Effectiveness of Accentuated Eccentric Loading: Contingent on Concentric Load

Combined Accentuated Eccentric Loading and Rest Redistribution in High-Volume Back Squat: Acute Stimulus and Fatigue

ABSTRACT

Chae, S, Long, SA, Lis, RP, McDowell, KW, Wagle, JP, Carroll, KM, Mizuguchi, S, and Stone, MH. Combined accentuated eccentric loading and rest redistribution in high-volume back squat: Acute stimulus and fatigue. J Strength Cond Res 38(4): 648-655, 2024-The purpose of this study was to examine acute stimulus and fatigue responses to combined accentuated eccentric loading and rest redistribution (AEL + RR). Resistance-trained men ( n = 12, 25.6 ± 4.4 years, 1.77 ± 0.06 m, and 81.7 ± 11.4 kg) completed a back squat (BS) 1 repetition maximum (1RM) and weight releaser familiarization session. Three BS exercise conditions (sets × repetitions × eccentric-concentric loading) consisted of (a) 3 × (5 × 2) × 110/60% (AEL + RR 5), (b) 3 × (2 × 5) × 110/60% (AEL + RR 2), and (c) 3 × 10 × 60/60% 1RM (traditional sets [TS]). Weight releasers (50% 1RM) were attached to every first repetition of each cluster set (every first, third, fifth, seventh, and ninth repetition in AEL + RR 5 and every first and sixth repetition in AEL + RR 2). The AEL + RR 5 resulted in greater total volume load (sets × repetitions × eccentric + concentric loading) (6,630 ± 1,210 kg) when compared with AEL + RR 2 (5,944 ± 1,085 kg) and TS (5,487 ± 1,002 kg). In addition, AEL + RR 5 led to significantly ( p < 0.05) greater rating of perceived exertion (RPE) after set 2 and set 3 and lower blood lactate (BL) after set 3 and 5, 15, and 25 minutes postexercise than AEL + RR 2 and TS. There was a main effect of condition for BL between AEL + RR 5 (5.11 ± 2.90 mmol·L -1 ), AEL + RR 2 (6.23 ± 3.22 mmol·L -1 ), and TS (6.15 ± 3.17 mmol·L -1 ). In summary, AEL + RR 5 results in unique stimulus and fatigue responses. Although it may increase perceived exertion, coaches could use AEL + RR 5 to achieve greater back squat total volume load while reducing BL accumulation.

Combined Accentuated Eccentric Loading and Rest Redistribution in High-Volume Back Squat: Acute Kinetics and Kinematics

ABSTRACT

Chae, S, Long, SA, Lis, RP, McDowell, KW, Wagle, JP, Carroll, KM, Mizuguchi, S, and Stone, MH. Combined accentuated eccentric loading and rest redistribution in high-volume back squat: Acute kinetics and kinematics. J Strength Cond Res 38(4): 640-647, 2024-The purpose of this study was to explore acute kinetic and kinematic responses to combined accentuated eccentric loading and rest redistribution (AEL + RR). Resistance-trained men ( n = 12, 25.6 ± 4.4 years, 1.77 ± 0.06 m, and 81.7 ± 11.4 kg) completed a back squat (BS) 1 repetition maximum (1RM) and weight releaser familiarization session. Three BS exercise conditions (sets × repetitions × eccentric/concentric loading) consisted of (a) 3 × (5 × 2) × 110/60% (AEL + RR 5), (b) 3 × (2 × 5) × 110/60% (AEL + RR 2), and (c) 3 × 10 × 60/60% 1RM (traditional sets [TS]). Weight releasers (50% 1RM) were attached to every first repetition of each cluster set (every first, third, fifth, seventh, and ninth repetition in AEL + RR 5 and every first and sixth repetition in AEL + RR 2). The AEL + RR 5 resulted in significantly ( p < 0.05) greater concentric peak velocity (PV) (1.18 ± 0.17 m·s -1 ) and peak power (PP) (2,304 ± 499 W) compared with AEL + RR 2 (1.11 ± 0.19 m·s -1 and 2,148 ± 512 W) and TS (1.10 ± 0.14 m·s -1 and 2,079 ± 388 W). Furthermore, AEL + RR 5 resulted in significantly greater PV and PP across all 10 repetitions compared with TS. Although AEL + RR 5 resulted in significantly greater concentric mean force (MF) (1,706 ± 224 N) compared with AEL + RR 2 (1,697 ± 209 N) and TS (1,685 ± 211 N), no condition by set or repetition interactions existed. In conclusion, AEL + RR 5 increases PV and PP but has little effect on MF. Coaches might consider prescribing AEL + RR 5 to increase especially peak aspects of velocity and power outcomes.

Garrido N, Reis VM, Souza RF. Comparison of Neuromuscular Fatigue in Powerlifting Paralympics in Different Training Methods

Mean propulsive velocity (MPV) has been associated with neuromuscular fatigue; however, its suitability for strength training in Paralympic powerlifting (PP) remains uncertain. The objective of this work was to evaluate the MPV in two training methods (traditional-TRAD and eccentric-ECC). Eleven PP athletes were evaluated pre, during the intervention and post intervention at a load of 80% of the 1RM for TRAD and 110%-80% of 1 RM for ECC. The results demonstrated that there was no significant neuromuscular fatigue for the TRAD (~5% performance loss), as well as no significant decline in MPV during the intervention. For the ECC, there is a significant reduction in MPV before and after training (~12% loss of performance). A difference between TRAD and ECC after the intervention was also identified (0.87 m/s±0.22, 95% CI 0.72-1.02 vs. 0.72±0.20, 95% CI 0.59-0.86 p=0.042, F(3.30)=10.190, η2p=0.505 - very high effect). During the intervention for ECC, no significant decline in MPV was observed. The results of this study suggest that the mechanical indices of MPV do not seem to be effective indicators of neuromuscular fatigue in the sample studied or in the context of this specific training regime, being more indicated as a control of training volume.

Braking and Propulsion Phase Characteristics of Traditional and Accentuated Eccentric Loaded Back Squats

The purpose of this study was to examine the differences in braking and propulsion force-time characteristics and barbell velocity between traditional (TRAD) and accentuated eccentric loaded (AEL) back squats using various load combinations. Sixteen resistance-trained men participated in four separate testing sessions which included a one repetition maximum (1RM) back squat during the first session and three squat testing sessions. During the squat testing sessions, participants either performed sets of three repetitions of TRAD back squats each with 50, 60, 70, and 80% 1RM or performed the same loads with the addition of weight releasers that increased the total eccentric weight of the first repetition of each set to either 100 (AEL-MAX) or 110% 1RM (AEL-SUPRA). Braking and propulsion mean force, duration, and impulse as well as mean and peak barbell velocity were compared between each condition and load. Significantly greater braking impulses were produced during the AEL-MAX and AEL-SUPRA conditions compared to TRAD (p < 0.03) with small-moderate effect sizes favoring AEL-SUPRA. No other significant differences existed among conditions for other braking, propulsion, or barbell velocity variables. AEL-MAX and AEL-SUPRA back squats may provide a greater braking stimulus compared to TRAD squats; however, the propulsion phase of the movement does not appear to be impacted. From a loading standpoint, larger and smaller load spreads may favor rapid and maximal force production characteristics, respectively. Further research on this topic is needed as a large portion of the braking stimulus experienced during AEL back squats may be influenced by relative strength.

Kinematic and Kinetic Characteristics of Repetitive Countermovement Jumps with Accentuated Eccentric Loading

Two methods for challenging the musculoskeletal and nervous systems to better exploit the stretch-shortening cycle (SSC) mechanism during plyometric training are reactive strength exercises and accentuated eccentric loading (AEL). Combining repetitive, reactive jumping with AEL poses a novel approach, in which the effects of both methods may be combined to elicit a unique stimulus. This study compared kinematic, kinetic, and electromyographic variables between a control (CON1) and two AEL conditions (AEL2 and AEL3). Additionally, non-reactive and reactive jumps performed within these sets were compared. Participants performed two sets of six countermovement jumps (CMJ) under each loading condition. AEL3 had moderate to large positive effects (es) on peak and mean eccentric force (es = 1.1, 0.8, respectively; both p < 0.01), and eccentric loading rate (es = 0.8, p < 0.01), but no effect on concentric variables or muscle activation intensity. The effects of AEL2 were similar but smaller. With or without AEL, there were moderate to large positive effects associated with reactive CMJ (second jump in a set, compared to the first) on peak and mean eccentric velocity (es = 1.7, 0.8, respectively; both p < 0.01), peak and mean eccentric force (es = 1.3, 1.2, p < 0.01), eccentric loading rate (es = 1.3, p < 0.01) and muscle activity (es = 1.8−1.9, p < 0.01). Concentric variables did not differ. Thus, the flight phase and act of landing during reactive jumps elicited greater increases in eccentric forces, loading rates, and muscle activity than AEL. Nonetheless, kinetic variables were greatest when AEL was combined with reactive jumping. Considering the limitations or complexity associated with most AEL protocols, sets of repetitive (reactive) CMJ may be more pragmatic for augmenting eccentric kinetic variables and neuromuscular stimuli during training.

Post-activation Performance Enhancement after a Bout of Accentuated Eccentric Loading in Collegiate Male Volleyball Players

The purpose of this study was to investigate the benefit of post-activation performance enhancement (PAPE) after accentuated eccentric loading (AEL) compared to traditional resistance loading (TR). Sixteen male volleyball athletes were divided in AEL and TR group. AEL group performed 3 sets of 4 repetitions (eccentric: 105% of concentric 1RM, concentric: 80% of concentric 1RM) of half squat, and TR group performed 3 sets of 5 repetitions (eccentric & concentric: 85% of 1RM). Countermovement jump (CMJ), spike jump (SPJ), isometric mid-thigh pull (IMTP), and muscle soreness test were administered before (Pre) exercise, and 10 min (10-min), 24 h (24-h), and 48 h (48-h) after exercise. A two-way repeated measures analysis of variance was used to analyze the data. Peak force and rate of development (RFD) of IMTP in AEL group were significantly greater (p < 0.05) than TR group. The height, peak velocity, and RFD of CMJ, height of SPJ, and muscle soreness showed no interaction effects (p > 0.05) groups x time. AEL seemed capable to maintain force production in IMTP, but not in CMJ and SPJ. It is recommended the use of accentuated eccentric loading protocols to overcome the fatigue.

Potentiating Effects of Accentuated Eccentric Loading Are Dependent Upon Relative Strength

ABSTRACT

Merrigan, JJ, Tufano, JJ, and Jones, MT. Potentiating effects of accentuated eccentric loading are dependent upon relative strength. J Strength Cond Res 35(5): 1208-1216, 2021-The purpose was to evaluate the acute effects of accentuated eccentric loading (AEL) on bench press velocity and subsequent perceived effort (ratings of perceived exertion [RPE]) and soreness. Resistance-trained men (n = 8) and women (n = 2) completed 4 sets of 5 bench press repetitions with AEL and traditional loading (TL) using concentric loads of 50% (AEL50, TL50) and 65% (AEL65, TL65) 1-repetition maximum (1RM). Throughout each TL set, the eccentric load remained identical to the concentric. Variable resistance during the first repetition of AEL equaled 120% 1RM. Hierarchical Linear Modeling was used to evaluate differences between AEL and TL (p < 0.05). For the first repetition, AEL50 and AEL65 resulted in slower eccentric and concentric velocities. The increasing slope of eccentric and concentric velocity across repetitions was greater during AEL50 and AEL65 compared with TL50 and TL65, respectively (p < 0.05). As an individual's strength increased, AEL50 resulted in slower eccentric velocity and faster concentric velocity than TL50. The AEL65 resulted in faster concentric velocity than TL65 (p < 0.05). Mean protocol comparisons revealed trivial to small effects between AEL and TL. There were no differences in RPE or soreness between protocols with soreness ratings remaining unchanged from baseline (1.80 ± 0.20 AU; p < 0.05). Overall, AEL was not effective for increasing concentric velocity during the bench press with current loading protocols. Yet, stronger individuals may exhibit increases in concentric velocity from AEL, which may be a result of different pacing strategies employed during the eccentric phase. Furthermore, when using the current AEL protocols, eccentric intensities were increased with no greater RPE or soreness.

Accentuated Eccentric Loading in the Bench Press: Considerations for Eccentric and Concentric Loading

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.