A Novel Strategy to Determine the 1-Repetition Maximum in the Jump Squat Exercise

Using Barbell Acceleration to Determine the 1 Repetition Maximum of the Jump Shrug

ABSTRACT

Techmanski, BS, Kissick, CR, Loturco, I, and Suchomel, TJ. Using barbell acceleration to determine the 1 repetition maximum of the jump shrug. J Strength Cond Res 38(8): 1486-1493, 2024-The purpose of this study was to determine the 1 repetition maximum (1RM) of the jump shrug (JS) using the barbell acceleration characteristics of repetitions performed with relative percentages of the hang power clean (HPC). Fifteen resistance-trained men (age = 25.5 ± 4.5 years, body mass = 88.5 ± 15.7 kg, height = 176.1 ± 8.5 cm, relative 1RM HPC = 1.3 ± 0.2 kg·kg-1) completed 2 testing sessions that included performing a 1RM HPC and JS repetitions with 20, 40, 60, 80, and 100% of their 1RM HPC. A linear position transducer was used to determine concentric duration and the percentage of the propulsive phase (P%) where barbell acceleration was greater than gravitational acceleration (i.e., a>-9.81 m·s-2). Two 1 way repeated measures ANOVA were used to compare each variable across loads, whereas Hedge's g effect sizes were used to examine the magnitude of the differences. Concentric duration ranged from 449.7 to 469.8 milliseconds and did not vary significantly between loads (p = 0.253; g = 0.20-0.39). The P% was 57.4 ± 7.2%, 64.8 ± 5.9%, 73.2 ± 4.3%, 78.7 ± 4.0%, and 80.3 ± 3.5% when using 20, 40, 60, 80, and 100% 1RM HPC, respectively. P% produced during the 80 and 100% 1RM loads were significantly greater than those at 20, 40, and 60% 1RM (p < 0.01, g = 1.30-3.90). In addition, P% was significantly greater during 60% 1RM compared with both 20 and 40% 1RM (p < 0.01, g = 1.58-2.58) and 40% was greater than 20% 1RM (p = 0.003, g = 1.09). A braking phase was present during each load and, thus, a 1RM JS load was not established. Heavier loads may be needed to achieve a 100% propulsive phase when using this method.

Jump Squats Performed with Both Light and Heavy Loads Have Similar Effects on the Physical Performance of Elite Rugby Players during the Initial Phase of the Competitive Period

We examined the effectiveness of two different jump-squat (JS) loading ranges on the physical performance of rugby players. Twenty-eight elite male rugby players were divided into two JS training groups: a light-load JS group ("LJS"; JS at 40% of the one-repetition maximum [1RM] in the half-squat (HS) exercise) and a heavy-load JS group ("HJS"; JS at 80% HS-1RM). Players completed the distinct training programs over four weeks, three times per week, during the initial phase of the competitive period. Pre- and post-training tests were conducted in the following sequence: vertical jumps, a 30-m speed test, peak power in the JS and the HS, and maximum isometric force in the HS. Additionally, the rating of perceived exertion (RPE) was assessed at the end of all training sessions throughout the intervention. A two-way ANOVA with repeated measures, followed by the Tukey's post-hoc test, was employed to analyze differences between groups. The level of significance was set at p < 0.05. Effect sizes were used to assess the magnitude of differences between pre- and post-training data. Except for the RPE values (which were lower in the LJS group), no significant changes were detected for any other variable. In summary, using either a light- (40% HS-1RM) or a heavy-load (80% HS-1RM) JS during the initial phase of the competitive period is equally effective in maintaining physical performance levels attained during the preceding training period (pre-season), with the significant advantage of the light-load protocol resulting in lower levels of the RPE. This finding may have important implications for resistance training programming, especially in disciplines where acute and chronic fatigue is always a problematic issue.

Resistance Training Practices of Brazilian Olympic Sprint and Jump Coaches: Toward a Deeper Understanding of Their Choices and Insights (Part III)

In the final part of this three-article collection on the training strategies of Brazilian Olympic sprint and jump coaches, we provide a detailed description of the resistance training methods and exercises most commonly employed by these speed experts. Always with the objective of maximizing the sprint and jump capabilities of their athletes, these experienced coaches primarily utilize variable, eccentric, concentric, machine-based, isometric, complex, and isoinertial resistance training methods in their daily practices. Squats (in their different forms), Olympic weightlifting, ballistics, hip thrusts, lunges, calf raises, core exercises, leg curls, stiff-leg deadlifts, and leg extension are the most commonly prescribed exercises in their training programs, during both the preparatory and competitive periods. Therefore, the current manuscript comprehensively describes and examines these methods, with the additional aim of extrapolating their application to other sports, especially those where sprint speed is a key performance factor.

Half-Squat and Jump Squat Exercises Performed Across a Range of Loads: Differences in Mechanical Outputs and Strength Deficits

ABSTRACT

Loturco, I, McGuigan, MR, Freitas, TT, Bishop, C, Zabaloy, S, Mercer, VP, Moura, TBMA, Arruda, AFS, Ramos, MS, Pereira, LA, and Pareja-Blanco, F. Half-squat and jump squat exercises performed across a range of loads: differences in mechanical outputs and strength deficits. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2022-The aim of this study was to compare the peak force (PF), peak power (PP), and peak velocity (PV) outputs produced during half-squat (HS) and jump squat (JS) exercises executed at 20, 40, 60, and 80% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM) in the HS (HS 1RM) and to compute and compare the strength deficit (SDef) achieved in these exercises across these loads. Twenty-four national rugby union players (age: 25.7 ± 3.6 years) performed HS 1RM and a progressive loading test in the HS and JS exercises. The PF, PP, and PV values were obtained in all loads for both exercises, and the SDef was calculated as the percentage difference between the PF at distinct relative intensities and the PF at HS 1RM. The differences in HS and JS variables were determined using an analysis of variance with repeated measures. Higher PF, PP, and PV outputs were generated in the JS in comparison with the HS exercise (p < 0.05); moreover, the SDef magnitudes were significantly lower in the JS (p < 0.01), for all loading conditions. Importantly, the differences in SDef, and as a consequence, PF, PP, and PV decreased progressively with increasing load. Overall, the loaded JS exhibited increased levels of PF, PP, and PV and reduced levels of SDef when compared to the traditional HS performed across a range of loads. The JS is indicated to reduce the SDef and improve the athletes' ability to apply force at higher velocities. Nevertheless, with heavier loads (i.e., ≥80% HS 1RM), its potential advantages and effectiveness may be seriously compromised.

Performance and reference data in the jump squat at different relative loads in elite sprinters, rugby players, and soccer players

The aims of this study were to compare the outcomes and provide reference data for a set of barbell mechanical parameters collected via a linear velocity transducer in 126 male sprinters (n = 62), rugby players (n = 32), and soccer players (n = 32). Bar-velocity, bar-force, and bar-power outputs were assessed in the jump-squat exercise with jump-squat height determined from bar-peak velocity. The test started at a load of 40% of the athletes’ body mass (BM), and a load of 10% of BM was gradually added until a clear decrement in the bar power was observed. Comparisons of bar variables among the three sports were performed using a one-way analysis of variance. Relative measures of bar velocity, force, and power, and jump-squat height were significantly higher in sprinters than in rugby (difference ranging between 5 and 35%) and soccer (difference ranging between 5 and 60%) players across all loads (40–110% of BM). Rugby players exhibited higher absolute bar-power (mean difference = 22%) and bar-force (mean difference = 16%) values than soccer players, but these differences no longer existed when the data were adjusted for BM (mean difference = 2.5%). Sprinters optimized their bar-power production at significantly greater relative loads (%BM) than rugby (mean difference = 22%) and soccer players (mean difference = 25%); nonetheless, all groups generated their maximum bar-power outputs at similar bar velocities. For the first time, we provided reference values for the jump-squat exercise for three different bar-velocity measures (i.e., mean, mean propulsive, and peak velocity) for sprinters, rugby players, and soccer players, over a wide range of relative loads. Practitioners can use these reference values to monitor their athletes and compare them with top-level sprinters and team-sport players.