Body Mass and Femur Length Are Inversely Related to Repetitions Performed in the Back Squat in Well-Trained Lifters

Cooke, Daniel M.; Haischer, Michael H.; Carzoli, Joseph P.; Bazyler, Caleb D.; Johnson, Trevor K.; Varieur, Robert; Zoeller, Robert F.; Whitehurst, Michael; Zourdos, Michael C.

doi:10.1519/jsc.0000000000003021

Cited by 23 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…s −1 was 2–11, 4–19, and 4–24 repetitions, respectively [ 115 ]. Therefore, due to the extensive range in repetitions that can be performed at each percentage of 1RM [ 7 , 8 ] and at each velocity loss threshold [ 115 ], as well as the FRV [ 116 ], the ACV corresponding to a specific RPE [ 13 ], and the individualized velocity decay, each individual will experience varying degrees of fatigue, terminate each set at a different proximity to failure, and perform a different number of repetitions and magnitude of relative volume. Conclusively, an autoregulatory model conceptualizing the overarching results from this meta-analysis may be required to suggest avenues for future research and potential practical applications.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…PBT also involves prescribing load based on a single 1RM testing session; thus, if abnormal performance or improper administration were present, the training stimulus applied for the study intervention or successive training cycle may be inappropriate for the intended outcome and may impact other variables (i.e., fatigue, load, volume) in the prescription [ 5 ]. Finally, repetitions performed at given intensities are largely lift-specific [ 7 ] and highly variable between individuals [ 8 ]; therefore, PBT fails to accurately quantify proximity to failure and the degree of neuromuscular fatigue for each individual and lift.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Effect of Load and Volume Autoregulation on Muscular Strength and Hypertrophy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Autoregulation has emerged as a potentially beneficial resistance training paradigm to individualize and optimize programming; however, compared to standardized prescription, the effects of autoregulated load and volume prescription on muscular strength and hypertrophy adaptations are unclear. Our objective was to compare the effect of autoregulated load prescription (repetitions in reserve-based rating of perceived exertion and velocity-based training) to standardized load prescription (percentage-based training) on chronic one-repetition maximum (1RM) strength and cross-sectional area (CSA) hypertrophy adaptations in resistance-trained individuals. We also aimed to investigate the effect of volume autoregulation with velocity loss thresholds ≤ 25% compared to > 25% on 1RM strength and CSA hypertrophy. Methods This review was performed in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and SPORTDiscus was conducted. Mean differences (MD), 95% confidence intervals (CI), and standardized mean differences (SMD) were calculated. Sub-analyses were performed as applicable. Results Fifteen studies were included in the meta-analysis: six studies on load autoregulation and nine studies on volume autoregulation. No significant differences between autoregulated and standardized load prescription were demonstrated for 1RM strength (MD = 2.07, 95% CI – 0.32 to 4.46 kg, p = 0.09, SMD = 0.21). Velocity loss thresholds ≤ 25% demonstrated significantly greater 1RM strength (MD = 2.32, 95% CI 0.33 to 4.31 kg, p = 0.02, SMD = 0.23) and significantly lower CSA hypertrophy (MD = 0.61, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.16 cm2, p = 0.03, SMD = 0.28) than velocity loss thresholds > 25%. No significant differences between velocity loss thresholds > 25% and 20–25% were demonstrated for hypertrophy (MD = 0.36, 95% CI – 0.29 to 1.00 cm2, p = 0.28, SMD = 0.13); however, velocity loss thresholds > 25% demonstrated significantly greater hypertrophy compared to thresholds ≤ 20% (MD = 0.64, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.20 cm2, p = 0.03, SMD = 0.34). Conclusions Collectively, autoregulated and standardized load prescription produced similar improvements in strength. When sets and relative intensity were equated, velocity loss thresholds ≤ 25% were superior for promoting strength possibly by minimizing acute neuromuscular fatigue while maximizing chronic neuromuscular adaptations, whereas velocity loss thresholds > 20–25% were superior for promoting hypertrophy by accumulating greater relative volume. Protocol Registration The original protocol was prospectively registered (CRD42021240506) with the PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews).

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effect of Load and Volume Autoregulation on Muscular Strength and Hypertrophy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, in lieu of prescribing 4 sets of 8 repetitions at 70% of one-repetition maximum (1RM), practitioners may prescribe 4 sets at 70% of 1RM of as many repetitions as possible until ACV falls below 80% of the first repetition’s ACV. This autoregulation of the training volume avoids using a predetermined number of repetitions since there is large inter-individual variation in the number of repetitions that can be performed during barbell exercises at the same relative intensity ( Cooke et al, 2019 ; Shimano et al, 2006 ). Indeed, to date, two studies have demonstrated greater strength gains when using VBT versus percentage-based training over the long-term ( Dorrell et al, 2020 ; Orange et al, 2019 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Agreement Between Kinovea Video Analysis and the Open Barbell System for Resistance Training Movement Outcomes

Carzoli¹,

Sousa²,

Helms³

et al. 2022

Journal of Human Kinetics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to examine the agreement between Kinovea video analysis software and the previously validated Open Barbell System (OBS) for assessing average concentric and eccentric velocity, eccentric duration, peak concentric velocity, height of peak concentric velocity, and concentric and eccentric range of motion. Sixteen resistance-trained males performed 11 repetitions at various intensities (between 60-100% of one-repetition maximum) on both the back squat and the bench press. For each repetition, all outcome measures were assessed with Kinovea and the OBS. Agreement between devices for each outcome measure was analyzed with paired t-tests, intraclass correlation coefficients with 95% confidence intervals, Bland-Altman plots, and folded empirical cumulative distribution plots (Mountain plots). All outcome variables were found to be statistically different (i.e. they did not agree) between the two devices (p < 0.001), except for average eccentric velocity (p = 0.315), as determined by the paired t-tests. Mountain plots had long tails for every outcome measure and Bland-Altman plots showed large limits of agreement for all outcome measures except concentric range of motion and the height of peak concentric velocity, demonstrating low agreement between devices. Based upon these findings and the previous validation of the OBS, these devices should not be used interchangeably.

show abstract

“…Despite 1-RM is still the standard for dynamic maximal strength assessment [2,4], prescribing strength exercise using the same % of 1-RM can yield different intensities in different individuals. Indeed, there is high interindividual variability in the number of repetitions performed to failure at the same % of 1-RM [5,6]. Consequently, other methods [7] have been proposed to prescribe resistance exercise intensity using a load that allows performing the desired number of repetitions at maximum before failure (multiple-RM) or one that produces a certain rate of perceived exertion (RPE).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Barbell load distribution and lifting velocity affect bench press exercise volume and perceived exertion

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective The intensity of barbell bench press exercise is generally prescribed as the load to be lifted for a specific number of repetitions; however, other factors (e.g., execution velocity) can affect bench press exercise intensity. Moreover, no study assessed whether load distribution (i.e., the distance between the disc stacks on the two sides of the barbell) affects exercise intensity. The present study aims to assess how different combinations of load, velocity, and barbell load distribution affect the number of repetitions to failure (REPfailure), and rating of perceived exertion (RPEfatigue) and number of repetitions (REPfatigue) at fatigue onset. Methods Ten males (age 23.3±1.8 years) performed bench press exercises to exhaustion using random combinations of three loads (50%, 65%, and 80% of 1 repetition maximum), three execution velocities (50%, 70%, and 90% of maximal concentric velocity), and two load distributions (narrow and wide). Three separate three-way repeated-measures ANOVAs were performed to assess the effect of load, velocity, and load distribution on REPfailure, RPEfatigue, and REPfatigue expressed as a percentage of REPfailure. Results REPfailure was affected by load (p<0.001), velocity (p<0.001), and distribution (p = 0.005). The interactions between load and velocity (p<0.001) and load and distribution (p = 0.004) showed a significant effect on REPfailure, whereas the interaction between velocity and distribution was not significant (p = 0.360). Overall, more REPfailure were performed using lower loads, higher velocities, and a wider distribution. RPEfatigue and REPfatigue were affected by load (p<0.001 and p = 0.007, respectively) and velocity (p<0.001 and p<0.001, respectively), and not by distribution (p = 0.510 and p = 0.571, respectively) or the two-way interaction effects. Overall, using higher loads yielded higher RPEfatigue but lower REPfatigue, while RPEfatigue and REPfatigue were higher when slower velocities were used. Conclusion The current investigation shows that not only load but also velocity and barbell load distribution may influence bench press training volume and perceived exertion.

show abstract

Body Mass and Femur Length Are Inversely Related to Repetitions Performed in the Back Squat in Well-Trained Lifters

Cited by 23 publications

References 7 publications

The Effect of Load and Volume Autoregulation on Muscular Strength and Hypertrophy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The Effect of Load and Volume Autoregulation on Muscular Strength and Hypertrophy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Agreement Between Kinovea Video Analysis and the Open Barbell System for Resistance Training Movement Outcomes

Barbell load distribution and lifting velocity affect bench press exercise volume and perceived exertion

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About