Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Analysis of Factors Related to Back Squat Concentric Velocity.
J Strength Cond Res. 2018 Sep; 32(9):2435-2441.JS

Abstract

Fahs, CA, Rossow, LM, and Zourdos, MC. Aanalysis of factors related to back squat concentric velocity. J Strength Cond Res 32(9): 2435-2441, 2018-Measuring bar velocity during barbell exercises can be a useful metric for prescribing resistance training loads and for predicting the 1 repetition maximum (1RM). However, it is not clear whether either anthropometric factors (e.g., limb length) or training experience influences bar velocity. The purpose of this study was to determine the relationships between 1RM back squat bar velocity and femur length, training experience, strength, and 36.6-m sprint time in college athletes. Thirteen college football (22 ± 1 years) and 8 college softball players (20 ± 1 years) performed the 36.6-m sprint followed by a 1RM back squat protocol while average concentric velocity and peak concentric velocity were measured. Height (m), body mass (kg), squat training experience (years), squat frequency (d·wk), and femur length (m) were also measured. Pearson product moment correlations were used to determine the relationship between variables. Average concentric velocity was not related to training age (r = 0.150, p = 0.515), squat frequency (r = 0.254, p = 0.266), femur length (r = 0.002, p = 0.992), or relative strength (r = -0.090, p = 0.699). Peak concentric velocity was related to 36.6-m sprint time (r = -0.612, p = 0.003), relative squat average (r = 0.489, p = 0.029), and relative peak (r = 0.901, p < 0.001) power. These results suggest that college athletes using velocity to regulate squat training may not necessarily need to modify velocity ranges based on limb length or training age. In addition, peak velocity during a 1RM back squat may be a useful indicator of an athlete's relative power output ability and speed. Coaches may consider measuring velocity during strength testing as a surrogate measure for speed and power.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Department of Exercise Science, Lindenwood University Belleville, Belleville, Illinois.Department of Exercise Science, Lindenwood University Belleville, Belleville, Illinois.Department of Exercise Science and Health Promotion, Muscle Physiology Laboratory, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida.

Pub Type(s)

Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

30137028

Citation

Fahs, Christopher A., et al. "Analysis of Factors Related to Back Squat Concentric Velocity." Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, vol. 32, no. 9, 2018, pp. 2435-2441.
Fahs CA, Rossow LM, Zourdos MC. Analysis of Factors Related to Back Squat Concentric Velocity. J Strength Cond Res. 2018;32(9):2435-2441.
Fahs, C. A., Rossow, L. M., & Zourdos, M. C. (2018). Analysis of Factors Related to Back Squat Concentric Velocity. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 32(9), 2435-2441. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000002295
Fahs CA, Rossow LM, Zourdos MC. Analysis of Factors Related to Back Squat Concentric Velocity. J Strength Cond Res. 2018;32(9):2435-2441. PubMed PMID: 30137028.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Analysis of Factors Related to Back Squat Concentric Velocity. AU - Fahs,Christopher A, AU - Rossow,Lindy M, AU - Zourdos,Michael C, PY - 2018/8/24/entrez PY - 2018/8/24/pubmed PY - 2018/11/1/medline SP - 2435 EP - 2441 JF - Journal of strength and conditioning research JO - J Strength Cond Res VL - 32 IS - 9 N2 - Fahs, CA, Rossow, LM, and Zourdos, MC. Aanalysis of factors related to back squat concentric velocity. J Strength Cond Res 32(9): 2435-2441, 2018-Measuring bar velocity during barbell exercises can be a useful metric for prescribing resistance training loads and for predicting the 1 repetition maximum (1RM). However, it is not clear whether either anthropometric factors (e.g., limb length) or training experience influences bar velocity. The purpose of this study was to determine the relationships between 1RM back squat bar velocity and femur length, training experience, strength, and 36.6-m sprint time in college athletes. Thirteen college football (22 ± 1 years) and 8 college softball players (20 ± 1 years) performed the 36.6-m sprint followed by a 1RM back squat protocol while average concentric velocity and peak concentric velocity were measured. Height (m), body mass (kg), squat training experience (years), squat frequency (d·wk), and femur length (m) were also measured. Pearson product moment correlations were used to determine the relationship between variables. Average concentric velocity was not related to training age (r = 0.150, p = 0.515), squat frequency (r = 0.254, p = 0.266), femur length (r = 0.002, p = 0.992), or relative strength (r = -0.090, p = 0.699). Peak concentric velocity was related to 36.6-m sprint time (r = -0.612, p = 0.003), relative squat average (r = 0.489, p = 0.029), and relative peak (r = 0.901, p < 0.001) power. These results suggest that college athletes using velocity to regulate squat training may not necessarily need to modify velocity ranges based on limb length or training age. In addition, peak velocity during a 1RM back squat may be a useful indicator of an athlete's relative power output ability and speed. Coaches may consider measuring velocity during strength testing as a surrogate measure for speed and power. SN - 1533-4287 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/30137028/Analysis_of_Factors_Related_to_Back_Squat_Concentric_Velocity_ L2 - https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000002295 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -