Purpose: To identify acute effects of a single accentuated eccentric loading (AEL) repetition on subsequent back-squat kinetics and kinematics with different concentric loads. Methods: Resistance-trained men (N = 21) participated in a counterbalanced crossover design and completed 4 protocols (sets × repetitions at eccentric/concentric) as follows: AEL65, 3 × 5 at 120%/65% 1-repetition maximum (1-RM); AEL80, 3 × 3 at 120%/80% 1-RM; TRA65, 3 × 5 at 65%/65% 1-RM; and TRA80, 3 × 3 at 80%/80% 1-RM. During AEL, weight releasers disengaged from the barbell after the eccentric phase of the first repetition and remained off for the remaining repetitions. All repetitions were performed on a force plate with linear position transducers attached to the barbell, from which eccentric and concentric peak and mean velocity, force, and power were derived. Results: Eccentric peak velocity (−0.076 [0.124] m·s−1; P = .01), concentric peak force (187.8 [284.4] N; P = .01), eccentric mean power (−145.2 [62.0] W; P = .03), and eccentric peak power (−328.6 [93.7] W; P < .01) during AEL65 were significantly greater than TRA65. When collapsed across repetitions, AEL65 resulted in slower eccentric velocity and power during repetition 1 but faster eccentric and concentric velocity and power in subsequent repetitions (P ≤ .04). When comparing AEL80 with TRA80, concentric peak force (133.8 [56.9] N; P = .03), eccentric mean power (−83.57 [38.0] W; P = .04), and eccentric peak power (−242.84 [67.3] W; P < .01) were enhanced. Conclusions: Including a single supramaximal eccentric phase of 120% 1-RM increased subsequent velocity and power with concentric loads of 65% 1-RM, but not 80% 1-RM. Therefore, AEL is sensitive to the magnitude of concentric loads, which requires a large relative difference to the eccentric load, and weight releasers may not need to be reloaded to induce performance enhancement.

Purpose: To examine rest redistribution (RR) effects on back squat kinetics and kinematics in resistance-trained women. Methods: Twelve women from strength and college sports (5.0 [2.2] y training history) participated in the randomized crossover design study with 72 hours between sessions (3 total). Participants completed 4 sets of 10 repetitions using traditional sets (120-s interset rest) and RR (30-s intraset rest in the middle of each set; 90-s interset rest) with 70% of their 1-repetition maximum. Kinetics and kinematics were sampled via force plate and 4 linear position transducers. The greatest value of repetitions 1 to 3 (peak repetition) was used to calculate percentage loss, [(repetition 10–peak repetition)/(peak repetition) × 100], and maintenance, {100–[(set mean–peak repetition)/(peak repetition)] × 100}, of velocity and power for each set. Repeated-measures analysis of variance was used for analyses (P < .05). Results: Mean and peak force did not differ between conditions. A condition × repetition interaction existed for peak power (P = .049) but not for peak velocity (P = .110). Peak power was greater in repetitions 7 to 9 (P < .05; d = 1.12–1.27) during RR. The percentage loss of velocity (95% confidence interval, –0.22% to –7.22%; P = .039) and power (95% confidence interval, –1.53% to –7.87%; P = .008) were reduced in RR. Mean velocity maintenance of sets 3 (P = .036; d = 1.90) and 4 (P = .015; d = 2.30) and mean power maintenance of set 4 (P = .006; d = 2.65) were greater in RR. Conclusion: By redistributing a portion of long interset rest into the middle of a set, velocity and power were better maintained. Therefore, redistributing rest may be beneficial for reducing fatigue in resistance-trained women.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate intrasession reliability of countermovement jump (CMJ) and isometric mid-thigh pull (IMTP) force–time characteristics, as well as relationships between CMJ and IMTP metrics. Division I sport and club athletes (n = 112) completed two maximal effort CMJ and IMTP trials, in that order, on force plates. Relative and absolute reliability were assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) > 0.80 and coefficients of variation (CVs) < 10%. Intrasession reliability was acceptable for the majority of the CMJ force–time metrics except for concentric rate of force development (RFD), eccentric impulse and RFD, and lower limb stiffness. The IMTP’s time to peak force, instantaneous force at 150 ms, instantaneous net force, and RFD measures were not reliable. Statistically significant weak to moderate relationships (r = 0.20–0.46) existed between allometrically scaled CMJ and IMTP metrics, with the exception of CMJ eccentric mean power not being related with IMTP performances. A majority of CMJ and IMTP metrics met acceptable reliability standards, except RFD measures which should be used with caution. Provided CMJs and IMTPs are indicative of distinct physical fitness capabilities, it is suggested to monitor athlete performance in both tests via changes in those variables that demonstrate the greatest degree of reliability.

Merrigan, JJ, Tufano, JJ, Fields, JB, Oliver, JM, and Jones, MT. Rest redistribution does not alter hormone responses in resistance-trained women. J Strength Cond Res 34(7): 1867–1874, 2020—The purpose was to examine acute effects of rest redistribution (RR) on perceptual, metabolic, and hormonal responses during back squats. Twelve resistance-trained women (training age 5 ± 2 years; one repetition maximum [1-RM] per body mass, 1.6 ± 0.2) performed traditional (TS, 4 sets of 10 repetitions with 120 seconds interset rest) and RR sets (4 sets of two 5 repetition clusters with 30-second intraset rest and 90-second interset rest) in counterbalanced order, separated by 72 hours. Both conditions were performed at 70% 1RM with 360 seconds of total rest. Ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) were taken after each set. Blood was sampled at baseline, after each set, and at 5, 15, 30, and 60 minutes, as well as 24 and 48 hours after training. Alpha level was p ≤ 0.05. The RPE progressively increased throughout both conditions (p = 0.002) with a greater overall mean for TS (5.81 ± 0.14) than RR (4.71 ± 0.14; p = 0.003). Lactate increased above baseline and remained elevated through 15 minutes post in both conditions (4.00 ± 0.76; p = 0.001), with greater lactate levels for TS (6.33 ± 0.47) than RR (4.71 ± 0.53; p < 0.001). Total testosterone was elevated after set 2 (0.125 ± 0.02; p = 0.011), but no other time point, while free testosterone remained unchanged. Growth hormone continually rose from baseline to set 3 and returned to baseline by 60 minutes post (20.58 ± 3.19). Cortisol and creatine kinase did not change over time. No condition × time interactions existed for any hormone (p > 0.05). Use of rest redistribution resulted in lower perceived effort and lactate responses. Yet, hormone responses during rest redistribution were no different from TS.

Fields, JB, Merrigan, JJ, White, JB, and Jones, MT. Body composition variables by sport and sport-position in elite collegiate athletes. J Strength Cond Res 32(11): 3153–3159, 2018—To assess body composition measures by sport and sport-position. Elite collegiate athletes participated (n = 475): men's and women's soccer (MSOC, n = 67; WSOC, n = 110); men's and women's swimming (MSWIM, n = 26; WSWIM, n = 22); men's and women's track and field (MTF, n = 29; WTF, n = 24); women's lacrosse and volleyball (WLAX, n = 84; WVB, n = 73); and baseball (BASE, n = 40). One-way analysis of variances assessed differences across sport and sport-position. Post hoc analysis was Tukey honestly significant difference (p ≤ 0.05). For men, BASE and MSWIM had the highest body fat percentage (BF%) (BASE: 16.3 ± 5.2%; MSWIM: 14.2 ± 3.5%). MSOC (11.5 ± 5.3%, 0.13 ± 0.72 kg) and MTF (9.8 ± 5.1%, 0.11 ± 0.08 kg) had the lowest BF% and fat mass (FM)-to-fat-free mass (FFM) ratio (FM:FFM). Fat mass did not differ between MSOC (9.1 ± 4.9 kg), MTF (7.7 ± 5.9 kg), and MSWIM (11.1 ± 3.1 kg). Fat mass for MSOC and MTF was lower than BASE (14.1 ± 5.2). For women, WVB displayed the highest BF% (25.4 ± 5.1%), FM (18.5 ± 5.2 kg), FFM (53.3 ± 5.1 kg), and body mass (BM) (71.8 ± 8.4 kg), but did not differ from WSWIM in BF%, FM, FFM, and BM. WTF had the lowest BF% (12.9 ± 4.0%), FM (7.5 ± 2.5 kg), BM (58.2 ± 4.4 kg), and FM:FFM (0.15 ± 0.05 kg). VB had the highest FFM (53.3 ± 5.1 kg). Body composition differences were observed between sport-positions (p < 0.01). Body composition differed across sport and sport-position, which may be attributed to sport-specific physiological demands.

A necessarily high standard for physical readiness in tactical environments is often accompanied by high incidences of injury due to overaccumulations of neuromuscular fatigue (NMF). To account for instances of overtraining stimulated by NMF, close monitoring of neuromuscular performance is warranted. Previously validated tests, such as the countermovement jump, are useful means for monitoring performance adaptations, resiliency to fatigue, and risk for injury. Performing such tests on force plates provides an understanding of the movement strategy used to obtain the resulting outcome (e.g., jump height). Further, force plates afford numerous objective tests that are valid and reliable for monitoring upper and lower extremity muscular strength and power (thus sensitive to NMF) with less fatiguing and safer methods than traditional one-repetition maximum assessments. Force plates provide numerous software and testing application options that can be applied to military’s training but, to be effective, requires the practitioners to have sufficient knowledge of their functions. Therefore, this review aims to explain the functions of force plate testing as well as current best practices for utilizing force plates in military settings and disseminate protocols for valid and reliable testing to collect key variables that translate to physical performance capacities.

The purpose of this study was to assess the body composition of male and female basketball athletes (n = 323) across season, year, and sport-position using air displacement plethysmography. An independent sample t-test assessed sport-position differences. An analysis of variance was used to assess within-subjects across season (pre-season, in-season, and off-season), and academic year (freshman, sophomore, and junior). For both men and women basketball (MBB, WBB) athletes, guards had the lowest body fat, fat mass, fat free mass, and body mass. No seasonal differences were observed in MBB, but following in-season play for WBB, a reduction of (p = 0.03) in fat free mass (FFM) was observed. Across years, MBB showed an increase in FFM from freshman to sophomore year, yet remained unchanged through junior year. For WBB across years, no differences occurred for body mass (BM), body fat (BF%), and fat mass (FM), yet FFM increased from sophomore to junior year (p = 0.009). Sport-position differences exist in MBB and WBB: Guards were found to be smaller and leaner than forwards. Due to the importance of body composition (BC) on athletic performance, along with seasonal and longitudinal shifts in BC, strength and conditioning practitioners should periodically assess athletes BC to ensure preservation of FFM. Training and nutrition programming can then be adjusted in response to changes in BC.

Askow, AT, Merrigan, JJ, Neddo, JM, Oliver, JM, Stone, JD, Jagim, AR, and Jones, MT. Effect of strength on velocity and power during back squat exercise in resistance-trained men and women. J Strength Cond Res 33(1): 1–7, 2019—The purpose was to examine load-velocity and load-power relationships of back squat in resistance-trained men (n = 20, 21.3 ± 1.4 years, 183.0 ± 8.0 cm, 82.6 ± 8.0 kg, 11.5 ± 5.0% total body fat) and women (n = 18; 20.0 ± 1.0 years; 166.5 ± 6.9 cm; 63.9 ± 7.9 kg, 20.3 ± 5.0% body fat). Body composition testing was performed followed by determination of back squat 1 repetition maximum (1RM). After at least 72 hours of recovery, subjects returned to the laboratory and completed 2 repetitions at each of 7 separate loads (30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, and 90% 1RM) in a random order. During each repetition, peak and average velocity and power were quantified using a commercially available linear position transducer. Men produced higher absolute peak and average power and velocity at all loads. When power output was normalized for body mass, significant differences remained. However, when normalizing for strength, no significant differences were observed between sexes. Furthermore, when subjects were subdivided into strong and weak groups, those above the median 1RM produced higher peak power, but only at loads greater than 60% 1RM. It was concluded that differences between men and women may be a result of strength rather than biological sex. Furthermore, training for maximal strength may be an appropriate method to augment maximal power output in those athletes who exhibit low levels of strength.