Acute Kinetic and Kinematic Responses to Rest Redistribution With Heavier Loads in Resistance-Trained Men
Chae, S, Bailey, CA, Hill, DW, McMullen, SM, Moses, SA, and Vingren, JL. Acute kinetic and kinematic responses to rest redistribution with heavier loads in resistance-trained men. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000–000, 2022—The purpose of this study was to examine mechanical responses to rest redistrib...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of strength and conditioning research 2023-05, Vol.37 (5), p.987-993 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Chae, S, Bailey, CA, Hill, DW, McMullen, SM, Moses, SA, and Vingren, JL. Acute kinetic and kinematic responses to rest redistribution with heavier loads in resistance-trained men.
J Strength Cond Res
XX(X): 000–000, 2022—The purpose of this study was to examine mechanical responses to rest redistribution with heavier loads (RR + L) in resistance-trained men. Eight men (23.0 ± 4.8 years, 1.76 ± 0.06 m, 78.5 ± 8.6 kg, back squat [BS] one-repetition maximum [1RM] of 138.7 ± 27.9 kg) completed 2 BS exercise sessions in a counterbalanced and a randomized order; RR + L: 4 sets of (2 × 5) repetitions with 90-second interset rest and 30-second intraset rest using 75% BS 1RM and traditional sets (TS): 4 sets of 10 repetitions with 120-second interset rest using 70% BS 1RM. During the concentric phase, mean force (
), velocity (
), and power (
) were collected for each repetition using a linear position transducer and analyzed the first 3 sets. Compared with TS, RR + L resulted in significantly greater
(1820 ± 260 N vs. 1753 ± 248 N;
p
< 0.001;
g
= 0.25) and lower
(0.47 ± 0.07 m·s
−1
vs. 0.50 ± 0.09 m·s
−1
;
p
= 0.005;
g
= −0.35). However, no significant difference in
(836 ± 165 W vs. 871 ± 197 W;
p
= 0.082;
g
= −0.18) was found between RR + L and TS. In conclusion, the lack of difference in
might be the result of the combination of greater
and lower
for RR + L compared with TS. Therefore, practitioners may consider using RR + L to augment
without compromising
and increasing total rest time. However, given the approximate 4% difference in
, the effect of RR + L training on chronic strength adaptation is expected to be small. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1064-8011 1533-4287 |
DOI: | 10.1519/JSC.0000000000004372 |