Jared Coburn

Dr. Jared Coburn

Department of Kinesiology, California State University, Fullerton, CA 92831, USA

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

25Years (2002-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
19 December 2005 in BioMedical Engineering OnLine
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
TBTravis W Beck
Travis W Beck
THTerry J Housh
Terry J Housh
Joel T. CramerJoel T. Cramer
Joel T. Cramer
JWJoseph P Weir
Joseph P Weir
GJGlen O Johnson
Glen O Johnson
MMMichelle Mielke
Michelle Mielke
The purpose of this review is to examine the literature that has investigated mechanomyographic (MMG) amplitude and frequency responses during dynamic muscle actions. To date, the majority of MMG research has focused on isometric muscle actions. Recent studies, however, have examined the MMG time and/or frequency domain responses during various types of dynamic activities, including dynamic constant external resistance (DCER) and isokinetic muscle actions, as well as cycle ergometry. Despite the potential influences of factors such as changes in muscle length and the thickness of the tissue between the muscle and the MMG sensor, there is convincing evidence that during dynamic muscle actions, the MMG signal provides valid information regarding muscle function. This argument is supported by consistencies in the MMG literature, such as the close relationship between MMG amplitude and power output and a linear increase in MMG amplitude with concentric torque production. There are still many issues, however, that have yet to be resolved, and the literature base for MMG during both dynamic and isometric muscle actions is far from complete. Thus, it is important to investigate the unique applications of MMG amplitude and frequency responses with different experimental designs/methodologies to continually reassess the uses/limitations of MMG.

1 January 2006 in Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
TBTravis W. Beck
Travis W. Beck
THTerry Housh
Terry Housh
RSRichard J. Schmidt
Richard J. Schmidt
GJGlen O. Johnson
Glen O. Johnson
DHDona J. Housh
Dona J. Housh
MMMoh H. Malek
Moh H. Malek
The purpose of this study was to examine the acute effects of a caffeine-containing supplement on upper- and lower-body strength and muscular endurance as well as anaerobic capabilities. Thirty-seven resistance-trained men (mean +/- SD, age: 21 +/- 2 years) volunteered to participate in this study. On the first laboratory visit, the subjects performed 2 Wingate Anaerobic Tests (WAnTs) to determine peak power (PP) and mean power (MP), as well as tests for 1 repetition maximum (1RM), dynamic constant external resistance strength, and muscular endurance (TOTV; total volume of weight lifted during an endurance test with 80% of the 1RM) on the bilateral leg extension (LE) and free-weight bench press (BP) exercises. Following a minimum of 48 hours of rest, the subjects returned to the laboratory for the second testing session and were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 groups: a supplement group (SUPP; n = 17), which ingested a caffeine-containing supplement, or a placebo group (PLAC; n = 20), which ingested a cellulose placebo. One hour after ingesting either the caffeine-containing supplement or the placebo, the subjects performed 2 WAnTs and were tested for 1RM strength and muscular endurance on the LE and BP exercises. The results indicated that there was a significant (p < 0.05) increase in BP 1RM for the SUPP group, but not for the PLAC group. The caffeine-containing supplement had no effect, however, on LE 1RM, LE TOTV, BP TOTV, PP, and MP. Thus, the caffeine-containing supplement may be an effective supplement for increasing upper-body strength and, therefore, could be useful for competitive and recreational athletes who perform resistance training.

1 January 2006 in Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
Jared CoburnJared Coburn
Jared Coburn
THTerry J. Housh
Terry J. Housh
MMMoh H. Malek
Moh H. Malek
JWJoseph P. Weir
Joseph P. Weir
Joel T. CramerJoel T. Cramer
Joel T. Cramer
GJGlen O. Johnson
Glen O. Johnson
The purpose of this investigation was to examine the effects of 3 days of velocity-specific isokinetic training on peak torque (PT) and the electromyographic (EMG) signal. Thirty adult women were randomly assigned to a slow-velocity training (SVT), fast-velocity training (FVT), or control (CON) group. All subjects performed maximal, concentric, isokinetic leg extension muscle actions at 30 and 270 degrees .s(-1) for the determination of PT on visits 1 (pretest) and 5 (posttest). Electromyographic signals were recorded from the vastus lateralis, rectus femoris, and vastus medialis muscles during each test. The training groups performed 4 sets of 10 maximal repetitions at 30 degrees .s(-1) (SVT group) or 270 degrees .s(-1) (FVT group) on visits 2, 3, and 4. For the SVT group, PT increased from pretest to posttest at 30 and 270 degrees .s(-1). The increase in PT at 30 degrees .s(-1) was greater than at 270 degrees .s(-1). For the FVT group, PT increased at 270 degrees .s(-1) only. For the CON group, there were no changes in PT at either velocity. There were no pretest to posttest changes in EMG amplitude or mean power frequency (MPF) for any group at any velocity, with the exception of an increase in EMG MPF from the vastus medialis muscle at 270 degrees .s(-1) for the FVT group. The results indicated that 3 sessions of slow velocity (30 degrees .s(-1)) isokinetic training resulted in an increase in PT at slow and fast velocities (30 and 270 degrees .s(-1)), whereas training at the fast velocity (270 degrees .s(-1)) increased PT only at 270 degrees .s(-1). The lack of consistent increases in EMG amplitude or MPF suggested that the training-induced increases in leg extension PT were not caused by increased activation of the superficial muscles of the quadriceps femoris. The important implication for coaches, trainers, and physical therapists is that significant muscular performance gains may be achieved even after very short training periods, but determination of the specific physiological adaptation(s) underlying these performance gains requires further investigation.

23 March 2016 in Sports
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
JAJerry C. Arias
Jerry C. Arias
Jared CoburnJared Coburn
Jared Coburn
Lee BrownLee Brown
Lee Brown
AGAndrew Galpin
Andrew Galpin
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of deadlifts as a postactivation potentiation stimulus on vertical jump performance. Fifteen men (age, 23.9 ± 4.2 years; height, 176.3 ± 8.6 cm; mass, 76.1 ± 16.3 kg) participated in the study. Participants visited the lab for three sessions, each separated by at least 48 h. One repetition maximum (1RM) in the deadlift was measured during the first visit. For Visit 2, participants performed one of two experimental sessions: a deadlift session or a control session. Participants performed a single maximal vertical jump (VJ; counter movement jump without an arm swing), then either performed five repetitions of the deadlift using 85% 1RM (deadlift session) or were told to stand still for ten seconds (control). Following either condition, participants performed single VJ at 15 s, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, and 16 min post condition. Peak VJ height and peak ground reaction forces (pGRF) were measured using a force plate. For Visit 3, whatever condition was not administered at Visit 2 was performed. The results showed that VJ height was significantly lower 15 s following deadlifting (36.9 ± 5.1 cm) compared to the control condition (40.1 ± 4.6 cm). In addition, VJ height 15 s after the deadlift was lower than VJ height measured at minutes 2–16 following the deadlift. Performance of five repetitions of deadlifting did not affect pGRF. These results suggest that performing five repetitions of the deadlift exercise at 85% 1RM does not induce a postactivation potentiation (PAP) effect, and may in fact cause an acute reduction in VJ performance.

1 June 2020 in Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
RSRobert W. Salatto
Robert W. Salatto
JAJose A. Arevalo
Jose A. Arevalo
Lee BrownLee Brown
Lee Brown
LWLenny D. Wiersma
Lenny D. Wiersma
Jared CoburnJared Coburn
Jared Coburn
Salatto, RW, Arevalo, JA, Brown, LE, Wiersma, LD, and Coburn, JW. Caffeine's effects on an upper-body resistance exercise workout. J Strength Cond Res 34(6): 1643–1648, 2020—The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of caffeine on an upper-body resistance exercise workout. Fifteen men (mean ± SD: age, 23.1 ± 1.9 years; body mass, 89.1 ± 13.9 kg; height, 175 ± 6.1 cm) volunteered to come to the laboratory 3 times. During visit 1, 1-repetition maximum (RM) values were determined for the barbell bench press, incline barbell bench press, and dumbbell bench press exercises. For visit 2, subjects consumed either 800-mg caffeine or a placebo. Subjects then completed 3 sets to failure of each exercise using 80% of their 1RM. Visit 3 was the same as visit 2; however, participants consumed the opposite treatment as visit 2. Various perceptual measures were recorded before, during, and after the workouts. The results indicated that participants completed significantly more repetitions per set for the barbell bench press (4.80 ± 2.66) and incline barbell bench press (4.91 ± 2.29) in the caffeine condition compared with the placebo condition (4.42 ± 2.56 and 4.36 ± 2.11, respectively). Higher arousal scores were found in the caffeine condition. For vigor, participants reported higher scores with caffeine before warming up (caffeine = 10.20 ± 4.11, placebo = 6.20 ± 3.23) and mid workout (caffeine = 13.53 ± 2.29, placebo = 11.13 ± 2.79). These results suggest that caffeine has an ergogenic effect on strength workout performance due, at least in part, to positive effects on workout perception. Athletes and recreational lifters may want to consider the ingestion of caffeine before a resistance exercise workout.

31 July 2015 in International Journal of Kinesiology and Sports Science
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
AJAndrew Jones
Andrew Jones
Lee BrownLee Brown
Lee Brown
Jared CoburnJared Coburn
Jared Coburn
GNGuillermo J. Noffal
Guillermo J. Noffal