O slideshow foi denunciado.
Utilizamos seu perfil e dados de atividades no LinkedIn para personalizar e exibir anúncios mais relevantes. Altere suas preferências de anúncios quando desejar.

Effects of Different Set Structures on RPE, Velocity, and Power Decrement during a Back Squat Exercise

1.560 visualizações

Publicada em

This is the slidedeck from research conducted by Ivan Jukic, James Tufano and myself. We looked at the effect of rep redistribution on bar speed, power output and RPE.

Publicada em: Esportes
  • Seja o primeiro a comentar

Effects of Different Set Structures on RPE, Velocity, and Power Decrement during a Back Squat Exercise

  1. 1. Effects of different set structures on RPE, velocity and power decrement during a back squat exercise Ivan Jukić, Mike Young & James J. Tufano
  2. 2. Introduction Total Rest: 120 seconds Total Repetitions: 24 Total Rest: 240 seconds Total Repetitions: 24 Total Rest: 120 seconds Total Repetitions: 24 Tufano, Brown & Haff (2017).
  3. 3. • Traditional Sets: no intra-set rest ↓ ↓ ↓ ATP and PCr ↑ ↑ ↑ Glycolysis and Lactate • Cluster Sets: added intra-set rest ↓ ATP and PCr ↑ Glycolysis and Lactate ↑ Fatigue ↓ Velocity ↔ Velocity ↑ Total Training Time
  4. 4. Methods and Subjects (N = 26) Sport Background Age Body Mass 1RM : BM Amateur WL and TnF athletes 28 ± 5.44 y 84.6 ± 10.5 kg 1.82 ± 0.33 1RM RR TSHFRR 7 days of rest 5-7 days of rest o PUSH - Wearable Inertial Sensor (PUSH Inc., Toronto, Canada) o The PUSH band’s sampling rate was 200 Hz o Eccentric velocity “under control” o Concentric velocity “as fast as possible” o Squat depth – self-selected after 90° o Data were collected, exported and analysed with the PUSH portal Internet Cloud and SPSS
  5. 5. Total Rest: 540 seconds Total Repetitions: 30 Set Duration: M = 6 sec Load: 70% 1RM Total Rest: 480 seconds Total Repetitions: 30 Set Duration: M = 24 sec Load: 70% 1RM Total Rest: 480 seconds Total Repetitions: 30 Set Duration: M = 40 sec Load: 70% 1RM
  6. 6. Mean Velocity (across 30 repetitions) 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0 10 20 30 Mean Velocity TS 17.10% 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0 6 12 18 24 30 Mean Velocity RR 14.10% 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0 6 12 18 24 30 Mean Velocity HFRR 0.99% MVD % ANOVA Cohen’s d HFRR vs RR F = 4.91, p < .05 0.61 HFRR vs TS F = 7.5, p < .05 0.81 RR vs TS F = 0.19, p > .05 0.12 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 MeanVelocity(m/s) HFRR RR TS
  7. 7. 0 2 4 6 8 10 HFRR RR TS Rating of perceived exertion (RPE) * ** Significantly less than TS* (p < .05), RR** and TS** (p < .001)
  8. 8. -60.00 -40.00 -20.00 0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 Velocitydecrement(%) Participants (1-26) Velocity decrement for HFRR, RR and TS set structure HFRR RR TS 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% 160% VelocityMaintenance(%) Participants (1-26) Velocity maintenance for HFRR, RR and TS set structure RRHFRR TS
  9. 9. Summary HFRR set structure has the potential to: - Prevent velocity (power) decrement during high volume resistance training ✔ - Allow increases in training volume while keeping the ”quality” of the repetitions high ✔ - Increase the resistance training safetyness due to lower perceptual responses by athletes ✔ - Bring all of the above while not extending the total time allocated for training ✔

×