Exercise and Nutrition Science Graduate Program, Lipscomb University, Nashville, Tennessee.
J Strength Cond Res. 2021 Feb 1;35(Suppl 1):S1-S5. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000003541.
Vantrease, WC, Townsend, JR, Sapp, PA, Henry, RN, and Johnson, KD. Maximal strength, muscle activation, and bar velocity comparisons between squatting with a traditional or safety squat bar. J Strength Cond Res 35(2S): S1-S5, 2021-The purpose of this study was to compare strength, muscle activation, and bar velocity between the traditional (TRAD) and safety squat bar (SSB) back squat. Thirty-two men (21.94 ± 3.1 years, 1.78 ± 0.8 m, 81.7 ± 10.1 kg) volunteered to complete this randomized, crossover-design study. Subjects completed 2 separate 1 repetition maximum (1RM) sessions using either the TRAD or SSB. Subsequently, subjects completed 1 session of 3 repetitions at 65 and 85% of their 1RM for each squat condition (SSB & TRAD). Peak muscle activation of 7 muscles from the lower body and trunk was recorded through surface electromyography (EMG), and mean velocity (MV) was recorded by a linear transducer. Electromyography and MV were analyzed by a 2 × 2 (bar × load) repeated-measures analysis of variance. A Pearson correlation was used to determine the relationship of 1RM load between bars. Squat 1RM was significantly higher (p < 0.001; 11.6%) for TRAD (144.7 kg) compared with SSB (128.8 kg), and a strong correlation (r = 0.94) was observed between 1RM values of each bar. A significant main effect was seen in EMG (p < 0.001) and MV for load (p < 0.001). No significant bar × load interaction was observed between conditions for any EMG or bar velocity measure (p > 0.05). The SSB produces similar muscle activation and bar velocities compared with the TRAD at relative intensities. However, absolute loads should be adjusted when changing squat bars during a training cycle.
万特雷塞,WC,汤森,JR,萨普,PA,亨利,RN,约翰逊,KD。传统深蹲架和安全深蹲架深蹲时最大力量、肌肉激活和杠速的比较。J 力量与调节研究 35(增刊 2S):S1-S5,2021-本研究的目的是比较传统深蹲架(TRAD)和安全深蹲架(SSB)深蹲时的力量、肌肉激活和杠速。32 名男性(21.94±3.1 岁,1.78±0.8 m,81.7±10.1 kg)自愿完成这项随机交叉设计研究。受试者分别使用 TRAD 或 SSB 完成 2 次 1 次重复最大重量(1RM)测试。随后,受试者在每种深蹲条件下(SSB 和 TRAD)完成 3 次 65%和 85%1RM 的 1 次重复测试。通过表面肌电图(EMG)记录下下肢和躯干 7 块肌肉的最大肌肉激活,通过线性传感器记录平均速度(MV)。通过 2×2(杠×负荷)重复测量方差分析来分析 EMG 和 MV。使用皮尔逊相关来确定两条杠之间 1RM 负荷的关系。TRAD(144.7 kg)的深蹲 1RM 明显高于 SSB(128.8 kg)(p<0.001;11.6%),两条杠之间的 1RM 值存在很强的相关性(r=0.94)。EMG(p<0.001)和 MV 对负荷(p<0.001)都有显著的主效应。在任何 EMG 或杠速度测量中,条件之间没有观察到杠×负荷的交互作用(p>0.05)。在相对强度下,SSB 产生的肌肉激活和杠速度与 TRAD 相似。然而,在训练周期中更换深蹲架时,应调整绝对负荷。