This study compared the effects of 90° versus 40° hip flexion in the leg extension exercise on quadriceps femoris muscle hypertrophy. Twenty-two untrained men completed a ten-week intervention comprising two resistance training sessions per week. A within-participant design was used, with the lower limb side randomly allocated to the 40 or 90° condition. Muscle thickness of distal and proximal rectus femoris and vastus lateralis was quantified via ultrasound. Data were analysed within a Bayesian framework including univariate and multivariate mixed effect models with random effects to account for the within participant design. Differences between conditions were estimated as average treatment effects (ATE) and inferences were made based on posterior distributions and Bayes Factors (BF). Results indicated a greater hypertrophic response in the rectus femoris for the 40° condition, with "extreme" evidence supporting a hypertrophic response favouring the 40° hip angle for the rectus femoris (BF > 100; p(Distal/ATE & Proximal/ATE >0) > 0.999), and "strong" evidence supporting no difference in hypertrophic response for the vastus lateralis (BF = 0.07). Therefore, both conditions could be viable options for increasing quadriceps femoris hypertrophy. However, when training for maximizing rectus femoris hypertrophy among untrained men, we suggest training with a reduced hip flexion in the leg extension exercise.

Examining participatory motives clarifies what engages and keeps individuals participating in exercise. The popularity of training at fitness centres has greatly increased over the last two decades, but individual determinants for motivation remain uncertain. This study compared motives between gender and age categories in training and performing physical activity at Norwegian fitness centres. To compare motives, a survey utilising a standardised questionnaire (MPAM-R) was conducted at six different Norwegian fitness centres. It was hypothesised that the intrinsic motive socialisation and extrinsic motive fitness would be more important among the older age categories for both genders, while the extrinsic motive appearance and intrinsic motive enjoyment would be more important among younger age groups. A total response of 183 men and 150 women, aged 14–80 years, was divided into seven categories based on their age and included in the statistical analysis. The main findings after conducting a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with repeated measures, were that the most important motive for training at fitness centres was increasing fitness, followed by enjoyment, competence, vitality and appearance. The social motive was rated the lowest. Women rated fitness and enjoyment higher compared to men, and men rated the motive for appearance higher than women, but this decreased with age in both genders. With increasing age, the importance of enjoyment and competence decreased in men, while women seemed to place increased importance on vitality with age. The importance of the social motive decreased first as age increased, but then increased again in the age group 41–50 years and older. It was concluded that the motives for participating in exercise at fitness centres was dependent on individual characteristics and that motives about training at fitness centres differed by gender and changed with age.

Individual differences in the appropriate percentage of 1-RM for a given repetition range could be a result of variation in anthropometrics and/or sex. Strength endurance is the term used to describe the ability to perform a number of repetitions prior to failure (AMRAP) in sub-maximal lifts and is important in determining the appropriate load for the targeted repetition range. Earlier research investigating the association of AMRAP performance and anthropometric variables was often performed in a sample of pooled sexes or one sex only or by utilizing tests with low ecological validity. As such, this randomized cross-over study investigates the association of anthropometrics with different measures of strength (maximal and relative strength and AMRAP) in the squat and bench press for resistance-trained males (n = 19, 24.3 ± 3.5 years, 182 ± 7.3 cm, 87.1 ± 13.3 kg) and females (n = 17, 22.1 ± 3 years, 166.1 ± 3.7 cm, 65.5 ± 5.6 kg) and whether the association differs between the sexes. Participants were tested for 1-RM strength and AMRAP performance, with 60% of 1-RM in the squat and bench press. Correlational analysis revealed that for all participants, lean mass and body height were associated with 1-RM strength in the squat and bench press (0.66, p ≤ 0.01), while body height was inversely associated with AMRAP performance (r ≤ −0.36, p ≤ 0.02). Females had lower maximal and relative strength with a greater AMRAP performance. In the AMRAP squat, thigh length was inversely associated with performance in males, while fat percentage was inversely associated with performance in females. It was concluded that associations between strength performance and anthropometric variables differed for males and females in fat percentage, lean mass, and thigh length.

The target of this study was to investigate the acute effect of a supramaximal augmented eccentric load on the kinematics and myoelectric activity during the concentric phase of the lift in a traditional bench press. Ten resistance-trained males (age 24 ± 6.4 years, height 1.80 ± 0.07 m, body-mass 87.2 ± 16.9 kg) performed two repetitions at 110/85% of the 1-RM in the dynamic accentuated external resistance (DAER) group and two repetitions at 85/85% of the 1-RM for the control group in a traditional bench press. The barbell kinematics, joint kinematics and myoelectric activity of eight muscles were measured in the eccentric phase and the pre-sticking, sticking and post-sticking regions. The main findings were that the sticking region started at a lower barbell height and that a lower barbell velocity was observed in the sticking region during the second repetition in the DAER condition compared to the control condition. Additionally, the lateral deltoid muscle and clavicle part of the pectoralis were more active during the eccentric loading compared to the control condition for the second repetition. Furthermore, higher myoelectric activity was measured during the second repetition in the sticking region for the eccentric loading condition in both pectoralis muscles, while the sternal parts of the pectoralis and anterior deltoid were more active during the second repetition of the control condition in the post-sticking region. Based on our findings, it can be concluded that the supramaximal loading in the descending phase with 110% of the 1-RM in the bench press does not have an acute and positive effect of enhanced performance in the ascending phase of the lift at 85% of 1-RM. Instead, fatigue occurs when using this eccentric load during a bench press.

Barbell placement can affect squat performance around the sticking region. This study compared kinematics, kinetics, and myoelectric activity of the safety-bar squat with the high-bar, and low-bar squat around the sticking region. Six recreationally resistance-trained men (26.3 ± 3.1 years, body mass: 81 ± 7.7 kg) and eight women (22.1 ± 2.2 years, body mass: 65.7 ± 10.5 kg) performed three repetition maximums in all three squat conditions. The participants lifted the least load with the safety bar followed by the high-bar and then the low-bar squat. Greater myoelectric activity of the gluteus maximus was observed during safety-bar squats than high-bar squats. Also, larger knee extension moments were observed for the safety bar compared with low-bar squat. Men had higher myoelectric activity in the safety-bar condition for the gluteus maximus during all regions in comparison with women, and greater knee valgus at the second occurrence of peak barbell velocity. Our findings suggest that the more upright torso inclination during the safety-bar could allow greater gluteus maximus contribution to the hip extensor moment. Moreover, low-bar squats allowed the greatest loads to be lifted, followed by the high-bar and safety-bar squats, possibly due to the larger hip moments and similar knee moments compared to the other squat conditions. Therefore, when the goal is to lift the greatest load possible among recreationally trained men and women, they should first attempt squatting with a low-bar technique, and if the goal is to increase myoelectric activity in the gluteus maximus, a safety-bar squat may be the more effective than the high- bar squat.

Larsen, S, de Zee, M, Kristiansen, EL, and van den Tillaar, R. A biomechanical comparison between a high and low barbell placement on net joint moments, kinematics, muscle forces, and muscle-specific moments in 3 repetition maximum back squats. J Strength Cond Res 38(7): 1221–1230, 2024—This study aimed to investigate the impact of a high barbell vs. low barbell placement on net joint moments, muscle forces, and muscle-specific moments in the lower extremity joints and muscles during maximum back squats. Twelve recreationally trained men (age = 25.3 ± 2.9 years, height = 1.79 ± 7.7 m, and body mass = 82.8 ± 6.9 kg) volunteered for the study. A marker-based motion capture system and force plate data were used to calculate the net joint moments, and individual muscle forces were estimated using static optimization. Muscle forces were multiplied by their corresponding internal moment arms to determine muscle-specific moments. Statistical parametric mapping was used to analyze the effect of barbell placement as time-series data during the concentric phase. The 3 repetition maximum barbell load lifted by the subjects was 129.1 ± 13.4 kg and 130.2 ± 12.7 kg in the high bar and low bar, which were not significantly different from each other. Moreover, no significant differences were observed in net joint moments, muscle forces, or muscle-specific moments for the hip, knee, or ankle joint between the low- and high bar placements. The findings of this study suggest that barbell placement plays a minor role in lower extremity muscle forces and moment-specific moments when stance width is standardized, and barbell load lifted does not differ between barbell placements among recreationally resistance-trained men during maximal back squats. Therefore, the choice of barbell placement should be based on individual preference and comfort.