The purposes of this investigation were to: (1) assess kinetic characteristics of overload, (2) examine eccentric and concentric muscle activations and (3) explore velocity measurement as a method of intensity prescription in inertial flywheel squat training. A series of two experiments were performed: one assessing kinetic and muscle activation characteristics of flywheel squat training using three progressive inertial loads. The second experiment assessed inertial load-velocity relationships using six progressive inertial loads. Peak force, net impulse, positive–negative impulse ratio and positive–negative impulse duration ratio were each statistically significant between all three load conditions (p < 0.05). Concentric vastus lateralis muscle activation was the only significant increase between inertial loads (p < 0.05). Although not statistically significant, concentric quadricep muscle activation was increased from the lowest to highest inertia. Conversely, eccentric quadricep muscle activation was reduced from the lowest to highest inertia. In the second experiment, statistically significant regression equations were observed for average concentric velocity (R² = 0.66) and peak concentric velocity (R² = 0.60). In conclusion, our results indicate (1) overload is possible kinetically, (2) phase-specific muscle activation responds differently to increased inertia and (3) velocity has the potential to be used for load prescription in the inertial flywheel squat.

Purpose: To compare repetition maximum (RM) to relative intensity using sets and repetitions (RI_SR) resistance training on measures of training load, vertical jump, and force production in well-trained lifters. Methods: Fifteen well-trained (isometric peak force = 4403.61 [664.69] N, mean [SD]) males underwent resistance training 3 d/wk for 10 wk in either an RM group (n = 8) or RI_SR group (n = 7). Weeks 8 to 10 consisted of a tapering period for both groups. The RM group achieved a relative maximum each day, whereas the RI_SR group trained based on percentages. Testing at 5 time points included unweighted ( .05); however, training strain was statistically greater in the RM group (P < .05). Conclusions: Overall, this study demonstrated that RI_SR training yielded greater improvements in vertical jump, rate of force development, and maximal strength compared with RM training, which may be explained partly by differences in the imposed training stress and the use of failure/nonfailure training in a well-trained population.

The purpose of the study was to compare the physiological responses of skeletal muscle to a resistance training (RT) program using repetition maximum (RM) or relative intensity (RI_SR). Fifteen well-trained males underwent RT 3 d·wk⁻¹ for 10 weeks in either an RM group (n = 8) or RI_SR group (n = 7). The RM group achieved a relative maximum each day, while the RI_SR group trained based on percentages. The RM group exercised until muscular failure on each exercise, while the RI_SR group did not reach muscular failure throughout the intervention. Percutaneous needle biopsies of the vastus lateralis were obtained pre-post the training intervention, along with ultrasonography measures. Dependent variables were: Fiber type-specific cross-sectional area (CSA); anatomical CSA (ACSA); muscle thickness (MT); mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR); adenosine monophosphate protein kinase (AMPK); and myosin heavy chains (MHC) specific for type I (MHC1), type IIA (MHC2A), and type IIX (MHC2X). Mixed-design analysis of variance and effect size using Hedge’s g were used to assess within- and between-group alterations. RI_SR statistically increased type I CSA (p = 0.018, g = 0.56), type II CSA (p = 0.012, g = 0.81), ACSA (p = 0.002, g = 0.53), and MT (p < 0.001, g = 1.47). RI_SR also yielded a significant mTOR reduction (p = 0.031, g = −1.40). Conversely, RM statistically increased only MT (p = 0.003, g = 0.80). Between-group effect sizes supported RI_SR for type I CSA (g = 0.48), type II CSA (g = 0.50), ACSA (g = 1.03), MT (g = 0.72), MHC2X (g = 0.31), MHC2A (g = 0.87), and MHC1 (g = 0.59); with all other effects being of trivial magnitude (g < 0.20). Our results demonstrated greater adaptations in fiber size, whole-muscle size, and several key contractile proteins when using RI_SR compared to RM loading paradigms.

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.

Some controversy exists as to the most efficacious method of training to achieve enhanced levels of sport performance. Controversy concerning the efficacy of periodization and especially block periodization (BP) likely stems from the use of poorly or untrained subjects versus trained who may differ in their responses to a stimulus. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of training status on performance outcomes resulting from 11 weeks of BP training. Fifteen males were recruited for this study and placed into strong (age = 24.3 ± 1.9 years., body mass (BM) = 87.7 ± 8.7 kg, squat: body mass = 1.96 ± 0.16), moderate (age = 25.3 ± 2.7 years., body mass = 100.2 ± 15.5 kg, squat: body mass = 1.46 ± 0.14), or weak (age = 23.2 ± 3.9 yrs., body mass = 83.5 ± 17.1 kg, squat: body mass = 1.17 ± 0.07) groups based on relative strength. Testing was completed at baseline, and after each block which consisted of 1 repetition maximum (1RM) squat, 0 kg static jump (SJ), 0 kg countermovement jump (CMJ), 20 kg SJ, and 20 kg CMJ. Absolute and relative strength were strongly correlated with rates of improvement for absolute strength, relative strength, 0 kg, and 20 kg vertical jumps. All subjects substantially improved back squat (p < 0.001), relative back squat (p < 0.001) with large–very large effect sizes between groups for percent change favoring the weak group over the moderate and strong group for all performance variables. All subjects showed statistically significant improvements in 0 kg SJ (p < 0.001), 0 kg CMJ (p < 0.001), 20 kg SJ (p = 0.002), and 20 kg CMJ (p < 0.001). Statistically significant between group differences were noted for both 20 kg SJ (p = 0.01) and 20 kg CMJ (p = 0.043) with the strong group statistically greater jump heights than the weak group. The results of this study indicate BP training is effective in improving strength and explosive ability. Additionally, training status may substantially alter the response to a resistance training program.

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.