Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Effects of traditional vs. alternating whole-body strength training on squat performance.
J Strength Cond Res. 2014 Sep; 28(9):2569-77.JS

Abstract

Traditional strength training with 80% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM) uses 2- to 5-minute rest periods between sets. These long rest periods minimize decreases in volume and intensity but result in long workouts. Performing upper-body exercises during lower-body rest intervals may decrease workout duration but may affect workout performance. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare the effects of traditional vs. alternating whole-body strength training on squat performance. Twenty male (24 ± 2 years) volunteers performed 2 workouts. The traditional set (TS) workout consisted of 4 sets of squats (SQ) at 80% of 1RM on a force plate with 3-minute rest between sets. The alternating set (AS) workout also consisted of 4 sets of SQ at 80% of 1RM but with bench press, and bench pull exercises performed between squat sets 1, 2 and 3 with between-exercise rest of 50 seconds, resulting in approximately 3-minute rest between squat sets. Sets 1-3 were performed for 4 repetitions, whereas set 4 was performed to concentric failure. Total number of completed repetitions of the fourth squat set to failure was recorded. Peak ground reaction force (GRF), peak power (PP), and average power (AP) of every squat repetition were recorded and averaged for each set. There was no significant interaction for GRF, PP, or AP. However, volume-equated AP was greater during the TS condition (989 ± 183) than the AS condition (937 ± 176). During the fourth squat set, the TS condition resulted in more repetitions to failure (7.5 ± 2.2) than the AS condition (6.5 ± 2.2). Therefore, individuals who aim to optimize squat AP should refrain from performing more than 3 ASs per exercise. Likewise, those who aim to maximize squat repetitions to failure should refrain from performing upper-body multijoint exercises during squat rest intervals.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Center for Sport Performance, Department of Kinesiology, California State University, Fullerton, California.No affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

24942175

Citation

Ciccone, Anthony B., et al. "Effects of Traditional Vs. Alternating Whole-body Strength Training On Squat Performance." Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, vol. 28, no. 9, 2014, pp. 2569-77.
Ciccone AB, Brown LE, Coburn JW, et al. Effects of traditional vs. alternating whole-body strength training on squat performance. J Strength Cond Res. 2014;28(9):2569-77.
Ciccone, A. B., Brown, L. E., Coburn, J. W., & Galpin, A. J. (2014). Effects of traditional vs. alternating whole-body strength training on squat performance. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 28(9), 2569-77. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000000586
Ciccone AB, et al. Effects of Traditional Vs. Alternating Whole-body Strength Training On Squat Performance. J Strength Cond Res. 2014;28(9):2569-77. PubMed PMID: 24942175.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Effects of traditional vs. alternating whole-body strength training on squat performance. AU - Ciccone,Anthony B, AU - Brown,Lee E, AU - Coburn,Jared W, AU - Galpin,Andrew J, PY - 2014/6/20/entrez PY - 2014/6/20/pubmed PY - 2015/11/6/medline SP - 2569 EP - 77 JF - Journal of strength and conditioning research JO - J Strength Cond Res VL - 28 IS - 9 N2 - Traditional strength training with 80% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM) uses 2- to 5-minute rest periods between sets. These long rest periods minimize decreases in volume and intensity but result in long workouts. Performing upper-body exercises during lower-body rest intervals may decrease workout duration but may affect workout performance. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare the effects of traditional vs. alternating whole-body strength training on squat performance. Twenty male (24 ± 2 years) volunteers performed 2 workouts. The traditional set (TS) workout consisted of 4 sets of squats (SQ) at 80% of 1RM on a force plate with 3-minute rest between sets. The alternating set (AS) workout also consisted of 4 sets of SQ at 80% of 1RM but with bench press, and bench pull exercises performed between squat sets 1, 2 and 3 with between-exercise rest of 50 seconds, resulting in approximately 3-minute rest between squat sets. Sets 1-3 were performed for 4 repetitions, whereas set 4 was performed to concentric failure. Total number of completed repetitions of the fourth squat set to failure was recorded. Peak ground reaction force (GRF), peak power (PP), and average power (AP) of every squat repetition were recorded and averaged for each set. There was no significant interaction for GRF, PP, or AP. However, volume-equated AP was greater during the TS condition (989 ± 183) than the AS condition (937 ± 176). During the fourth squat set, the TS condition resulted in more repetitions to failure (7.5 ± 2.2) than the AS condition (6.5 ± 2.2). Therefore, individuals who aim to optimize squat AP should refrain from performing more than 3 ASs per exercise. Likewise, those who aim to maximize squat repetitions to failure should refrain from performing upper-body multijoint exercises during squat rest intervals. SN - 1533-4287 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/24942175/Effects_of_traditional_vs__alternating_whole_body_strength_training_on_squat_performance_ L2 - http://dx.doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000000586 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -