The Kansas Squat Test Modality Comparison: Free Weights vs. Smith Machine

ABSTRACTLuebbers, PE and Fry, AC. The Kansas squat test modality comparisonfree weights vs. smith machine. J Strength Cond Res 30(8)2186–2193, 2016—Standardized methods of testing power are instrumental in planning and implementing training regimens for many athletes, and also in tracking training a...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of strength and conditioning research 2016-08, Vol.30 (8), p.2186-2193
Hauptverfasser: Luebbers, Paul E, Fry, Andrew C
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 2193
container_issue 8
container_start_page 2186
container_title Journal of strength and conditioning research
container_volume 30
creator Luebbers, Paul E
Fry, Andrew C
description ABSTRACTLuebbers, PE and Fry, AC. The Kansas squat test modality comparisonfree weights vs. smith machine. J Strength Cond Res 30(8)2186–2193, 2016—Standardized methods of testing power are instrumental in planning and implementing training regimens for many athletes, and also in tracking training adaptations. Previous work has demonstrated that the Kansas squat test (KST) is a valid test for measuring indices of mean and peak power when compared with the Wingate anaerobic cycle test. Although the KST was designed for use with a Smith machine (SM), many power athletes use free weights for training. The purpose of this study was to determine the feasibility of using free weights (FW) for the KST by comparing it with the SM modality. Twenty-three track and field athletes participated (mean ± SD; weight, 69.7 ± 10.6 kg; age, 20.1 ± 1.1 years) in this study. Each completed familiarization sessions with the FW and SM modalities before data collection. A 1-repetition maximum squat was also determined for both the FW and SM. Correlation coefficients indicated significant relationships between the FW KST and SM KST on measures of peak test power (r = 0.955; p < 0.01) and mean test power (r = 0.959; p < 0.01) but not for relative fatigue (r = −0.198; p > 0.05) or posttest lactate (r = 0.109; p > 0.05). Paired samples t-tests indicated that the FW KST resulted in significantly higher measures of peak power and mean power (p ≤ 0.01), although no differences were observed for relative fatigue or lactate (p > 0.05). These data indicate that the FW KST is a valid and feasible alternative to the SM KST in measuring peak and mean power.
doi_str_mv 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001404
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1815702499</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1807274268</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4874-d7d354d36c1ba4c14c2a510e95c5758a6d98ea9445680b6181b307007698e3193</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkV1LwzAUhoMobn78A5GAN950njRJk3onw-l0w4tNvCxpm9nOfmxJ69i_N2NTZBdibk44PO9DwovQBYEe4SS8eZr0e_DrEAbsAHUJp9RjvhSH7g4B8yQQ0kEn1s4BfM45PUYdPwg5UBZ20XCaafysKqssnixb1eCptg0e16kq8maN-3W5UCa3dXWLB0Zr_Kbz96yx-NP28KTMmwyPVZLllT5DRzNVWH2-m6fodXA_7T96o5eHYf9u5CVMCualIqWcpTRISKxYQljiK05AhzzhgksVpKHUKmSMBxLigEgSUxAAInB7SkJ6iq633oWpl617bFTmNtFFoSpdtzZyCS7AZ-F_UBC-YH4gHXq1h87r1lTuIxuhMxICwlFsSyWmttboWbQweanMOiIQbVqJXCvRfisudrmTt3Gp05_Qdw0OkFtgVReNNvajaFfaRJlWRZP97f4CX_-UUg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1811571107</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The Kansas Squat Test Modality Comparison: Free Weights vs. Smith Machine</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Journals@Ovid Complete</source><creator>Luebbers, Paul E ; Fry, Andrew C</creator><creatorcontrib>Luebbers, Paul E ; Fry, Andrew C</creatorcontrib><description>ABSTRACTLuebbers, PE and Fry, AC. The Kansas squat test modality comparisonfree weights vs. smith machine. J Strength Cond Res 30(8)2186–2193, 2016—Standardized methods of testing power are instrumental in planning and implementing training regimens for many athletes, and also in tracking training adaptations. Previous work has demonstrated that the Kansas squat test (KST) is a valid test for measuring indices of mean and peak power when compared with the Wingate anaerobic cycle test. Although the KST was designed for use with a Smith machine (SM), many power athletes use free weights for training. The purpose of this study was to determine the feasibility of using free weights (FW) for the KST by comparing it with the SM modality. Twenty-three track and field athletes participated (mean ± SD; weight, 69.7 ± 10.6 kg; age, 20.1 ± 1.1 years) in this study. Each completed familiarization sessions with the FW and SM modalities before data collection. A 1-repetition maximum squat was also determined for both the FW and SM. Correlation coefficients indicated significant relationships between the FW KST and SM KST on measures of peak test power (r = 0.955; p &lt; 0.01) and mean test power (r = 0.959; p &lt; 0.01) but not for relative fatigue (r = −0.198; p &gt; 0.05) or posttest lactate (r = 0.109; p &gt; 0.05). Paired samples t-tests indicated that the FW KST resulted in significantly higher measures of peak power and mean power (p ≤ 0.01), although no differences were observed for relative fatigue or lactate (p &gt; 0.05). These data indicate that the FW KST is a valid and feasible alternative to the SM KST in measuring peak and mean power.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1064-8011</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1533-4287</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001404</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26950349</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Copyright by the National Strength &amp; Conditioning Association</publisher><subject>Athletes ; Exercise Test - instrumentation ; Exercise Test - methods ; Feasibility Studies ; Female ; Humans ; Kansas ; Kinetics ; Male ; Muscle Fatigue - physiology ; Muscle Strength - physiology ; Resistance Training - instrumentation ; Resistance Training - methods ; Sports training ; Test methods ; Track &amp; field ; Track and Field - physiology ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>Journal of strength and conditioning research, 2016-08, Vol.30 (8), p.2186-2193</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2016 by the National Strength &amp; Conditioning Association.</rights><rights>Copyright Lippincott Williams &amp; Wilkins Aug 2016</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4874-d7d354d36c1ba4c14c2a510e95c5758a6d98ea9445680b6181b307007698e3193</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4874-d7d354d36c1ba4c14c2a510e95c5758a6d98ea9445680b6181b307007698e3193</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26950349$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Luebbers, Paul E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fry, Andrew C</creatorcontrib><title>The Kansas Squat Test Modality Comparison: Free Weights vs. Smith Machine</title><title>Journal of strength and conditioning research</title><addtitle>J Strength Cond Res</addtitle><description>ABSTRACTLuebbers, PE and Fry, AC. The Kansas squat test modality comparisonfree weights vs. smith machine. J Strength Cond Res 30(8)2186–2193, 2016—Standardized methods of testing power are instrumental in planning and implementing training regimens for many athletes, and also in tracking training adaptations. Previous work has demonstrated that the Kansas squat test (KST) is a valid test for measuring indices of mean and peak power when compared with the Wingate anaerobic cycle test. Although the KST was designed for use with a Smith machine (SM), many power athletes use free weights for training. The purpose of this study was to determine the feasibility of using free weights (FW) for the KST by comparing it with the SM modality. Twenty-three track and field athletes participated (mean ± SD; weight, 69.7 ± 10.6 kg; age, 20.1 ± 1.1 years) in this study. Each completed familiarization sessions with the FW and SM modalities before data collection. A 1-repetition maximum squat was also determined for both the FW and SM. Correlation coefficients indicated significant relationships between the FW KST and SM KST on measures of peak test power (r = 0.955; p &lt; 0.01) and mean test power (r = 0.959; p &lt; 0.01) but not for relative fatigue (r = −0.198; p &gt; 0.05) or posttest lactate (r = 0.109; p &gt; 0.05). Paired samples t-tests indicated that the FW KST resulted in significantly higher measures of peak power and mean power (p ≤ 0.01), although no differences were observed for relative fatigue or lactate (p &gt; 0.05). These data indicate that the FW KST is a valid and feasible alternative to the SM KST in measuring peak and mean power.</description><subject>Athletes</subject><subject>Exercise Test - instrumentation</subject><subject>Exercise Test - methods</subject><subject>Feasibility Studies</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Kansas</subject><subject>Kinetics</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Muscle Fatigue - physiology</subject><subject>Muscle Strength - physiology</subject><subject>Resistance Training - instrumentation</subject><subject>Resistance Training - methods</subject><subject>Sports training</subject><subject>Test methods</subject><subject>Track &amp; field</subject><subject>Track and Field - physiology</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>1064-8011</issn><issn>1533-4287</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkV1LwzAUhoMobn78A5GAN950njRJk3onw-l0w4tNvCxpm9nOfmxJ69i_N2NTZBdibk44PO9DwovQBYEe4SS8eZr0e_DrEAbsAHUJp9RjvhSH7g4B8yQQ0kEn1s4BfM45PUYdPwg5UBZ20XCaafysKqssnixb1eCptg0e16kq8maN-3W5UCa3dXWLB0Zr_Kbz96yx-NP28KTMmwyPVZLllT5DRzNVWH2-m6fodXA_7T96o5eHYf9u5CVMCualIqWcpTRISKxYQljiK05AhzzhgksVpKHUKmSMBxLigEgSUxAAInB7SkJ6iq633oWpl617bFTmNtFFoSpdtzZyCS7AZ-F_UBC-YH4gHXq1h87r1lTuIxuhMxICwlFsSyWmttboWbQweanMOiIQbVqJXCvRfisudrmTt3Gp05_Qdw0OkFtgVReNNvajaFfaRJlWRZP97f4CX_-UUg</recordid><startdate>201608</startdate><enddate>201608</enddate><creator>Luebbers, Paul E</creator><creator>Fry, Andrew C</creator><general>Copyright by the National Strength &amp; Conditioning Association</general><general>Lippincott Williams &amp; Wilkins Ovid Technologies</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7TS</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201608</creationdate><title>The Kansas Squat Test Modality Comparison: Free Weights vs. Smith Machine</title><author>Luebbers, Paul E ; Fry, Andrew C</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4874-d7d354d36c1ba4c14c2a510e95c5758a6d98ea9445680b6181b307007698e3193</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Athletes</topic><topic>Exercise Test - instrumentation</topic><topic>Exercise Test - methods</topic><topic>Feasibility Studies</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Kansas</topic><topic>Kinetics</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Muscle Fatigue - physiology</topic><topic>Muscle Strength - physiology</topic><topic>Resistance Training - instrumentation</topic><topic>Resistance Training - methods</topic><topic>Sports training</topic><topic>Test methods</topic><topic>Track &amp; field</topic><topic>Track and Field - physiology</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Luebbers, Paul E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fry, Andrew C</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Physical Education Index</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of strength and conditioning research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Luebbers, Paul E</au><au>Fry, Andrew C</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The Kansas Squat Test Modality Comparison: Free Weights vs. Smith Machine</atitle><jtitle>Journal of strength and conditioning research</jtitle><addtitle>J Strength Cond Res</addtitle><date>2016-08</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>30</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>2186</spage><epage>2193</epage><pages>2186-2193</pages><issn>1064-8011</issn><eissn>1533-4287</eissn><abstract>ABSTRACTLuebbers, PE and Fry, AC. The Kansas squat test modality comparisonfree weights vs. smith machine. J Strength Cond Res 30(8)2186–2193, 2016—Standardized methods of testing power are instrumental in planning and implementing training regimens for many athletes, and also in tracking training adaptations. Previous work has demonstrated that the Kansas squat test (KST) is a valid test for measuring indices of mean and peak power when compared with the Wingate anaerobic cycle test. Although the KST was designed for use with a Smith machine (SM), many power athletes use free weights for training. The purpose of this study was to determine the feasibility of using free weights (FW) for the KST by comparing it with the SM modality. Twenty-three track and field athletes participated (mean ± SD; weight, 69.7 ± 10.6 kg; age, 20.1 ± 1.1 years) in this study. Each completed familiarization sessions with the FW and SM modalities before data collection. A 1-repetition maximum squat was also determined for both the FW and SM. Correlation coefficients indicated significant relationships between the FW KST and SM KST on measures of peak test power (r = 0.955; p &lt; 0.01) and mean test power (r = 0.959; p &lt; 0.01) but not for relative fatigue (r = −0.198; p &gt; 0.05) or posttest lactate (r = 0.109; p &gt; 0.05). Paired samples t-tests indicated that the FW KST resulted in significantly higher measures of peak power and mean power (p ≤ 0.01), although no differences were observed for relative fatigue or lactate (p &gt; 0.05). These data indicate that the FW KST is a valid and feasible alternative to the SM KST in measuring peak and mean power.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Copyright by the National Strength &amp; Conditioning Association</pub><pmid>26950349</pmid><doi>10.1519/JSC.0000000000001404</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1064-8011
ispartof Journal of strength and conditioning research, 2016-08, Vol.30 (8), p.2186-2193
issn 1064-8011
1533-4287
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1815702499
source MEDLINE; Journals@Ovid Complete
subjects Athletes
Exercise Test - instrumentation
Exercise Test - methods
Feasibility Studies
Female
Humans
Kansas
Kinetics
Male
Muscle Fatigue - physiology
Muscle Strength - physiology
Resistance Training - instrumentation
Resistance Training - methods
Sports training
Test methods
Track & field
Track and Field - physiology
Young Adult
title The Kansas Squat Test Modality Comparison: Free Weights vs. Smith Machine
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-02T20%3A38%3A47IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20Kansas%20Squat%20Test%20Modality%20Comparison:%20Free%20Weights%20vs.%20Smith%20Machine&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20strength%20and%20conditioning%20research&rft.au=Luebbers,%20Paul%20E&rft.date=2016-08&rft.volume=30&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=2186&rft.epage=2193&rft.pages=2186-2193&rft.issn=1064-8011&rft.eissn=1533-4287&rft_id=info:doi/10.1519/JSC.0000000000001404&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1807274268%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1811571107&rft_id=info:pmid/26950349&rfr_iscdi=true