Human Muscle Power Output During Upper- and Lower-Body Exercises

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the use of traditional resistance training equipment in the measurement of muscular power. This was accomplished by measuring the velocity of movement through a measured distance during maximal effort lifts using a Smith rack. The reliability of the method was established using 10 male volunteers who performed both bench press and squat exercises in a Smith rack. Maximal power output was determined at 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, and 90% of the subject's 1 repetition maximum (1RM). Test-retest power values were not statistically different. Another 15 male volunteers who had previous muscle biopsy data from the vastus lateralis muscle performed the same maximal power output evaluation. There were no significant relationships between peak power outputs and fiber-type expressions when linear regressions were performed. The power curve produced by graphing power output vs. the percentage of 1RM indicates that peak power output occurs between 50 and 70% of 1RM for the squat and between 40 and 60% of 1RM for the bench press. These data indicate that this method of evaluation of muscle power is reliable, although it is not predictive of muscle fiber-type percentages.

A Comparison of Ballistic and Nonballistic Lower-Body Resistance Exercise and the Methods Used to Identify Their Positive Lifting Phases

“…Firstly, only one load was considered, and while this load represented a compromise between the loads that typically maximize both B (30% 1RM; Harris et al, 2007) and NB (60% 1RM; Izquierdo et al, 2002;Siegel et al, 2002) power, it is possible that any reported differences (or lack thereof) may differ for lighter or heavier loads. Secondly, to control exercise range of motion participants were instructed to squat until they lightly touched the safety support of the squat rack supports before positive lifting phase was performed.…”

“…This load was selected because it represented a compromise between the typical back squat (Izquierdo et al, 2002;Siegel et al, 2002) and jump squat (Harris et al, 2007) optimal loads. The exercise order was counter-balanced with half of the participants performing the back squat first and the other half performing the jump squat exercise first.…”

Measurement of Resistance Exercise Force Expression

“…Production of muscle force is a function of neural activation, muscle cross-sectional area, and contractile protein interactions (Häkkinen, Komi, & Alén, 1985;Siegel, Filders, Staron, & Hagerman, 2002). The application of force results in changes in velocity, and consequently in motion of the limbs.…”

“…Force and force related parameters have been measured using isometric (Häkkinen et al, 1985;Viitasalo, Saukkonen, & Komi, 1980), isokinetic (Weiss, Relyea, Ashley, & Propst, 1996), and dynamic constant external resistance modalities (Bosco, Belli, & Astrua, 1995;McBride, Triplett-McBride, Davie, & Newton, 1999;Rahmani, Dalleau, Viale, Hautier, & Lacour, 2000;Siegel et al, 2002). The latter systems have attempted to calculate force data by measuring displacement using a linear position transducer (LPT) or similar type of device (Harman, 1995).…”

Biceps Brachii Muscle Fatigue During Isometric Contraction: Is Antagonist Muscle Fatigue a Key Factor?

“…Three days after the 1RM test [3,27], each subject executed the experimental protocol which had been previously randomly assigned to him (4 subjects at the agonist protocol group, 4 subjects at the antagonist protocol group). In the agonist protocol the subjects were asked to perform isometric contractions of the biceps brachii muscles, while in the antagonist protocol (super set method) the biceps brachii contractions were preceded by contractions of the antagonist muscle (triceps brachii).…”