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.

Although strong core muscles are believed to help athletic performance, few scientific studies have been conducted to identify the effectiveness of core strength training (CST) on improving athletic performance. The aim of this study was to determine the effects of 6 weeks of CST on ground reaction forces (GRFs), stability of the lower extremity, and overall running performance in recreational and competitive runners. After a screening process, 28 healthy adults (age, 36.9 +/- 9.4 years; height, 168.4 +/- 9.6 cm; mass, 70.1 +/- 15.3 kg) volunteered and were divided randomly into 2 groups (n = 14 in each group). A test-retest design was used to assess the differences between CST (experimental) and no CST (control) on GRF measures, lower-extremity stability scores, and running performance. The GRF variables were determined by calculating peak impact, active vertical GRFs (vGRFs), and duration of the 2 horizontal GRFs (hGRFs), as measured while running across a force plate. Lower-extremity stability was assessed using the Star Excursion Balance Test. Running performance was determined by 5000-m run time measured on outdoor tracks. Six 2 (pre, post) x 2 (CST, control) mixed-design analyses of variance were used to determine the influence of CST on each dependent variable, p < 0.05. Twenty subjects completed the study (nexp = 12 and ncon = 8). A significant interaction occurred, with the CST group showing faster times in the 5000-m run after 6 weeks. However, CST did not significantly influence GRF variables and lower-leg stability. Core strength training may be an effective training method for improving performance in runners.

PUSH accuracy for determining MV, PV, MF, MP, and PP across all 6 relative intensities was questionable for the back squat, yet the GYM was highly valid at assessing all criterion variables, with some caution given to estimations of MP and PP performed at lighter loads.

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 isometric squat has been used to detect changes in kinetic variables as a result of training; however, controversy exists in its application to dynamic multijoint tasks. Thus, the purpose of this study was to further examine the relationship between isometric squat kinetic variables and isoinertial strength measures. Subjects (17 men, 1-repetition maximum [1RM]: 148.2 ± 23.4 kg) performed squats 2 d · wk(-1) for 12 weeks and were tested on 1RM squat, 1RM partial squat, and isometric squat at 90° and 120° of knee flexion. Test-retest reliability was very good for all isometric measures (intraclass correlation coefficients > 0.90); however, rate of force development 250 milliseconds at 90° and 120° seemed to have a higher systematic error (relative technical error of measurement = 8.12%, 9.44%). Pearson product-moment correlations indicated strong relationships between isometric peak force at 90° (IPF 90°) and 1RM squat (r = 0.86), and IPF 120° and 1RM partial squat (r = 0.79). Impulse 250 milliseconds (IMP) at 90° and 120° exhibited moderate to strong correlations with 1RM squat (r = 0.70, 0.58) and partial squat (r = 0.73, 0.62), respectively. Rate of force development at 90° and 120° exhibited weak to moderate correlations with 1RM squat (r = 0.55, 0.43) and partial squat (r = 0.32, 0.42), respectively. These findings demonstrate a degree of joint angle specificity to dynamic tasks for rapid and peak isometric force production. In conclusion, an isometric squat performed at 90° and 120° is a reliable testing measure that can provide a strong indication of changes in strength and explosiveness during training.