Joint-Level Analyses of the Back Squat With and Without Intraset Rest

Acute Physiological and Perceptual Responses to Rest Redistribution With Heavier Loads in Resistance-Trained Men

ABSTRACT

Chae, S, Hill, DW, Bailey, CA, Moses, SA, McMullen, SM, and Vingren, JL. Acute physiological and perceptual 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 explore the effect of rest redistribution with heavier loads (RR + L) on physiological and perceptual responses in resistance-trained men. Eight men who had back squat (BS) 1 repetition maximum (1RM) to body mass ratio; 1.8 ± 0.2 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. Blood samples were collected before exercise, immediately post exercise, and 5, 15, and 30 minutes post exercise for the analysis of growth hormone (GH), total testosterone (TT), cortisol (C), and blood lactate (BL), whereas rating of perceived exertion (RPE) and heart rate (HR) were measured immediately after each set of the BS exercise. While neither main effect of condition nor interaction existed, there was a significant (p < 0.05) main effect of time point (and set) for GH, TT, C, BL, RPE, and HR. Volume load was greater for RR + L compared with TS (4,074.9 ± 786.7 kg vs. 3,796.3 ± 714.8 kg). In conclusion, RR + L increases volume load by approximately 7% but does not seem to influence GH (g = -0.15), TT (g = -0.09), BL (g = -0.22), RPE (g = 0.14), and HR (g = -0.08) responses. Practitioners may consider using RR + L to increase volume load without increasing acute fatigue responses.

Two-Experiment Examination of Habitual and Manipulated Foot Placement Angles on the Kinetics, Kinematics, and Muscle Forces of the Barbell Back Squat in Male Lifters

This two-experiment study aimed to examine the effects of different habitual foot placement angles and also the effects of manipulating the foot placement angle on the kinetics, three-dimensional kinematics and muscle forces of the squat. In experiment 1, seventy lifters completed squats at 70% of their one repetition maximum using a self-preferred placement angle. They were separated based on their habitual foot angle into three groups HIGH, MEDIUM and LOW. In experiment 2, twenty lifters performed squats using the same relative mass in four different foot placement angle conditions (0°, 21°, 42° and control). Three-dimensional kinematics were measured using an eight-camera motion analysis system, ground reaction forces (GRF) using a force platform, and muscle forces using musculoskeletal modelling techniques. In experiment 1, the impulse of the medial GRF, in the descent and ascent phases, was significantly greater in the HIGH group compared to LOW, and in experiment 2 statistically greater in the 42° compared to the 21°, 0° and control conditions. Experiment 2 showed that the control condition statistically increased quadriceps muscle forces in relation to 0°, whereas the 0° condition significantly enhanced gluteus maximus, gastrocnemius and soleus forces compared to control. In experiment 1, patellofemoral joint stress was significantly greater in the HIGH group compared to LOW, and in experiment 2, patellar and patellofemoral loading were statistically greater in the control compared to the 42°, 21°, 0° and control conditions. Owing to the greater medial GRF's, increased foot placement angles may improve physical preparedness for sprint performance and rapid changes of direction. Reducing the foot angle may attenuate the biomechanical mechanisms linked to the aetiology of knee pathologies and to promote gluteus maximus, gastrocnemius and soleus muscular development. As such, though there does not appear to be an optimal foot placement angle, the observations from this study can be utilised by both strength and conditioning and sports therapy practitioners seeking to maximise training and rehabilitative adaptations.

A Multi-Experiment Investigation of the Effects Stance Width on the Biomechanics of the Barbell Squat

This two-experiment study aimed to explore habitual and manipulated stance widths on squat biomechanics. In experiment one, 70 lifters completed back squats at 70%, 1 repetition maximum (1RM), and were split into groups (NARROW < 1.06 * greater trochanter width (GTW), MID 1.06−1.18 * GTW and WIDE > 1.37 * GTW) according to their self-selected stance width. In experiment two, 20 lifters performed squats at 70%, 1RM, in three conditions (NARROW, MID and WIDE, 1.0, 1.25 and 1.5 * GTW). The three-dimensional kinematics were measured using a motion capture system, ground reaction forces (GRF) using a force platform, and the muscle forces using musculoskeletal modelling. In experiment two, the peak power was significantly greater in the NARROW condition, whereas both experiments showed the medial GRF impulse was significantly greater in the WIDE stance. Experiment two showed the NARROW condition significantly increased the quadriceps forces, whereas both experiments showed that the WIDE stance width significantly enhanced the posterior-chain muscle forces. The NARROW condition may improve the high mechanical power movement performance and promote the quadriceps muscle development. Greater stance widths may improve sprint and rapid change-of-direction performance and promote posterior-chain muscle hypertrophy. Whilst it appears that there is not an optimal stance width, these observations can be utilized by strength and conditioning practitioners seeking to maximize training adaptations.

The Effects of Set Structure Manipulation on Chronic Adaptations to Resistance Training: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The acute effects of resistance training (RT) set structure alteration are well established; however, less is known about their effects on chronic training adaptations.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to synthesise the available evidence on the effectiveness of traditional (TS), cluster (CS) and rest redistribution (RR) set structures in promoting chronic RT adaptations, and provide an overview of the factors which might differentially influence the magnitude of specific training adaptations between set structure types.

METHODS

This review was performed using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines encompassing the literature search of five databases. Studies in English that compared muscular strength, endurance, and/or hypertrophy adaptations, as well as vertical jump performance, velocity and power at submaximal loads and shifts in the slopes of force-velocity profiles between TS and CS or RR set structures (i.e., alternative set structures) were included. Risk of bias assessment was performed using a modified Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. Random-effects meta-analyses and meta-regressions were performed where possible.

RESULTS

17 studies met the inclusion criteria, none had more than one risk of bias item assessed as high risk. Pooled results revealed that none of the set structures were more effective at inducing strength (standardised mean difference (SMD) = - 0.06) or hypertrophy (SMD = - 0.03). TS were more effective at improving muscular endurance compared to alternative set structures (SMD = - 0.38), whereas alternative set structures tended to be more effective for vertical jump performance gains (SMD = 0.13), but this effect was not statistically significant (p = 0.190). Greater velocity and power outputs at submaximal loads (SMD = 0.18) were observed when using alternative set structures compared to TS. In addition, alternative set structures promoted greater shifts of the slope of force-velocity profiles towards more velocity dominant profiles compared to TS (SMD = 0.28). Sub-group analyses controlling for each alternative set structure independently showed mixed results likely caused by the relatively small number of studies available for some outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Modifying TS to an alternative set structure (CS or RR) has a negligible impact on strength and hypertrophy. Using CS and RR can lead to greater vertical jump performance, velocity and power at submaximal loads and shifts to more velocity dominant force-velocity profiles compared to training using TS. However, TS may provide more favourable effects on muscle endurance when compared to CS and RR. These findings demonstrate that altering TS to alternative set structures may influence the magnitude of specific muscular adaptations indicating set structure manipulation is an important consideration for RT program design.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

The original protocol was prospectively registered (CRD42019138954) with the PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews).