure During Resistance Training: Comparisons Among Three Intensities.

Authors:  Gustavo A João; Gustavo P L Almeida; Lucas D Tavares; Carlos Augusto Kalva-Filho; Nelson Carvas Junior; Francisco L Pontes; Julien S Baker; Danilo S Bocalini; Aylton J Figueira
Journal:  Front Sports Act Living       Date:  2021-12-15

9.  Acute mechanical, physiological and perceptual responses in older men to traditional-set or different cluster-set configuration resistance training protocols.

Authors:  Antonio Dello Iacono; Domenico Martone; Lawrence Hayes
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2020-08-10       Impact factor: 3.078

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.