Center of Excellence for Sport Science and Coach Education, Department of Sport, Exercise, Recreation, and Kinesiology, East Tennessee State University, Johnson City, Tennessee.
Department of Exercise Science and Health Education, LaGrange College, LaGrange, Georgia.
J Strength Cond Res. 2021 Feb 1;35(2):420-427. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002677.
Wagle, JP, Cunanan, AJ, Carroll, KM, Sams, ML, Wetmore, A, Bingham, GE, Taber, CB, DeWeese, BH, Sato, K, Stuart, CA, and Stone, MH. Accentuated eccentric loading and cluster set configurations in the back squat: a kinetic and kinematic analysis. J Strength Cond Res 35(2): 420-427, 2021-This study examined the kinetic and kinematic differences between accentuated eccentric loading (AEL) and cluster sets in trained male subjects (age = 26.1 ± 4.1 years, height = 183.5 ± 4.3 cm, body mass = 92.5 ± 10.5 kg, and back squat to body mass ratio = 1.8 ± 0.3). Four load condition sessions consisted of traditionally loaded (TL) "straight sets," TL cluster (TLC) sets, AEL cluster (AEC) sets, and AEL "straight sets" where only the first repetition had eccentric overload (AEL1). An interrepetition rest interval of 30 seconds was prescribed for both TLC and AEC. Concentric intensity for all load conditions was 80% 1 repetition maximum (1RM). Accentuated eccentric loading was applied to repetitions using weight releasers with total eccentric load equivalent to 105% of concentric 1RM. Traditionally loaded cluster had statistically greater concentric outputs than TL. Furthermore, statistically greater eccentric and concentric outputs were observed during AEC compared with TL with the exception of peak power. Statistically greater concentric characteristics were observed in TLC compared with AEL1, but statistically greater eccentric outputs were observed in AEL1. In the 2 cluster set conditions, statistically greater concentric rate of force development (RFDCON) (d = 0.470, p < 0.001) and average velocity (vavg) (d = 0.560, p < 0.001) in TLC compared with AEC were observed. However, statistically greater eccentric work (WECC) (d = 2.096, p < 0.001) and eccentric RFD (RFDECC) (d = 0.424, p < 0.001) were observed in AEC compared with TLC. Overall, eccentric overload demonstrated efficacy as a means of increasing eccentric work and RFD, but not as a means of potentiating concentric output. Finally, interrepetition rest seems to have the largest influence on concentric power output and RFD.
Wagle、JP、Cunanan、AJ、Carroll、KM、Sams、ML、Wetmore、A、Bingham、GE、Taber、CB、DeWeese、BH、Sato、K、Stuart、CA 和 Stone，MH。在深蹲中增强偏心加载和组间休息的配置：一项动力学和运动学分析。J 力量与调节研究 35（2）：420-427，2021 年-本研究考察了在训练有素的男性受试者中，增强偏心加载（AEL）和组间休息与传统加载（TL）“直组”、TL 组间休息（TLC）组、AEL 组间休息（AEC）和仅第一个重复具有偏心过载的 AEL“直组”（AEL1）之间的动力学和运动学差异。四个负荷条件包括传统加载（TL）“直组”、TL 组间休息（TLC）组、AEL 组间休息（AEC）组和 AEL“直组”，其中只有第一个重复具有偏心过载（AEL1）。TL 和 AEC 规定的组间休息时间为 30 秒。所有负荷条件的向心强度均为 80%的 1 次重复最大重量（1RM）。使用重量释放器对重复进行偏心过载，偏心总负荷相当于向心 1RM 的 105%。与 TL 相比，AEC 时的向心和偏心输出明显更大。与 TL 相比，AEC 时的向心输出明显更大，除了峰值功率外，AEC 时的向心和偏心输出明显更大。与 AEL1 相比，TLC 时的向心特征明显更大，但 AEL1 时的偏心输出明显更大。在 2 组间休息条件下，与 AEC 相比，TLC 时的向心力量发展率（RFDCON）（d = 0.470，p < 0.001）和平均速度（vavg）（d = 0.560，p < 0.001）明显更大。然而，与 TLC 相比，AEC 时的偏心工作（WECC）（d = 2.096，p < 0.001）和偏心 RFD（RFDECC）（d = 0.424，p < 0.001）明显更大。总的来说，偏心过载被证明是一种增加偏心工作和 RFD 的有效方法，但不是一种增强向心输出的方法。最后，组间休息似乎对向心功率输出和 RFD 的影响最大。
