Accentuated eccentric loading (AEL) prescribes eccentric load magnitude in excess of the concentric prescription using movements that require coupled eccentric and concentric actions, with minimal interruption to natural mechanics. This method has been theorized to potentiate concentric performance through higher eccentric loading and, thus, higher concentric force production. There is also evidence for favorable chronic adaptations, namely shifts to faster myosin heavy chain isoforms and changes in IIx-specific muscle cross-sectional area. However, research concerning the acute and chronic responses to AEL is inconclusive, likely due to inconsistencies in subjects, exercise selection, load prescription, and method of providing AEL. Therefore, the purpose of this review is to summarize: (1) the magnitudes and methods of AEL application; (2) the acute and chronic implications of AEL as a means to enhance force production; (3) the potential mechanisms by which AEL enhances acute and chronic performance; and (4) the limitations of current research and the potential for future study.

The purpose of this review was to provide a physiological rationale for the use of eccentric resistance training and to provide an overview of the most commonly prescribed eccentric training methods. Based on the existing literature, there is a strong physiological rationale for the incorporation of eccentric training into a training program for an individual seeking to maximize muscle size, strength, and power. Specific adaptations may include an increase in muscle cross-sectional area, force output, and fiber shortening velocities, all of which have the potential to benefit power production characteristics. Tempo eccentric training, flywheel inertial training, accentuated eccentric loading, and plyometric training are commonly implemented in applied contexts. These methods tend to involve different force absorption characteristics and thus, overload the muscle or musculotendinous unit in different ways during lengthening actions. For this reason, they may produce different magnitudes of improvement in hypertrophy, strength, and power. The constraints to which they are implemented can have a marked effect on the characteristics of force absorption and therefore, could affect the nature of the adaptive response. However, the versatility of the constraints when prescribing these methods mean that they can be effectively implemented to induce these adaptations within a variety of populations.

Overall, this study demonstrated that RISR training yielded greater improvements in vertical jump, rate of force development, and maximal strength compared to RM training, which may partly be explained by differences in the imposed training stress and the use of failure/non-failure training in a well-trained population.

The purposes of this investigation were to: (1) assess kinetic characteristics of overload, (2) examine eccentric and concentric muscle activations and (3) explore velocity measurement as a method of intensity prescription in inertial flywheel squat training. A series of two experiments were performed: one assessing kinetic and muscle activation characteristics of flywheel squat training using three progressive inertial loads. The second experiment assessed inertial load-velocity relationships using six progressive inertial loads. Peak force, net impulse, positive-negative impulse ratio and positive-negative impulse duration ratio were each statistically significant between all three load conditions (p < 0.05). Concentric vastus lateralis muscle activation was the only significant increase between inertial loads (p < 0.05). Although not statistically significant, concentric quadricep muscle activation was increased from the lowest to highest inertia. Conversely, eccentric quadricep muscle activation was reduced from the lowest to highest inertia. In the second experiment, statistically significant regression equations were observed for average concentric velocity (R = 0.66) and peak concentric velocity (R = 0.60). In conclusion, our results indicate (1) overload is possible kinetically, (2) phase-specific muscle activation responds differently to increased inertia and (3) velocity has the potential to be used for load prescription in the inertial flywheel squat.

Wagle, JP, Cunanan, AJ, Carroll, KM, Sams, ML, Wetmore, A, Bingham, GE, Taber, CB, DeWeese, BH, Sato, K, Stuart, CA, and Stone, MH. Accentuated eccentric loading and cluster set configurations in the back squat: a kinetic and kinematic analysis. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2018-This study examined the kinetic and kinematic differences between accentuated eccentric loading (AEL) and cluster sets in trained male subjects (age = 26.1 ± 4.1 years, height = 183.5 ± 4.3 cm, body mass = 92.5 ± 10.5 kg, and back squat to body mass ratio = 1.8 ± 0.3). Four load condition sessions consisted of traditionally loaded (TL) "straight sets," TL cluster (TLC) sets, AEL cluster (AEC) sets, and AEL "straight sets" where only the first repetition had eccentric overload (AEL1). An interrepetition rest interval of 30 seconds was prescribed for both TLC and AEC. Concentric intensity for all load conditions was 80% 1 repetition maximum (1RM). Accentuated eccentric loading was applied to repetitions using weight releasers with total eccentric load equivalent to 105% of concentric 1RM. Traditionally loaded cluster had statistically greater concentric outputs than TL. Furthermore, statistically greater eccentric and concentric outputs were observed during AEC compared with TL with the exception of peak power. Statistically greater concentric characteristics were observed in TLC compared with AEL1, but statistically greater eccentric outputs were observed in AEL1. In the 2 cluster set conditions, statistically greater concentric rate of force development (RFDCON) (d = 0.470, p < 0.001) and average velocity (vavg) (d = 0.560, p < 0.001) in TLC compared with AEC were observed. However, statistically greater eccentric work (WECC) (d = 2.096, p < 0.001) and eccentric RFD (RFDECC) (d = 0.424, p < 0.001) were observed in AEC compared with TLC. Overall, eccentric overload demonstrated efficacy as a means of increasing eccentric work and RFD, but not as a means of potentiating concentric output. Finally, interrepetition rest seems to have the largest influence on concentric power output and RFD.

The current investigation was an examination of the repetition-to-repetition magnitudes and changes in kinetic and kinematic characteristics of the back squat using accentuated eccentric loading (AEL) and cluster sets. Trained male subjects (age = 26.1 ± 4.1 years, height = 183.5 ± 4.3 cm, body mass = 92.5 ± 10.5 kg, back squat to body mass ratio = 1.8 ± 0.3) completed four load condition sessions, each consisting of three sets of five repetitions of either traditionally loaded straight sets (TL), traditionally loaded cluster sets (TLC), AEL cluster sets (AEC), and AEL straight sets where only the initial repetition had eccentric overload (AEL1). Eccentric overload was applied using weight releasers, creating a total eccentric load equivalent to 105% of concentric one repetition maximum (1RM). Concentric load was 80% 1RM for all load conditions. Using straight sets (TL and AEL1) tended to decrease peak power (PP) (d = −1.90 to −0.76), concentric rate of force development (RFDCON) (d = −1.59 to −0.27), and average velocity (MV) (d = −3.91 to −1.29), with moderate decreases in MV using cluster sets (d = −0.81 to −0.62). Greater magnitude eccentric rate of force development (RFDECC) was observed using AEC at repetition three (R3) and five (R5) compared to all load conditions (d = 0.21–0.65). Large within-condition changes in RFDECC from repetition one to repetition three (∆REP1–3) were present using AEL1 (d = 1.51), demonstrating that RFDECC remained elevated for at least three repetitions despite overload only present on the initial repetition. Overall, cluster sets appear to permit higher magnitude and improved maintenance of concentric outputs throughout a set. Eccentric overload with the loading protocol used in the current study does not appear to potentiate concentric output regardless of set configuration but may cause greater RFDECC compared to traditional loading.

The purpose of this review is to provide strength and conditioning practitioners with recommendations on how best to implement tempo eccentric training (TEMPO), flywheel inertial training (FIT), accentuated eccentric loading (AEL), and plyometric training (PT) into resistance training programs that seek to improve an athlete’s hypertrophy, strength, and power output. Based on the existing literature, TEMPO may be best implemented with weaker athletes to benefit positional strength and hypertrophy due to the time under tension. FIT may provide an effective hypertrophy, strength, and power stimulus for untrained and weaker individuals; however, stronger individuals may not receive the same eccentric (ECC) overload stimulus. Although AEL may be implemented throughout the training year to benefit hypertrophy, strength, and power output, this strategy is better suited for stronger individuals. When weaker and stronger individuals are exposed to PT, they are exposed to an ECC overload stimulus as a result of increases in the ECC force and ECC rate of force development. In conclusion, when choosing to utilize ECC training methods, the practitioner must integrate these methods into a holistic training program that is designed to improve the athlete’s performance capacity.

No abstract