Cargando…

Assessment of Back-Squat Performance at Submaximal Loads: Is the Reliability Affected by the Variable, Exercise Technique, or Repetition Criterion?

This study aimed to compare the between-session reliability of different performance variables during 2 variants of the Smith machine back-squat exercise. Twenty-six male wrestlers performed 5 testing sessions (a 1-repetition maximum [1RM] session, and 4 experimental sessions [2 with the pause and 2...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pérez-Castilla, Alejandro, Janicijevic, Danica, Akyildiz, Zeki, Senturk, Deniz, García-Ramos, Amador
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8123869/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33925379
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18094626
_version_ 1783693037974585344
author Pérez-Castilla, Alejandro
Janicijevic, Danica
Akyildiz, Zeki
Senturk, Deniz
García-Ramos, Amador
author_facet Pérez-Castilla, Alejandro
Janicijevic, Danica
Akyildiz, Zeki
Senturk, Deniz
García-Ramos, Amador
author_sort Pérez-Castilla, Alejandro
collection PubMed
description This study aimed to compare the between-session reliability of different performance variables during 2 variants of the Smith machine back-squat exercise. Twenty-six male wrestlers performed 5 testing sessions (a 1-repetition maximum [1RM] session, and 4 experimental sessions [2 with the pause and 2 with the rebound technique]). Each experimental session consisted of performing 3 repetitions against 5 loads (45–55–65–75–85% of the 1RM). Mean velocity (MV), mean power (MP), peak velocity (PV), and peak power (PP) variables were recorded by a linear position transducer (GymAware PowerTool). The best and average scores of the 3 repetitions were considered for statistical analyses. The coefficient of variation (CV) ranged from 3.89% (best PV score at 55% 1 RM using the pause technique) to 10.29% (average PP score at 85% 1 RM using the rebound technique). PP showed a lower reliability than MV, MP, and PV (CV(ratio) ≥ 1.26). The reliability was comparable between the exercise techniques (CV(ratio) = 1.08) and between the best and average scores (CV(ratio) = 1.04). These results discourage the use of PP to assess back-squat performance at submaximal loads. The remaining variables (MV, MP, or PV), exercise techniques (pause or rebound), and repetition criteria (best score or average score) can be indistinctly used due to their acceptable and comparable reliability.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8123869
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-81238692021-05-16 Assessment of Back-Squat Performance at Submaximal Loads: Is the Reliability Affected by the Variable, Exercise Technique, or Repetition Criterion? Pérez-Castilla, Alejandro Janicijevic, Danica Akyildiz, Zeki Senturk, Deniz García-Ramos, Amador Int J Environ Res Public Health Article This study aimed to compare the between-session reliability of different performance variables during 2 variants of the Smith machine back-squat exercise. Twenty-six male wrestlers performed 5 testing sessions (a 1-repetition maximum [1RM] session, and 4 experimental sessions [2 with the pause and 2 with the rebound technique]). Each experimental session consisted of performing 3 repetitions against 5 loads (45–55–65–75–85% of the 1RM). Mean velocity (MV), mean power (MP), peak velocity (PV), and peak power (PP) variables were recorded by a linear position transducer (GymAware PowerTool). The best and average scores of the 3 repetitions were considered for statistical analyses. The coefficient of variation (CV) ranged from 3.89% (best PV score at 55% 1 RM using the pause technique) to 10.29% (average PP score at 85% 1 RM using the rebound technique). PP showed a lower reliability than MV, MP, and PV (CV(ratio) ≥ 1.26). The reliability was comparable between the exercise techniques (CV(ratio) = 1.08) and between the best and average scores (CV(ratio) = 1.04). These results discourage the use of PP to assess back-squat performance at submaximal loads. The remaining variables (MV, MP, or PV), exercise techniques (pause or rebound), and repetition criteria (best score or average score) can be indistinctly used due to their acceptable and comparable reliability. MDPI 2021-04-27 /pmc/articles/PMC8123869/ /pubmed/33925379 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18094626 Text en © 2021 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/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 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Pérez-Castilla, Alejandro
Janicijevic, Danica
Akyildiz, Zeki
Senturk, Deniz
García-Ramos, Amador
Assessment of Back-Squat Performance at Submaximal Loads: Is the Reliability Affected by the Variable, Exercise Technique, or Repetition Criterion?
title Assessment of Back-Squat Performance at Submaximal Loads: Is the Reliability Affected by the Variable, Exercise Technique, or Repetition Criterion?
title_full Assessment of Back-Squat Performance at Submaximal Loads: Is the Reliability Affected by the Variable, Exercise Technique, or Repetition Criterion?
title_fullStr Assessment of Back-Squat Performance at Submaximal Loads: Is the Reliability Affected by the Variable, Exercise Technique, or Repetition Criterion?
title_full_unstemmed Assessment of Back-Squat Performance at Submaximal Loads: Is the Reliability Affected by the Variable, Exercise Technique, or Repetition Criterion?
title_short Assessment of Back-Squat Performance at Submaximal Loads: Is the Reliability Affected by the Variable, Exercise Technique, or Repetition Criterion?
title_sort assessment of back-squat performance at submaximal loads: is the reliability affected by the variable, exercise technique, or repetition criterion?
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8123869/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33925379
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18094626
work_keys_str_mv AT perezcastillaalejandro assessmentofbacksquatperformanceatsubmaximalloadsisthereliabilityaffectedbythevariableexercisetechniqueorrepetitioncriterion
AT janicijevicdanica assessmentofbacksquatperformanceatsubmaximalloadsisthereliabilityaffectedbythevariableexercisetechniqueorrepetitioncriterion
AT akyildizzeki assessmentofbacksquatperformanceatsubmaximalloadsisthereliabilityaffectedbythevariableexercisetechniqueorrepetitioncriterion
AT senturkdeniz assessmentofbacksquatperformanceatsubmaximalloadsisthereliabilityaffectedbythevariableexercisetechniqueorrepetitioncriterion
AT garciaramosamador assessmentofbacksquatperformanceatsubmaximalloadsisthereliabilityaffectedbythevariableexercisetechniqueorrepetitioncriterion