Cargando…

Force-Time Differences between Ballistic and Non-Ballistic Half-Squats

The purpose of this study was to examine the force-time differences between concentric-only half-squats (COHS) performed with ballistic (BAL) or non-ballistic (NBAL) intent across a range of loads. Eighteen resistance-trained men performed either BAL or NBAL COHS at 30%, 50%, 70%, and 90% of their o...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Suchomel, Timothy J., Taber, Christopher B., Sole, Christopher J., Stone, Michael H.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6162472/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30103536
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/sports6030079
_version_ 1783359154369331200
author Suchomel, Timothy J.
Taber, Christopher B.
Sole, Christopher J.
Stone, Michael H.
author_facet Suchomel, Timothy J.
Taber, Christopher B.
Sole, Christopher J.
Stone, Michael H.
author_sort Suchomel, Timothy J.
collection PubMed
description The purpose of this study was to examine the force-time differences between concentric-only half-squats (COHS) performed with ballistic (BAL) or non-ballistic (NBAL) intent across a range of loads. Eighteen resistance-trained men performed either BAL or NBAL COHS at 30%, 50%, 70%, and 90% of their one repetition maximum (1RM) COHS. Relative peak force (PF) and relative impulse from 0–50 ms (Imp50), 0–90 ms (Imp90), 0–200 ms (Imp200), and 0–250 ms (Imp250) were compared using a series of 2 × 4 (intent × load) repeated measures ANOVAs with Bonferroni post hoc tests. Cohen’s d effect sizes were calculated to provide measures of practical significance between the BAL and NBAL COHS and each load. BAL COHS produced statistically greater PF than NBAL COHS at 30% (d = 3.37), 50% (d = 2.88), 70% (d = 2.29), and 90% 1RM (d = 1.19) (all p < 0.001). Statistically significant main effect differences were found between load-averaged BAL and NBAL COHS for Imp90 (p = 0.006, d = 0.25), Imp200 (p = 0.001, d = 0.36), and Imp250 (p < 0.001, d = 0.41), but not for Imp50 (p = 0.018, d = 0.21). Considering the greater PF and impulse observed during the BAL condition, performing COHS with BAL intent may provide a favorable training stimulus compared to COHS performed with NBAL intent.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6162472
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-61624722018-10-09 Force-Time Differences between Ballistic and Non-Ballistic Half-Squats Suchomel, Timothy J. Taber, Christopher B. Sole, Christopher J. Stone, Michael H. Sports (Basel) Article The purpose of this study was to examine the force-time differences between concentric-only half-squats (COHS) performed with ballistic (BAL) or non-ballistic (NBAL) intent across a range of loads. Eighteen resistance-trained men performed either BAL or NBAL COHS at 30%, 50%, 70%, and 90% of their one repetition maximum (1RM) COHS. Relative peak force (PF) and relative impulse from 0–50 ms (Imp50), 0–90 ms (Imp90), 0–200 ms (Imp200), and 0–250 ms (Imp250) were compared using a series of 2 × 4 (intent × load) repeated measures ANOVAs with Bonferroni post hoc tests. Cohen’s d effect sizes were calculated to provide measures of practical significance between the BAL and NBAL COHS and each load. BAL COHS produced statistically greater PF than NBAL COHS at 30% (d = 3.37), 50% (d = 2.88), 70% (d = 2.29), and 90% 1RM (d = 1.19) (all p < 0.001). Statistically significant main effect differences were found between load-averaged BAL and NBAL COHS for Imp90 (p = 0.006, d = 0.25), Imp200 (p = 0.001, d = 0.36), and Imp250 (p < 0.001, d = 0.41), but not for Imp50 (p = 0.018, d = 0.21). Considering the greater PF and impulse observed during the BAL condition, performing COHS with BAL intent may provide a favorable training stimulus compared to COHS performed with NBAL intent. MDPI 2018-08-12 /pmc/articles/PMC6162472/ /pubmed/30103536 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/sports6030079 Text en © 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Suchomel, Timothy J.
Taber, Christopher B.
Sole, Christopher J.
Stone, Michael H.
Force-Time Differences between Ballistic and Non-Ballistic Half-Squats
title Force-Time Differences between Ballistic and Non-Ballistic Half-Squats
title_full Force-Time Differences between Ballistic and Non-Ballistic Half-Squats
title_fullStr Force-Time Differences between Ballistic and Non-Ballistic Half-Squats
title_full_unstemmed Force-Time Differences between Ballistic and Non-Ballistic Half-Squats
title_short Force-Time Differences between Ballistic and Non-Ballistic Half-Squats
title_sort force-time differences between ballistic and non-ballistic half-squats
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6162472/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30103536
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/sports6030079
work_keys_str_mv AT suchomeltimothyj forcetimedifferencesbetweenballisticandnonballistichalfsquats
AT taberchristopherb forcetimedifferencesbetweenballisticandnonballistichalfsquats
AT solechristopherj forcetimedifferencesbetweenballisticandnonballistichalfsquats
AT stonemichaelh forcetimedifferencesbetweenballisticandnonballistichalfsquats