Title

The contribution of volume, technique, and load to single-repetition and total-repetition kinematics and kinetics in response to three loading schemes

Document Type

Journal Article

Publisher

National Strength and Conditioning Association

Place of Publication

Colorado Springs USA

Faculty

Computing, Health and Science

School

Exercise, Biomedical and Health Science

RAS ID

5981

Comments

This article was originally published as

Crewther, Blair T (11.2008). "The contribution of volume, technique, and load to single-repetition and total-repetition kinematics and kinetics in response to three loading schemes.". Journal of strength and conditioning research (1064-8011), 22 (6), p. 1908.

Original article available here

Abstract

The contribution of volume, technique, and load to single-repetition and total-repetition kinematics and kinetics in response to three loading schemes. J Strength Cond Res 22(6): 1908-1915, 2008-This study examined the effect of volume, technique, and load upon single-repetition and total-repetition kinematics and kinetics during three loading schemes. Eleven recreationally trained males each performed a power (8 sets of 6 repetitions at 45% of one-repetition maximum [1RM], 3-minute rest periods, explosive and ballistic movements), hypertrophy (10 sets of 10 repetitions at 75% 1RM, 2-minute rest periods, controlled movements), and maximal strength (6 sets of 4 repetitions at 88% 1RM, 4-minute rest periods, explosive intent) scheme involving squats. Examination of repetition data showed that load intensity (% 1RM) generally had a direct effect on forces, contraction times, impulses, and work (i.e., increasing with load), whereas power varied across loads (p < 0.001). However, total-repetition forces, contraction times, impulses, work, and power were all greater in the hypertrophy scheme (p < 0.001), because of the greater number of repetitions performed (volume) as well as lifting technique. No differences in total forces were found between the equal-volume power and maximal strength schemes, but the former did produce greater total contraction times, work, and power (p < 0.001), which may also be attributed to repetition and technique differences. Total impulses were the only variable greater in the maximal strength scheme (p < 0.001). Thus, the interaction of load, volume, and technique plays an important role in determining the mechanical responses (stimuli) afforded by these workouts. These findings may explain disparities cited within research, regarding the effectiveness of different loading strategies for hypertrophy, maximal strength, and power adaptation.

 

Link to publisher version (DOI)

10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181839f61