Purpose. The purpose of this study was to examine the influence of training at different ranges of motion during the squat exercise on joint-angle specific strength adaptations. Methods. Twenty eight men were randomly assigned to one of three training groups, differing only in the depth of squats (quarter squat, half squat, and full squat) performed in 16-week training intervention. Strength measures were conducted in the back squat pre-, mid-, and post-training at all three depths. Vertical jump and 40-yard sprint time were also measured. Results. Individuals in the quarter and full squat training groups improved significantly more at the specific depth at which they trained when compared to the other two groups (p < 0.05). Jump height and sprint speed improved in all groups (p < 0.05); however, the quarter squat had the greatest transfer to both outcomes. Conclusions. Consistently including quarter squats in workouts aimed at maximizing speed and jumping power can result in greater improvements.

Many strength and conditioning professionals have included the use of foam rolling devices within a warm-up routine prior to both training and competition. Multiple studies have investigated foam rolling in regards to performance, flexibility, and rehabilitation; however, additional research is necessary in supporting the topic. Furthermore, as multiple foam rolling progressions exist, researching differences that may result from each is required. To investigate differences in foam rolling progressions, 16 athletically trained males underwent a 2-condition within-subjects protocol comparing the differences of 2 common foam rolling progressions in regards to performance testing. The 2 conditions included a foam rolling progression targeting the mediolateral axis of the body (FRml) and foam rolling progression targeting the anteroposterior axis (FRap). Each was administered in adjunct with a full-body dynamic warm-up. After each rolling progression, subjects performed National Football League combine drills, flexibility, and subjective scaling measures. The data demonstrated that FRml was effective at improving flexibility (p ≤ 0.05) when compared with FRap. No other differences existed between progressions.