Cluster Set Loading in The Back Squat: Kinetic and Kinematic Implications

The purpose of this study was to investigate the kinetic and kinematic implications of cluster loading as a resistance training programming tactic. Cluster loading involves introducing rest during a set which may allow athletes to train at higher absolute intensities. Eleven trained males were recruited for this study. Subjects completed two testing sessions consisting of three sets of five back squats at 80% of their one repetition maximum. Cluster loading included 30s of inter-repetition rest. All testing was done on dualforce plates with four linear position transducers. Paired sample t-tests were used to determine differences between conditions with Cohen’s d effect sizes describing the magnitude of change between conditions. Both conditions had similar values for peak force and average force. Cluster loading had significantly higher power and velocity outputs, shorter times to peak power and velocity as well as greater maintenance of time to peak power. These results suggest cluster loading may be superior to traditional loading when maintaining power output and timepoint variables is the desired outcome of training

Lean Body Mass and Muscle Cross-Sectional Area Adaptations Among College Age Males with Different Strength Levels across 11 Weeks of Block Periodized Programmed Resistance Training

The block periodization training paradigm has been shown to produce enhanced gains in strength and power. The purpose of this study is to assess resistance training induced alterations in lean body mass and cross-sectional area using a block periodization training model among individuals (n = 15) of three differing strength levels (high, moderate and low) based on one repetition maximum back squat relative to body weight. A 3 × 5 mixed-design ANOVA was used to examine within-and between-subject changes in cross-sectional area (CSA), lean body mass (LBM), lean body mass adjusted (LBMadjusted) and total body water (TBW) over an 11-week resistance training program. LBMadjusted is total body water subtracted from lean body mass. The ANOVA revealed no statistically significant between-group differences in any independent variable (p > 0.05). Within-group effects showed statistically significant increases in cross-sectional area (p < 0.001), lean body mass (p < 0.001), lean body mass adjusted (p ˂ 0.001) and total body water (p < 0.001) from baseline to post intervention: CSA: 32.7 cm2 ± 8.6; 36.3 cm2 ± 7.2, LBM: 68.0 kg ± 9.5; 70.6 kg ± 9.4, LBMadjusted: 20.4 kg ± 3.1; 21.0 kg ± 3.3 and TBW: 49.8 kg ± 6.9; 51.7 kg ± 6.9. In conclusion, the results of this study suggest subjects experienced an increase in both lean body mass and total body water, regardless of strength level, over the course of the 11-week block periodized program. Gains in lean body mass and cross-sectional area may be due to edema at the early onset of training

The Effect of Training Status on Adaptations to 11 Weeks of Block Periodization Training

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.Some controversy exists as to the most efficacious method of training to achieve enhanced levels of sport performance. Controversy concerning the efficacy of periodization and especially block periodization (BP) likely stems from the use of poorly or untrained subjects versus trained who may differ in their responses to a stimulus. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of training status on performance outcomes resulting from 11 weeks of BP training. Fifteen males were recruited for this study and placed into strong (age = 24.3 ± 1.9 years., body mass (BM) = 87.7 ± 8.7 kg, squat: body mass = 1.96 ± 0.16), moderate (age = 25.3 ± 2.7 years., body mass = 100.2 ± 15.5 kg, squat: body mass = 1.46 ± 0.14), or weak (age = 23.2 ± 3.9 yrs., body mass = 83.5 ± 17.1 kg, squat: body mass = 1.17 ± 0.07) groups based on relative strength. Testing was completed at baseline, and after each block which consisted of 1 repetition maximum (1RM) squat, 0 kg static jump (SJ), 0 kg countermovement jump (CMJ), 20 kg SJ, and 20 kg CMJ. Absolute and relative strength were strongly correlated with rates of improvement for absolute strength, relative strength, 0 kg, and 20 kg vertical jumps. All subjects substantially improved back squat (p < 0.001), relative back squat (p < 0.001) with large–very large effect sizes between groups for percent change favoring the weak group over the moderate and strong group for all performance variables. All subjects showed statistically significant improvements in 0 kg SJ (p < 0.001), 0 kg CMJ (p < 0.001), 20 kg SJ (p = 0.002), and 20 kg CMJ (p < 0.001). Statistically significant between group differences were noted for both 20 kg SJ (p = 0.01) and 20 kg CMJ (p = 0.043) with the strong group statistically greater jump heights than the weak group. The results of this study indicate BP training is effective in improving strength and explosive ability. Additionally, training status may substantially alter the response to a resistance training program

Cluster Set Loading in the Back Squat: Kinetic and Kinematic Implications

Cluster set loading in the back squat: Kinetic and kinematic implications. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000–000, 2018—As athletes become well trained, they require greater stimuli and variation to force adaptation. One means of adding additional variation is the use of cluster loading. Cluster loading involves introducing interrepetition rest during a set, which in theory may allow athletes to train at higher absolute intensities for the same volume. The purpose of this study was to investigate the kinetic and kinematic implications of cluster loading as a resistance training programming tactic compared with traditional loading (TL). Eleven resistance-trained men (age = 26.75 ± 3.98 years, height = 181.36 ± 5.96 cm, body mass = 89.83 ± 10.66 kg, and relative squat strength = 1.84 ± 0.34) were recruited for this study. Each subject completed 2 testing sessions consisting of 3 sets of 5 back squats at 80% of their 1 repetition maximum with 3 minutes of interset rest. Cluster loading included 30 seconds of interrepetition rest with 3 minutes of interset rest. All testing was performed on dual-force plates sampling at 1,000 Hz, and the barbell was connected to 4 linear position transducers sampling at 1,000 Hz. Both conditions had similar values for peak force, concentric average force, and eccentric average force (p = 0.25, effect size (ES) = 0.09, p = 0.25, ES = 0.09, and p = 0.60, ES = 0.04, respectively). Cluster loading had significantly higher peak power (PP) (p \u3c 0.001, ES = 0.77), peak and average velocities (p \u3c 0.001, ES = 0.77, and p \u3c 0.001, ES = 0.81, respectively), lower times to PP and velocity (p \u3c 0.001, ES = −0.68, and p \u3c 0.001, ES = −0.68, respectively) as well as greater maintenance of time to PP (p \u3c 0.001, ES = 1.57). These results suggest that cluster loading may be superior to TL when maintaining power output and time point variables is the desired outcome of training

Lean Body Mass and Muscle Cross-Sectional Area Adaptations Among College Age Males With Different Strength Levels Across 11 Weeks of Block Periodized Programmed Resistance Training

The block periodization training paradigm has been shown to produce enhanced gains in strength and power. The purpose of this study is to assess resistance training induced alterations in lean body mass and cross-sectional area using a block periodization training model among individuals (n = 15) of three differing strength levels (high, moderate and low) based on one repetition maximum back squat relative to body weight. A 3 × 5 mixed-design ANOVA was used to examine within-and between-subject changes in cross-sectional area (CSA), lean body mass (LBM), lean body mass adjusted (LBMadjusted) and total body water (TBW) over an 11-week resistance training program. LBMadjusted is total body water subtracted from lean body mass. The ANOVA revealed no statistically significant between-group differences in any independent variable (p \u3e 0.05). Within-group effects showed statistically significant increases in cross-sectional area (p \u3c 0.001), lean body mass (p \u3c 0.001), lean body mass adjusted (p \u3c 0.001) and total body water (p \u3c 0.001) from baseline to post intervention: CSA: 32.7 cm2 ± 8.6; 36.3 cm2 ± 7.2, LBM: 68.0 kg ± 9.5; 70.6 kg ± 9.4, LBMadjusted: 20.4 kg ± 3.1; 21.0 kg ± 3.3 and TBW: 49.8 kg ± 6.9; 51.7 kg ± 6.9. In conclusion, the results of this study suggest subjects experienced an increase in both lean body mass and total body water, regardless of strength level, over the course of the 11-week block periodized program. Gains in lean body mass and cross-sectional area may be due to edema at the early onset of training

Comparison of the Relationship between Lying and Standing Ultrasonography Measures of Muscle Morphology with Isometric and Dynamic Force Production Capabilities

The purpose of the current study was (1) to examine the differences between standing and lying measures of vastus lateralis (VL), muscle thickness (MT), pennation angle (PA), and cross-sectional area (CSA) using ultrasonography; and (2) to explore the relationships between lying and standing measures with isometric and dynamic assessments of force production—specifically peak force, rate of force development (RFD), impulse, and one-repetition maximum back squat. Fourteen resistance-trained subjects (age = 26.8 ± 4.0 years, height = 181.4 ± 6.0 cm, body mass = 89.8 ± 10.7 kg, back squat to body mass ratio = 1.84 ± 0.34) agreed to participate. Lying and standing ultrasonography images of the right VL were collected following 48 hours of rest. Isometric squat assessments followed ultrasonography, and were performed on force platforms with data used to determine isometric peak force (IPF), as well as RFD and impulse at various time points. Forty-eight hours later, one-repetition maximum back squats were performed by each subject. Paired-samples t-tests revealed statistically significant differences between standing and lying measurements of MT (p \u3c 0.001), PA (p \u3c 0.001), and CSA (p ≤ 0.05), with standing values larger in all cases. Further, standing measures were correlated more strongly and abundantly to isometric and dynamic performance. These results suggest that if practitioners intend to gain insight into strength-power potential based on ultrasonography measurements, performing the measurement collection with the athlete in a standing posture may be preferred

Repetition-to-Repetition Differences Using Cluster and Accentuated Eccentric Loading in the Back Squat

The current investigation was an examination of the repetition-to-repetition magnitudes and changes in kinetic and kinematic characteristics of the back squat using accentuated eccentric loading (AEL) and cluster sets. Trained male subjects (age = 26.1 ± 4.1 years, height = 183.5 ± 4.3 cm, body mass = 92.5 ± 10.5 kg, back squat to body mass ratio = 1.8 ± 0.3) completed four load condition sessions, each consisting of three sets of five repetitions of either traditionally loaded straight sets (TL), traditionally loaded cluster sets (TLC), AEL cluster sets (AEC), and AEL straight sets where only the initial repetition had eccentric overload (AEL1). Eccentric overload was applied using weight releasers, creating a total eccentric load equivalent to 105% of concentric one repetition maximum (1RM). Concentric load was 80% 1RM for all load conditions. Using straight sets (TL and AEL1) tended to decrease peak power (PP) (d = −1.90 to −0.76), concentric rate of force development (RFDCON) (d = −1.59 to −0.27), and average velocity (MV) (d = −3.91 to −1.29), with moderate decreases in MV using cluster sets (d = −0.81 to −0.62). Greater magnitude eccentric rate of force development (RFDECC) was observed using AEC at repetition three (R3) and five (R5) compared to all load conditions (d = 0.21⁻0.65). Large within-condition changes in RFDECC from repetition one to repetition three (∆REP1⁻3) were present using AEL1 (d = 1.51), demonstrating that RFDECC remained elevated for at least three repetitions despite overload only present on the initial repetition. Overall, cluster sets appear to permit higher magnitude and improved maintenance of concentric outputs throughout a set. Eccentric overload with the loading protocol used in the current study does not appear to potentiate concentric output regardless of set configuration but may cause greater RFDECC compared to traditional loading

Comparison of the Relationship between Lying and Standing Ultrasonography Measures of Muscle Morphology with Isometric and Dynamic Force Production Capabilities

The purpose of the current study was (1) to examine the differences between standing and lying measures of vastus lateralis (VL), muscle thickness (MT), pennation angle (PA), and cross-sectional area (CSA) using ultrasonography; and (2) to explore the relationships between lying and standing measures with isometric and dynamic assessments of force production—specifically peak force, rate of force development (RFD), impulse, and one-repetition maximum back squat. Fourteen resistance-trained subjects (age = 26.8 ± 4.0 years, height = 181.4 ± 6.0 cm, body mass = 89.8 ± 10.7 kg, back squat to body mass ratio = 1.84 ± 0.34) agreed to participate. Lying and standing ultrasonography images of the right VL were collected following 48 hours of rest. Isometric squat assessments followed ultrasonography, and were performed on force platforms with data used to determine isometric peak force (IPF), as well as RFD and impulse at various time points. Forty-eight hours later, one-repetition maximum back squats were performed by each subject. Paired-samples t-tests revealed statistically significant differences between standing and lying measurements of MT (p \u3c 0.001), PA (p \u3c 0.001), and CSA (p ≤ 0.05), with standing values larger in all cases. Further, standing measures were correlated more strongly and abundantly to isometric and dynamic performance. These results suggest that if practitioners intend to gain insight into strength-power potential based on ultrasonography measurements, performing the measurement collection with the athlete in a standing posture may be preferred

Repetition-to-Repetition Differences Using Cluster and Accentuated Eccentric Loading in the Back Squat

The current investigation was an examination of the repetition-to-repetition magnitudes and changes in kinetic and kinematic characteristics of the back squat using accentuated eccentric loading (AEL) and cluster sets. Trained male subjects (age = 26.1 ± 4.1 years, height = 183.5 ± 4.3 cm, body mass = 92.5 ± 10.5 kg, back squat to body mass ratio = 1.8 ± 0.3) completed four load condition sessions, each consisting of three sets of five repetitions of either traditionally loaded straight sets (TL), traditionally loaded cluster sets (TLC), AEL cluster sets (AEC), and AEL straight sets where only the initial repetition had eccentric overload (AEL1). Eccentric overload was applied using weight releasers, creating a total eccentric load equivalent to 105% of concentric one repetition maximum (1RM). Concentric load was 80% 1RM for all load conditions. Using straight sets (TL and AEL1) tended to decrease peak power (PP) (d = −1.90 to −0.76), concentric rate of force development (RFDCON) (d = −1.59 to −0.27), and average velocity (MV) (d = −3.91 to −1.29), with moderate decreases in MV using cluster sets (d= −0.81 to −0.62). Greater magnitude eccentric rate of force development (RFDECC) was observed using AEC at repetition three (R3) and five (R5) compared to all load conditions (d = 0.21–0.65). Large within-condition changes in RFDECC from repetition one to repetition three (∆REP1–3) were present using AEL1 (d = 1.51), demonstrating that RFDECC remained elevated for at least three repetitions despite overload only present on the initial repetition. Overall, cluster sets appear to permit higher magnitude and improved maintenance of concentric outputs throughout a set. Eccentric overload with the loading protocol used in the current study does not appear to potentiate concentric output regardless of set configuration but may cause greater RFDECCcompared to traditional loadin

Toxicokinetic Triage for Environmental Chemicals

Toxicokinetic (TK) models link administered doses to plasma, blood, and tissue concentrations. High-throughput TK (HTTK) performs in vitro to in vivo extrapolation to predict TK from rapid in vitro measurements and chemical structure-based properties. A significant toxicological application of HTTK has been “reverse dosimetry,” in which bioactive concentrations from in vitro screening studies are converted into in vivo doses (mg/kg BW/day). These doses are predicted to produce steady-state plasma concentrations that are equivalent to in vitro bioactive concentrations. In this study, we evaluate the impact of the approximations and assumptions necessary for reverse dosimetry and develop methods to determine whether HTTK tools are appropriate or may lead to false conclusions for a particular chemical. Based on literature in vivo data for 87 chemicals, we identified specific properties (eg, in vitro HTTK data, physico-chemical descriptors, and predicted transporter affinities) that correlate with poor HTTK predictive ability. For 271 chemicals we developed a generic HT physiologically based TK (HTPBTK) model that predicts non-steady-state chemical concentration time-courses for a variety of exposure scenarios. We used this HTPBTK model to find that assumptions previously used for reverse dosimetry are usually appropriate, except most notably for highly bioaccumulative compounds. For the thousands of man-made chemicals in the environment that currently have no TK data, we propose a 4-element framework for chemical TK triage that can group chemicals into 7 different categories associated with varying levels of confidence in HTTK predictions. For 349 chemicals with literature HTTK data, we differentiated those chemicals for which HTTK approaches are likely to be sufficient, from those that may require additional data