scholarly journals The effects of a 4-week mesocycle of barbell back squat or barbell hip thrust strength training upon isolated lumbar extension strength

PeerJ ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. e7337 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Hammond ◽  
Craig Perrin ◽  
James Steele ◽  
Jürgen Giessing ◽  
Paulo Gentil ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Training Stimulus ◽  
Empirical Studies ◽  
Post Intervention ◽  
Personal Trainers ◽  
Back Squat ◽  
Movement Mechanics ◽  
Lumbar Extension ◽  
Trunk Extension ◽  
Male Subjects ◽  
Sporting Performance

Objectives Common exercises such as the barbell back squat (BBS) and barbell hip thrust (BHT) are perceived to provide a training stimulus to the lumbar extensors. However, to date there have been no empirical studies considering changes in lumbar extension strength as a result of BBS or BHT resistance training (RT) interventions. Purpose To consider the effects of BBS and BHT RT programmes upon isolated lumbar extension (ILEX) strength. Methods Trained male subjects (n = 14; 22.07 ± 0.62 years; 179.31 ± 6.96 cm; 79.77 ± 13.81 kg) were randomised in to either BBS (n = 7) or BHT (n = 7) groups and performed two training sessions per week during a 4-week mesocycle using 80% of their 1RM. All subjects were tested pre- and post-intervention for BBS and BHT 1RM as well as isometric ILEX strength. Results Analyses revealed that both BBS and BHT groups significantly improved both their BBS and BHT 1RM, suggesting a degree of transferability. However, the BBS group improved their BBS 1RM to a greater degree than the BHT group (p = 0.050; ∼11.8 kg/10.2% vs. ∼8.6 kg/7.7%, respectively). And the BHT group improved their BHT 1RM to a greater degree than the BBS group (p = 0.034; ∼27.5 kg/24.8% vs. ∼20.3 kg/13.3%, respectively). Neither BBS nor BHT groups significantly improved their isometric ILEX strength. Conclusions The present study supports the concept of specificity, particularly in relation to the movement mechanics between trunk extension (including pelvic rotation) and ILEX. Our data suggest that strength coaches, personal trainers, and trainees can self-select multi-joint lower-body trunk extension exercises based on preference or variety. However, evidence suggests that neither the BBS nor BHT exercises can meaningfully increase ILEX strength. Since strengthening these muscles might enhance physical and sporting performance we encourage strength coaches and personal trainers to prescribe ILEX exercise.

scholarly journals The effects of a 4-week mesocycle of barbell back squat or barbell hip thrust strength training upon isolated lumbar extension strength

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Hammond ◽  
Craig Perrin ◽  
James Steele ◽  
Jürgen Giessing ◽  
Paulo Gentil ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Resistance Training ◽  
Training Stimulus ◽  
Empirical Studies ◽  
Post Intervention ◽  
Training Interventions ◽  
Personal Trainers ◽  
Back Squat ◽  
Training Programmes ◽  
Lumbar Extension ◽  
Trunk Extension

Objectives: Common exercises such as the barbell back squat (BBS) and barbell hip thrust (BHT) are perceived to provide a training stimulus to the lumbar extensors. However, to date there have been no empirical studies considering changes in lumbar extension strength as a result of BBS or BHT resistance training interventions. Purpose: To consider the effects of barbell back squat (BBS) and barbell hip thrust (BHT) resistance training programmes upon isolated lumbar extension (ILEX) strength. Methods: Trained male subjects (n=14; 22.07 ± 0.62 years; 179.31 ± 6.96 cm; 79.77 ± 13.81 kg) were randomised in to either BBS (n=7) or BHT (n=7) groups and performed 2 training sessions per week during a 4-week mesocycle using 80% of their 1RM. All subjects were tested pre- and post-intervention for BBS and BHT 1RM as well as isometric ILEX strength. Results: Analyses revealed that both BBS and BHT groups significantly improved both their BBS and BHT 1RM, suggesting a degree of transferability. However, the BBS group improved their BBS 1RM to a greater degree than the BHT group (p=0.050; ~11.8kg/10.2% vs. ~8.6kg/7.7%, respectively). And the BHT group improved their BHT 1RM to a greater degree than the BBS group (p=0.034; ~27.5kg/24.8% vs. ~20.3kg/13.3%, respectively). Neither BBS nor BHT groups significantly improved their isometric ILEX strength. Conclusions: The present study supports the concept of specificity, particularly in relation to the movement mechanics between trunk extension (including pelvic rotation) and ILEX. Our data suggests that strength coaches personal trainers, and trainees can self-select multi-joint lower body trunk extension exercises based on preference or variety. However, evidence suggests that neither the BBS nor BHT exercises can meaningfully increase isolated lumbar extension strength. Since strengthening these muscles might enhance physical and sporting performance we encourage strength coaches and personal trainers to prescribe ILEX exercise.

scholarly journals The effects of a 4-week mesocycle of barbell back squat or barbell hip thrust strength training upon isolated lumbar extension strength

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Hammond ◽  
Craig Perrin ◽  
James Steele ◽  
Jürgen Giessing ◽  
Paulo Gentil ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Resistance Training ◽  
Training Stimulus ◽  
Empirical Studies ◽  
Post Intervention ◽  
Training Interventions ◽  
Personal Trainers ◽  
Back Squat ◽  
Training Programmes ◽  
Lumbar Extension ◽  
Trunk Extension

Objectives: Common exercises such as the barbell back squat (BBS) and barbell hip thrust (BHT) are perceived to provide a training stimulus to the lumbar extensors. However, to date there have been no empirical studies considering changes in lumbar extension strength as a result of BBS or BHT resistance training interventions. Purpose: To consider the effects of barbell back squat (BBS) and barbell hip thrust (BHT) resistance training programmes upon isolated lumbar extension (ILEX) strength. Methods: Trained male subjects (n=14; 22.07 ± 0.62 years; 179.31 ± 6.96 cm; 79.77 ± 13.81 kg) were randomised in to either BBS (n=7) or BHT (n=7) groups and performed 2 training sessions per week during a 4-week mesocycle using 80% of their 1RM. All subjects were tested pre- and post-intervention for BBS and BHT 1RM as well as isometric ILEX strength. Results: Analyses revealed that both BBS and BHT groups significantly improved both their BBS and BHT 1RM, suggesting a degree of transferability. However, the BBS group improved their BBS 1RM to a greater degree than the BHT group (p=0.050; ~11.8kg/10.2% vs. ~8.6kg/7.7%, respectively). And the BHT group improved their BHT 1RM to a greater degree than the BBS group (p=0.034; ~27.5kg/24.8% vs. ~20.3kg/13.3%, respectively). Neither BBS nor BHT groups significantly improved their isometric ILEX strength. Conclusions: The present study supports the concept of specificity, particularly in relation to the movement mechanics between trunk extension (including pelvic rotation) and ILEX. Our data suggests that strength coaches personal trainers, and trainees can self-select multi-joint lower body trunk extension exercises based on preference or variety. However, evidence suggests that neither the BBS nor BHT exercises can meaningfully increase isolated lumbar extension strength. Since strengthening these muscles might enhance physical and sporting performance we encourage strength coaches and personal trainers to prescribe ILEX exercise.

scholarly journals The Effects of Different Types of Eccentric Overload Training on Strength, Speed, Power and Change of Direction in Female Basketball Players

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 50
Author(s):  
Joey O Brien ◽  
Declan Browne ◽  
Des Earls
Keyword(s):  
Training Stimulus ◽  
Post Intervention ◽  
Basketball Players ◽  
Squat Jump ◽  
Change Of Direction ◽  
Back Squat ◽  
Counter Movement Jump ◽  
Overload Training ◽  
Post Hoc ◽  
Eccentric Overload

The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of two types of eccentric (ECC) overload training on strength, speed, power and change of direction in female basketball players. Twenty amateur basketball players (mean ± SD: age: 23.67 ± 6.05 years; height: 1.73 ± 0.05 m; body mass: 80.28 ± 17.67 kg) participated in a randomized trial. The players performed either flywheel inertial training (FIT) (n = 11) or tempo ECC training (TET) (n = 9) for 4 weeks, performing two sessions weekly. Performance characteristics, one repetition back squat (1RM), counter-movement jump (CMJ), squat jump (SJ), 10-metre sprint (10 m), change of direction (COD) and sit and reach flexibility (S&R) were tested pre and post intervention. Post-hoc testing revealed significant improvements in the FIT group for 1RM (p ≤ 0.001; ES = 0.59), 10 m (p = 0.003; ES = −0.54) and CMJ (p ≤ 0.001; ES = 1.04), while significant improvements were revealed in the TET group for 1RM (p = 0.007; ES = 0.71) and S&R (p ≤ 0.001; ES = 0.58). In conclusion, both FIT and TET groups demonstrated a positive training stimulus for increasing muscular strength. FIT may produce superior adaptions in CMJ and 10-m sprint, while TET may produce superior adaptions in S&R. Neither group achieved increases in either SJ or COD.

scholarly journals Repetition-to-Repetition Differences Using Cluster and Accentuated Eccentric Loading in the Back Squat

Sports ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 59 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Wagle ◽  
Christopher Taber ◽  
Kevin Carroll ◽  
Aaron Cunanan ◽  
Matt Sams ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Body Mass ◽  
Load Condition ◽  
Rate Of Force Development ◽  
Eccentric Load ◽  
Force Development ◽  
Back Squat ◽  
Cluster Sets ◽  
Eccentric Overload ◽  
Male Subjects ◽  
Load Conditions

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.

A Comparison of Gluteus Maximus, Biceps Femoris, and Vastus Lateralis Electromyography Amplitude in the Parallel, Full, and Front Squat Variations in Resistance-Trained Females

2016 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 16-22 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bret Contreras ◽  
Andrew D. Vigotsky ◽  
Brad J. Schoenfeld ◽  
Chris Beardsley ◽  
John Cronin
Keyword(s):  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Body Mass ◽  
Training Stimulus ◽  
Vastus Lateralis ◽  
Full Range ◽  
Gluteus Maximus ◽  
Biceps Femoris ◽  
Repetition Maximum ◽  
Training Adaptations ◽  
Back Squat

Front, full, and parallel squats are some of the most popular squat variations. The purpose of this investigation was to compare mean and peak electromyography (EMG) amplitude of the upper gluteus maximus, lower gluteus maximus, biceps femoris, and vastus lateralis of front, full, and parallel squats. Thirteen healthy women (age = 28.9 ± 5.1 y; height = 164 ± 6.3 cm; body mass = 58.2 ± 6.4 kg) performed 10 repetitions of their estimated 10-repetition maximum of each respective variation. There were no statistical (P = .05) differences between full, front, and parallel squats in any of the tested muscles. Given these findings, it can be concluded that the front, full, or parallel squat can be performed for similar EMG amplitudes. However, given the results of previous research, it is recommended that individuals use a full range of motion when squatting, assuming full range can be safely achieved, to promote more favorable training adaptations. Furthermore, despite requiring lighter loads, the front squat may provide a similar training stimulus to the back squat.

scholarly journals Kinematic and temporal interactions of the lumbar spine and hip during trunk extension in healthy male subjects

2007 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 122-128 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephan Milosavljevic ◽  
Poonam Pal ◽  
David Bain ◽  
Gillian Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Healthy Male ◽  
Temporal Interactions ◽  
Trunk Extension ◽  
Male Subjects

scholarly journals Three weeks of a home-based “sleep low-train low” intervention improves functional threshold power in trained cyclists: A feasibility study

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (12) ◽  
pp. e0260959
Author(s):  
Samuel Bennett ◽  
Eve Tiollier ◽  
Franck Brocherie ◽  
Daniel J. Owens ◽  
James P. Morton ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Training Stimulus ◽  
Cell Signalling ◽  
Cycling Performance ◽  
Peak Power Output ◽  
Threshold Power ◽  
Post Intervention ◽  
High Intensity Training ◽  
Home Based ◽  
Intensity Training ◽  
Cycling Training

Background “Sleep Low-Train Low” is a training-nutrition strategy intended to purposefully reduce muscle glycogen availability around specific exercise sessions, potentially amplifying the training stimulus via augmented cell signalling. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of a 3-week home-based “sleep low-train low” programme and its effects on cycling performance in trained athletes. Methods Fifty-five trained athletes (Functional Threshold Power [FTP]: 258 ± 52W) completed a home-based cycling training program consisting of evening high-intensity training (6 × 5 min at 105% FTP), followed by low-intensity training (1 hr at 75% FTP) the next morning, three times weekly for three consecutive weeks. Participant’s daily carbohydrate (CHO) intake (6 g·kg-1·d-1) was matched but timed differently to manipulate CHO availability around exercise: no CHO consumption post- HIT until post-LIT sessions [Sleep Low (SL), n = 28] or CHO consumption evenly distributed throughout the day [Control (CON), n = 27]. Sessions were monitored remotely via power data uploaded to an online training platform, with performance tests conducted pre-, post-intervention. Results LIT exercise intensity reduced by 3% across week 1, 3 and 2% in week 2 (P < 0.01) with elevated RPE in SL vs. CON (P < 0.01). SL enhanced FTP by +5.5% vs. +1.2% in CON (P < 0.01). Comparable increases in 5-min peak power output (PPO) were observed between groups (P < 0.01) with +2.3% and +2.7% in SL and CON, respectively (P = 0.77). SL 1-min PPO was unchanged (+0.8%) whilst CON improved by +3.9% (P = 0.0144). Conclusion Despite reduced relative training intensity, our data demonstrate short-term “sleep low-train low” intervention improves FTP compared with typically “normal” CHO availability during exercise. Importantly, training was completed unsupervised at home (during the COVID-19 pandemic), thus demonstrating the feasibility of completing a “sleep low-train low” protocol under non-laboratory conditions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document