The current investigation was an examination of the repetition-to-repetition magnitudes and changes in kinetic and kinematic characteristics of the back squat using accentuated eccentric loading (AEL) and cluster sets. Trained male subjects (age = 26.1 ± 4.1 years, height = 183.5 ± 4.3 cm, body mass = 92.5 ± 10.5 kg, back squat to body mass ratio = 1.8 ± 0.3) completed four load condition sessions, each consisting of three sets of five repetitions of either traditionally loaded straight sets (TL), traditionally loaded cluster sets (TLC), AEL cluster sets (AEC), and AEL straight sets where only the initial repetition had eccentric overload (AEL1). Eccentric overload was applied using weight releasers, creating a total eccentric load equivalent to 105% of concentric one repetition maximum (1RM). Concentric load was 80% 1RM for all load conditions. Using straight sets (TL and AEL1) tended to decrease peak power (PP) (d = −1.90 to −0.76), concentric rate of force development (RFD_CON) (d = −1.59 to −0.27), and average velocity (MV) (d = −3.91 to −1.29), with moderate decreases in MV using cluster sets (d = −0.81 to −0.62). Greater magnitude eccentric rate of force development (RFD_ECC) was observed using AEC at repetition three (R3) and five (R5) compared to all load conditions (d = 0.21–0.65). Large within-condition changes in RFD_ECC from repetition one to repetition three (∆REP_1–3) were present using AEL1 (d = 1.51), demonstrating that RFD_ECC remained elevated for at least three repetitions despite overload only present on the initial repetition. Overall, cluster sets appear to permit higher magnitude and improved maintenance of concentric outputs throughout a set. Eccentric overload with the loading protocol used in the current study does not appear to potentiate concentric output regardless of set configuration but may cause greater RFD_ECC compared to traditional loading.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the level of agreement in measuring back squat kinematics between an inertial measurement unit (IMU) and a 3D motion capture system (3DMOCAP). Kinematic variables included concentric peak velocity (CPV), concentric mean velocity (CMV), eccentric peak velocity (EPV), eccentric mean velocity (EMV), mean propulsive velocity (MPV), and POP-100: a proprietary variable. Sixteen resistance-trained males performed an incrementally loaded one repetition maximum (1RM) squat protocol. A series of Pearson correlations, 2 × 4 RM ANOVA, Cohen’s d effect size differences, coefficient of variation (CV), and standard error of the estimate (SEE) were calculated. A large relationship existed for all variables between devices (r = 0.78–0.95). Between-device agreement for CPV worsened beyond 60% 1RM. The remaining variables were in agreement between devices with trivial effect size differences and similar CV magnitudes. These results support the use of the IMU, regardless of relative intensity, when measuring EMV, EPV, MPV, and POP-100. However, practitioners should carefully select kinematic variables of interest when using the present IMU device for velocity-based training (VBT), as certain measurements (e.g., CMV, CPV) do not possess practically acceptable reliability or accuracy. Finally, the IMU device exhibited considerable practical data collection concerns, as one participant was completely excluded and 13% of the remaining attempts displayed obvious internal error.

The purpose of the current study was (1) to examine the differences between standing and lying measures of vastus lateralis (VL), muscle thickness (MT), pennation angle (PA), and cross-sectional area (CSA) using ultrasonography; and (2) to explore the relationships between lying and standing measures with isometric and dynamic assessments of force production—specifically peak force, rate of force development (RFD), impulse, and one-repetition maximum back squat. Fourteen resistance-trained subjects (age = 26.8 ± 4.0 years, height = 181.4 ± 6.0 cm, body mass = 89.8 ± 10.7 kg, back squat to body mass ratio = 1.84 ± 0.34) agreed to participate. Lying and standing ultrasonography images of the right VL were collected following 48 hours of rest. Isometric squat assessments followed ultrasonography, and were performed on force platforms with data used to determine isometric peak force (IPF), as well as RFD and impulse at various time points. Forty-eight hours later, one-repetition maximum back squats were performed by each subject. Paired-samples t-tests revealed statistically significant differences between standing and lying measurements of MT (p < 0.001), PA (p < 0.001), and CSA (p ≤ 0.05), with standing values larger in all cases. Further, standing measures were correlated more strongly and abundantly to isometric and dynamic performance. These results suggest that if practitioners intend to gain insight into strength-power potential based on ultrasonography measurements, performing the measurement collection with the athlete in a standing posture may be preferred.

This study examined the effects of accentuated eccentric loading (AEL) on bench press velocities across a spectrum of concentric and eccentric loads. Ten strength trained men (bench press one-repetition maximum (1-RM): 124.3 ± 19.4 kg; relative strength ratio: 1.5 ± 0.2 kg∙body mass⁻¹) participated. Subjects completed bench press repetitions using concentric loads from 30% to 80% 1-RM in 10% increments in each experimental session. The AEL protocols were implemented using 100% (AEL100) and 110% 1-RM (AEL110) loads during the eccentric action, while the eccentric load remained the same as the concentric for traditional loading (TRAD). Multilevel models analyzed the effects of each AEL protocol on concentric velocities across concentric loads (p < 0.05). Faster concentric velocities were observed at 30% 1-RM and 80% 1-RM with AEL100 compared to TRAD (p ≤ 0.05) but this effect was reduced for individuals moving the barbell through a greater displacement. Additionally, AEL110 presented a greater change in velocity from 30% to 80% 1-RM than TRAD (p ≤ 0.05). The AEL100 protocol resulted in faster concentric velocities throughout concentric loads of 30–80% 1-RM, but AEL110 may have been too great to elicit consistent performance enhancements. Thus, the efficacy of AEL at various concentric loads is dependent on the eccentric loading and barbell displacement.

Wagle, JP, Carroll, KM, Cunanan, AJ, Wetmore, A, Taber, CB, DeWeese, BH, Sato, K, Stuart, CA, and Stone, MH. Preliminary investigation into the effect of ACTN3 and ACE polymorphisms on muscle and performance characteristics. J Strength Cond Res 35(3): 688–694, 2021—The purpose of this investigation was to explore the phenotypic and performance outcomes associated with ACTN3 and ACE polymorphisms. Ten trained men (age = 25.8 ± 3.0 years, height = 183.3 ± 4.1 cm, body mass = 92.3 ± 9.3 kg, and back squat to body mass ratio = 1.8 ± 0.3) participated. Blood samples were analyzed to determine ACTN3 and ACE polymorphisms. Standing ultrasonography images of the vastus lateralis (VL) were collected to determine whole muscle cross-sectional area (CSA-M), and a percutaneous muscle biopsy of the VL was collected to determine type I–specific CSA (CSA-T1), type II–specific CSA (CSA-T2), and type II to type I CSA ratio (CSA-R). Isometric squats were performed on force platforms with data used to determine peak force (IPF), allometrically scaled peak force (IPFa), and rate of force development (RFD) at various timepoints. One repetition maximum back squats were performed, whereby allometrically scaled dynamic strength (DSa) was determined. Cohen's d effect sizes revealed ACTN3 RR and ACE DD tended to result in greater CSA-M but differ in how they contribute to performance. ACTN3 RR's influence seems to be in the type II fibers, altering maximal strength, and ACE DD may influence RFD capabilities through a favorable CSA-R. Although the findings of the current investigation are limited by the sample size, the findings demonstrate the potential influence of ACTN3 and ACE polymorphisms on isometric and dynamic strength testing. This study may serve as a framework to generate hypotheses regarding the effect of genetics on performance.