Braking and Propulsion Phase Characteristics of Traditional and Accentuated Eccentric Loaded Back Squats

The purpose of this study was to examine the differences in braking and propulsion force-time characteristics and barbell velocity between traditional (TRAD) and accentuated eccentric loaded (AEL) back squats using various load combinations. Sixteen resistance-trained men participated in four separate testing sessions which included a one repetition maximum (1RM) back squat during the first session and three squat testing sessions. During the squat testing sessions, participants either performed sets of three repetitions of TRAD back squats each with 50, 60, 70, and 80% 1RM or performed the same loads with the addition of weight releasers that increased the total eccentric weight of the first repetition of each set to either 100 (AEL-MAX) or 110% 1RM (AEL-SUPRA). Braking and propulsion mean force, duration, and impulse as well as mean and peak barbell velocity were compared between each condition and load. Significantly greater braking impulses were produced during the AEL-MAX and AEL-SUPRA conditions compared to TRAD (p < 0.03) with small-moderate effect sizes favoring AEL-SUPRA. No other significant differences existed among conditions for other braking, propulsion, or barbell velocity variables. AEL-MAX and AEL-SUPRA back squats may provide a greater braking stimulus compared to TRAD squats; however, the propulsion phase of the movement does not appear to be impacted. From a loading standpoint, larger and smaller load spreads may favor rapid and maximal force production characteristics, respectively. Further research on this topic is needed as a large portion of the braking stimulus experienced during AEL back squats may be influenced by relative strength.

Effects of submaximal and supramaximal accentuated eccentric loading on mass and function

Introduction: Eccentric-overload (EO) resistance training emerges as an alternative to more optimally prescribe intensity relative to the force generation capabilities of the eccentric muscle contraction. Given the difficulties to individually prescribe absolute eccentric loads relative to each person's eccentric ability, setting the load relative to the concentric one-repetition maximum (1-RM) is the most used EO training approach. Therefore, we investigated the effects of submaximal and supramaximal (i.e., eccentric loads above 100% of 1-RM) accentuated eccentric training on changes in lean mass, anabolic hormonal responses and muscle function. Methods: Physically active university students (n = 27) were randomly assigned to two training groups. Participants in the training groups performed dominant leg isotonic training twice a week for 10 weeks (four sets of eight repetitions). Isotonic resistance was generated by an electric-motor device at two different percentages of 1-RM for the eccentric phase; 90% submaximal load, SUB group) and 120% (supramaximal load, SUPRA group). Concentric load was the same for both groups (30% of 1-RM). Changes in total thigh lean mass (TTLM), anabolic hormonal responses (growth hormone, IGF-1, IL-6, and total testosterone), unilateral leg-press 1-RM, maximal voluntary isometric contractions (MVIC), local muscle endurance (XRM), muscle power at 40 (PP40), 60 (PP60) and 80% (PP80) of the 1-RM, and unilateral vertical jump height before and after training were compared between groups. Results: After training, both SUB and SUPRA groups showed similar increases (p < 0.05) in MVIC (19.2% and 19.6%), XRM (53.8% and 23.8%), PP40 (16.2% and 15.7%), TTLM (2.5% and 4.2%), IGF-1 (10.0% and 14.1%) and IL-6 (58.6% and 28.6%). However, increases in 1-RM strength (16.3%) and unilateral vertical jump height (10.0%-13.4%) were observed for SUPRA only. Indeed, SUPRA was shown to be more favorable than SUB training for increasing 1-RM [ES = 0.77 (1.49-0.05)]. Unilateral muscle power at medium and high intensity (10.2% and 10.5%) also increased in SUB but without significant differences between groups. Discussion: Similar functional and structural effects were demonstrated after 10 weeks EO training with submaximal and supramaximal eccentric loads. Although supramaximal loading might be superior for increasing 1-RM, the use of this approach does not appear to be necessary in healthy, active individuals.

Musculoskeletal simulations to examine the effects of accentuated eccentric loading (AEL) on jump height

Background

During counter movement jumps, adding weight in the eccentric phase and then suddenly releasing this weight during the concentric phase, known as accentuated eccentric loading (AEL), has been suggested to immediately improve jumping performance. The level of evidence for the positive effects of AEL remains weak, with conflicting evidence over the effectiveness in enhancing performance. Therefore, we proposed to theoretically explore the influence of implementing AEL during constrained vertical jumping using computer modelling and simulation and examined whether the proposed mechanism of enhanced power, increased elastic energy storage and return, could enhance work and power.

Methods

We used a simplified model, consisting of a ball-shaped body (head, arm, and trunk), two lower limb segments (thigh and shank), and four muscles, to simulate the mechanisms of AEL. We adjusted the key activation parameters of the muscles to influence the performance outcome of the model. Numerical optimization was applied to search the optimal solution for the model. We implemented AEL and non-AEL conditions in the model to compare the simulated data between conditions.

Results

Our model predicted that the optimal jumping performance was achieved when the model utilized the whole joint range. However, there was no difference in jumping performance in AEL and non-AEL conditions because the model began its push-off at the similar state (posture, fiber length, fiber velocity, fiber force, tendon length, and the same activation level). Therefore, the optimal solution predicted by the model was primarily driven by intrinsic muscle dynamics (force-length-velocity relationship), and this coupled with the similar model state at the start of the push-off, resulting in similar push-off performance across all conditions. There was also no evidence of additional tendon-loading effect in AEL conditions compared to non-AEL condition.

Discussion

Our simplified simulations did not show improved jump performance with AEL, contrasting with experimental studies. The reduced model demonstrates that increased energy storage from the additional mass alone is not sufficient to induce increased performance and that other factors like differences in activation strategies or movement paths are more likely to contribute to enhanced performance.

Kinematic and Kinetic Characteristics of Repetitive Countermovement Jumps with Accentuated Eccentric Loading

Two methods for challenging the musculoskeletal and nervous systems to better exploit the stretch-shortening cycle (SSC) mechanism during plyometric training are reactive strength exercises and accentuated eccentric loading (AEL). Combining repetitive, reactive jumping with AEL poses a novel approach, in which the effects of both methods may be combined to elicit a unique stimulus. This study compared kinematic, kinetic, and electromyographic variables between a control (CON1) and two AEL conditions (AEL2 and AEL3). Additionally, non-reactive and reactive jumps performed within these sets were compared. Participants performed two sets of six countermovement jumps (CMJ) under each loading condition. AEL3 had moderate to large positive effects (es) on peak and mean eccentric force (es = 1.1, 0.8, respectively; both p < 0.01), and eccentric loading rate (es = 0.8, p < 0.01), but no effect on concentric variables or muscle activation intensity. The effects of AEL2 were similar but smaller. With or without AEL, there were moderate to large positive effects associated with reactive CMJ (second jump in a set, compared to the first) on peak and mean eccentric velocity (es = 1.7, 0.8, respectively; both p < 0.01), peak and mean eccentric force (es = 1.3, 1.2, p < 0.01), eccentric loading rate (es = 1.3, p < 0.01) and muscle activity (es = 1.8−1.9, p < 0.01). Concentric variables did not differ. Thus, the flight phase and act of landing during reactive jumps elicited greater increases in eccentric forces, loading rates, and muscle activity than AEL. Nonetheless, kinetic variables were greatest when AEL was combined with reactive jumping. Considering the limitations or complexity associated with most AEL protocols, sets of repetitive (reactive) CMJ may be more pragmatic for augmenting eccentric kinetic variables and neuromuscular stimuli during training.

Automatic MRI segmentation of pectoralis major muscle using deep learning

To develop and validate a deep convolutional neural network (CNN) method capable of selecting the greatest Pectoralis Major Cross-Sectional Area (PMM-CSA) and automatically segmenting PMM on an axial Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI). We hypothesized a CNN technique can accurately perform both tasks compared with manual reference standards. Our method is based on two steps: (A) segmentation model, (B) PMM-CSA selection. In step A, we manually segmented the PMM on 134 axial T1-weighted PM MRIs. The segmentation model was trained from scratch (MONAI/Pytorch SegResNet, 4 mini-batch, 1000 epochs, dropout 0.20, Adam, learning rate 0.0005, cosine annealing, softmax). Mean-dice score determined the segmentation score on 8 internal axial T1-weighted PM MRIs. In step B, we used the OpenCV2 (version 4.5.1, https://opencv.org) framework to calculate the PMM-CSA of the model predictions and ground truth. Then, we selected the top-3 slices with the largest cross-sectional area and compared them with the ground truth. If one of the selected was in the top-3 from the ground truth, then we considered it to be a success. A top-3 accuracy evaluated this method on 8 axial T1-weighted PM MRIs internal test cases. The segmentation model (Step A) produced an accurate pectoralis muscle segmentation with a Mean Dice score of 0.94 ± 0.01. The results of Step B showed top-3 accuracy > 98% to select an appropriate axial image with the greatest PMM-CSA. Our results show an overall accurate selection of PMM-CSA and automated PM muscle segmentation using a combination of deep CNN algorithms.

The Acute Effect of Accentuated Eccentric Overloading upon the Kinematics and Myoelectric Activity in the Eccentric and Concentric Phase of a Traditional Bench Press

The target of this study was to investigate the acute effect of a supramaximal augmented eccentric load on the kinematics and myoelectric activity during the concentric phase of the lift in a traditional bench press. Ten resistance-trained males (age 24 ± 6.4 years, height 1.80 ± 0.07 m, body-mass 87.2 ± 16.9 kg) performed two repetitions at 110/85% of the 1-RM in the dynamic accentuated external resistance (DAER) group and two repetitions at 85/85% of the 1-RM for the control group in a traditional bench press. The barbell kinematics, joint kinematics and myoelectric activity of eight muscles were measured in the eccentric phase and the pre-sticking, sticking and post-sticking regions. The main findings were that the sticking region started at a lower barbell height and that a lower barbell velocity was observed in the sticking region during the second repetition in the DAER condition compared to the control condition. Additionally, the lateral deltoid muscle and clavicle part of the pectoralis were more active during the eccentric loading compared to the control condition for the second repetition. Furthermore, higher myoelectric activity was measured during the second repetition in the sticking region for the eccentric loading condition in both pectoralis muscles, while the sternal parts of the pectoralis and anterior deltoid were more active during the second repetition of the control condition in the post-sticking region. Based on our findings, it can be concluded that the supramaximal loading in the descending phase with 110% of the 1-RM in the bench press does not have an acute and positive effect of enhanced performance in the ascending phase of the lift at 85% of 1-RM. Instead, fatigue occurs when using this eccentric load during a bench press.

Post-activation Performance Enhancement after a Bout of Accentuated Eccentric Loading in Collegiate Male Volleyball Players

The purpose of this study was to investigate the benefit of post-activation performance enhancement (PAPE) after accentuated eccentric loading (AEL) compared to traditional resistance loading (TR). Sixteen male volleyball athletes were divided in AEL and TR group. AEL group performed 3 sets of 4 repetitions (eccentric: 105% of concentric 1RM, concentric: 80% of concentric 1RM) of half squat, and TR group performed 3 sets of 5 repetitions (eccentric & concentric: 85% of 1RM). Countermovement jump (CMJ), spike jump (SPJ), isometric mid-thigh pull (IMTP), and muscle soreness test were administered before (Pre) exercise, and 10 min (10-min), 24 h (24-h), and 48 h (48-h) after exercise. A two-way repeated measures analysis of variance was used to analyze the data. Peak force and rate of development (RFD) of IMTP in AEL group were significantly greater (p < 0.05) than TR group. The height, peak velocity, and RFD of CMJ, height of SPJ, and muscle soreness showed no interaction effects (p > 0.05) groups x time. AEL seemed capable to maintain force production in IMTP, but not in CMJ and SPJ. It is recommended the use of accentuated eccentric loading protocols to overcome the fatigue.

The Potentiating Response to Accentuated Eccentric Loading in Professional Football Players

The purpose of this study was to assess the acute effect of Accentuated Eccentric Loading (AEL) on countermovement jump (CMJ) height, peak power output (PPO) and peak velocity in male professional footballers using loads of 20% or 40% of body mass (AEL20 or AEL40, respectively). Twenty-three male professional football players (age 24 ± 4.5 years, range 18–34 years; body mass 80.21 ± 8.4 kg; height 178.26 ± 7.62 cm) took part in a randomised, cross-over design to test the potentiating responses of two AEL conditions (AEL20 and AEL40) versus a body weight control group (CON). Mean loads for the two conditions were 15.84 ± 1.70 kg (AEL20) and 31.67 ± 3.40 kg (AEL40). There was no significant difference between the three conditions for jump height (p = 0.507, η²_G = 0.022). There were significant differences in peak power between the groups (p = 0.001, η²_G = 0.154). Post hoc analysis with Bonferroni adjustment showed significantly higher peak power for both AEL conditions compared to the control group, but no significant differences between AEL conditions (CON vs. AEL20, p = 0.029, 95% CI −1016.735, −41.815, Cohen’s d = −0.56; CON vs. AEL40, p = 0.001, 95% CI −1244.995, −270.075, Cohen’s d = −0.81; AEL20 vs. AEL40, p = 0.75, 95% CI −715.720, 259.201, Cohen’s d = −0.24). There was no significant difference between the three conditions for peak velocity (p = 0.269, η²_G = 0.046). AEL using either 20% or 40% of body mass may be used to increase peak power in the countermovement jump in well-trained professional football players.

Effects of Augmented Eccentric Load Bench Press Training on One Repetition Maximum Performance and Electromyographic Activity in Trained Powerlifters

ABSTRACT

Montalvo, S, Gruber, LD, Gonzalez, MP, Dietze-Hermosa, MS, and Dorgo, S. Effects of augmented eccentric load bench press training on one repetition maximum performance and electromyographic activity in trained powerlifters. J Strength Cond Res 35(6): 1512-1519, 2021-Augmented eccentric load (AEL) training has been shown to elicit greater lower-body muscular strength increases and faster performance improvements compared with traditional strength training. However, it is unknown whether AEL training could provide similar improvements in upper-body muscular strength. Therefore, this study investigated the effects of a 4-week AEL training program on bench press one repetition maximum (1RM) strength, bar kinetics and kinematics, and surface electromyography (EMG) activity. Eight competitive powerlifters completed 5 training sessions consisting of 7 sets of a single repetition with up to 5 minutes rest between sets. Each session was completed at a predetermined AEL percentage consisting of 90% 1RM for concentric and supramaximal loads ranging from 105 to 125% 1RM during the eccentric phase with the use of eccentric hooks. After 4 weeks of AEL training, 1RM performance significantly increased from pretest to posttest (116.62 ± 27.48-124.28 ± 26.96 kg, p = 0.001). In addition, EMG amplitude of the pectoralis major decreased during the 125% AEL session to 59.86 ± 15.36% of pretest 1RM EMG values (p = 0.049, effect sizes [ESs] = 0.69). Furthermore, peak power of 1RM increased by 36.67% from pretest to posttest (p = 0.036, ES = 0.58). These study findings suggest that incorporating AEL bench press training into a 4-week training cycle may be a novel strategy to improve 1RM performance in competitive powerlifters in a short period.

Potentiating Effects of Accentuated Eccentric Loading Are Dependent Upon Relative Strength

ABSTRACT

Merrigan, JJ, Tufano, JJ, and Jones, MT. Potentiating effects of accentuated eccentric loading are dependent upon relative strength. J Strength Cond Res 35(5): 1208-1216, 2021-The purpose was to evaluate the acute effects of accentuated eccentric loading (AEL) on bench press velocity and subsequent perceived effort (ratings of perceived exertion [RPE]) and soreness. Resistance-trained men (n = 8) and women (n = 2) completed 4 sets of 5 bench press repetitions with AEL and traditional loading (TL) using concentric loads of 50% (AEL50, TL50) and 65% (AEL65, TL65) 1-repetition maximum (1RM). Throughout each TL set, the eccentric load remained identical to the concentric. Variable resistance during the first repetition of AEL equaled 120% 1RM. Hierarchical Linear Modeling was used to evaluate differences between AEL and TL (p < 0.05). For the first repetition, AEL50 and AEL65 resulted in slower eccentric and concentric velocities. The increasing slope of eccentric and concentric velocity across repetitions was greater during AEL50 and AEL65 compared with TL50 and TL65, respectively (p < 0.05). As an individual's strength increased, AEL50 resulted in slower eccentric velocity and faster concentric velocity than TL50. The AEL65 resulted in faster concentric velocity than TL65 (p < 0.05). Mean protocol comparisons revealed trivial to small effects between AEL and TL. There were no differences in RPE or soreness between protocols with soreness ratings remaining unchanged from baseline (1.80 ± 0.20 AU; p < 0.05). Overall, AEL was not effective for increasing concentric velocity during the bench press with current loading protocols. Yet, stronger individuals may exhibit increases in concentric velocity from AEL, which may be a result of different pacing strategies employed during the eccentric phase. Furthermore, when using the current AEL protocols, eccentric intensities were increased with no greater RPE or soreness.

Accentuated Eccentric Loading in the Bench Press: Considerations for Eccentric and Concentric Loading

This study examined the effects of accentuated eccentric loading (AEL) on bench press velocities across a spectrum of concentric and eccentric loads. Ten strength trained men (bench press one-repetition maximum (1-RM): 124.3 ± 19.4 kg; relative strength ratio: 1.5 ± 0.2 kg∙body mass^-1) participated. Subjects completed bench press repetitions using concentric loads from 30% to 80% 1-RM in 10% increments in each experimental session. The AEL protocols were implemented using 100% (AEL100) and 110% 1-RM (AEL110) loads during the eccentric action, while the eccentric load remained the same as the concentric for traditional loading (TRAD). Multilevel models analyzed the effects of each AEL protocol on concentric velocities across concentric loads (p < 0.05). Faster concentric velocities were observed at 30% 1-RM and 80% 1-RM with AEL100 compared to TRAD (p ≤ 0.05) but this effect was reduced for individuals moving the barbell through a greater displacement. Additionally, AEL110 presented a greater change in velocity from 30% to 80% 1-RM than TRAD (p ≤ 0.05). The AEL100 protocol resulted in faster concentric velocities throughout concentric loads of 30-80% 1-RM, but AEL110 may have been too great to elicit consistent performance enhancements. Thus, the efficacy of AEL at various concentric loads is dependent on the eccentric loading and barbell displacement.

Accentuated Eccentric Loading and Cluster Set Configurations in the Back Squat: A Kinetic and Kinematic Analysis

ABSTRACT

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.

Effectiveness of Accentuated Eccentric Loading: Contingent on Concentric Load

PURPOSE

To identify acute effects of a single accentuated eccentric loading (AEL) repetition on subsequent back-squat kinetics and kinematics with different concentric loads.

METHODS

Resistance-trained men (N = 21) participated in a counterbalanced crossover design and completed 4 protocols (sets × repetitions at eccentric/concentric) as follows: AEL65, 3 × 5 at 120%/65% 1-repetition maximum (1-RM); AEL80, 3 × 3 at 120%/80% 1-RM; TRA65, 3 × 5 at 65%/65% 1-RM; and TRA80, 3 × 3 at 80%/80% 1-RM. During AEL, weight releasers disengaged from the barbell after the eccentric phase of the first repetition and remained off for the remaining repetitions. All repetitions were performed on a force plate with linear position transducers attached to the barbell, from which eccentric and concentric peak and mean velocity, force, and power were derived.

RESULTS

Eccentric peak velocity (-0.076 [0.124] m·s-1; P = .01), concentric peak force (187.8 [284.4] N; P = .01), eccentric mean power (-145.2 [62.0] W; P = .03), and eccentric peak power (-328.6 [93.7] W; P < .01) during AEL65 were significantly greater than TRA65. When collapsed across repetitions, AEL65 resulted in slower eccentric velocity and power during repetition 1 but faster eccentric and concentric velocity and power in subsequent repetitions (P ≤ .04). When comparing AEL80 with TRA80, concentric peak force (133.8 [56.9] N; P = .03), eccentric mean power (-83.57 [38.0] W; P = .04), and eccentric peak power (-242.84 [67.3] W; P < .01) were enhanced.

CONCLUSIONS

Including a single supramaximal eccentric phase of 120% 1-RM increased subsequent velocity and power with concentric loads of 65% 1-RM, but not 80% 1-RM. Therefore, AEL is sensitive to the magnitude of concentric loads, which requires a large relative difference to the eccentric load, and weight releasers may not need to be reloaded to induce performance enhancement.

Accentuated Eccentric Loading and Cluster Set Configurations in the Bench Press

Lates, AD, Greer, BK, Wagle, JP, and Taber, CB. Accentuated eccentric loading and cluster set configurations in the bench press. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2020-This study was designed to examine the kinetic and kinematic differences between an Accentuated eccentric loading (AEL), traditional loading, and cluster sets in trained male subjects (age: 23.7 ± 4.0 years, height: 176.4 ± 2.8 cm, mass: 93.6 ± 7.0 kg) with lifting experience (training age: 7.2 ± 2.4 years, 1-repetition maximum (1RM) bench press: 125.0 ± 14.8 kg, relative strength ratio: 1.3 ± 0.1) in the bench press. Subjects reported for a total of 5 sessions which consisted of a 1RM testing session and 4 experimental trials. The 4 experimental conditions consisted of a traditional load (TRAD), traditional load with inter-repetition rest (TRDC), accentuated eccentric loading with inter-repetition rest (AELC), and Accentuated eccentric loading for the first repetition only (AEL1). Concentric load was 80% of subjects' 1RM for all conditions. An eccentric overload of 105% of 1RM was applied using weight-releasing hooks during the AEL conditions. TRDC demonstrated superior concentric outputs for mean velocity and mean power compared with TRAD, AELC, and AEL1 (p < 0.001). In addition, AEL1 produced significantly greater effects for rate of force development compared with TRDC (p < 0.001). These findings suggest that inter-repetition rest had an influence on concentric performance, specifically mean power and mean velocity, and may be favorable when using higher loads and when sustained power outputs are desired. In addition, AEL1 may provide a unique eccentric stimulus that alters loading parameters compared with traditional loading conditions.

The Effects of Accentuated Eccentric Loading on Mechanical Variables and Agonist Electromyography during the Bench Press

We compared the effects of accentuated eccentric loading (AEL) on mechanical variables and agonist muscle activation using low (30% 1-repetition maximum (1RM)) and high (80% 1RM) upward-phase loading with AEL (100% 1RM during downward phase) to traditional loading schemes (T) in the bench press. Twelve resistance-trained men (26 ± 6 years; 1RM: 134 ± 33 kg) performed sets of two repetitions with three-minute intervals using loading schemes of 30AEL, 30T, 80AEL, and 80T. AEL was applied using weight releasers while force plates and a 3D motion-analysis system were used to measure mechanical variables. Electromyographic activity of the pectoralis major and triceps brachii muscles was also recorded. The greater downward-phase loads experienced during the AEL conditions allowed greater overall mean vertical forces (mean difference ( x ¯ Diff): 118 N, p < 0.001), greater work ( x ¯ Diff: 43 J, p < 0.001), and greater pectoralis major muscle activation ( x ¯ Diff: 27 µV, p = 0.002) compared to the corresponding traditional loading schemes. However, there was little evidence of potentiation of the mechanical variables or muscle activity during the subsequent upward phases caused by the AEL schemes. It is possible that the use of weight releasers may disrupt lifting technique particularly during low AEL schemes thereby diminishing any benefits.

The Effects of Augmented Eccentric Loading upon Kinematics and Muscle Activation in Bench Press Performance

The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of an augmented eccentric load upon the kinematics and muscle activation of bench press, and to investigate possible mechanisms behind augmented eccentric loading during the lift. Sixteen resistance-trained males (age 28.5 ± 7.7 years, height 1.78 ± 0.08 m, body mass 80.7 ± 14.3 kg) performed three repetitions at 95/85% of 1RM (augmented eccentric loading), and 85/85% of 1RM (control) in bench press, while barbell kinematics and muscle activation of eight muscles were measured. The main findings were that no kinematic differences between the augmented and control condition were found, only an effect of repetition. Furthermore, augmented loading caused a higher activation of the biceps brachii during the pre-sticking and sticking region, while a lower activation in the sternal part of pectoralis major during the eccentric phase was observed. Based on the present findings, it can be concluded that augmented eccentric loading with 95% of 1RM in bench press did not have any acute positive effect upon the concentric phase of the lift (85% of 1RM) and that the proposed underlying mechanisms like potentiation, increased neural stimulation and preload, and recovery of stored elastic energy does not seem to occur with these loads.

The effects of unknown additional eccentric loading on bench-press kinematics and muscle activation in professional handball and rugby players

Abstract This study aimed to investigate the influence of unknown additional eccentric loading on bench-press kinematics (peak velocity, peak acceleration and accelerative percentage of the concentric phase) and muscle activation (pectoralis major and anterior deltoid) in professional rugby and handball players. Seventeen professional athletes were randomly assigned to complete three separate bench-press repetitions with different AEL schemes (100/40%, 100/60% and 100/80% of 1RM eccentric/concentric loading, respectively) under two conditions: known- and unknown-concentric load (KL and UL, respectively). Results indicate that the lack of knowledge regarding the additional eccentric load induced a significant increase in peak acceleration and agonist-muscles electromyographic activity, with no changes regarding peak velocity or accelerative percentage during the concentric phase. These results support the use of unknown loads as a practical strategy in eliciting rapid muscle activation and force production, which is critical in many sports, such as handball or rugby.

Implementing Eccentric Resistance Training-Part 2: Practical Recommendations

The purpose of this review is to provide strength and conditioning practitioners with recommendations on how best to implement tempo eccentric training (TEMPO), flywheel inertial training (FIT), accentuated eccentric loading (AEL), and plyometric training (PT) into resistance training programs that seek to improve an athlete's hypertrophy, strength, and power output. Based on the existing literature, TEMPO may be best implemented with weaker athletes to benefit positional strength and hypertrophy due to the time under tension. FIT may provide an effective hypertrophy, strength, and power stimulus for untrained and weaker individuals; however, stronger individuals may not receive the same eccentric (ECC) overload stimulus. Although AEL may be implemented throughout the training year to benefit hypertrophy, strength, and power output, this strategy is better suited for stronger individuals. When weaker and stronger individuals are exposed to PT, they are exposed to an ECC overload stimulus as a result of increases in the ECC force and ECC rate of force development. In conclusion, when choosing to utilize ECC training methods, the practitioner must integrate these methods into a holistic training program that is designed to improve the athlete's performance capacity.

Implementing Eccentric Resistance Training-Part 1: A Brief Review of Existing Methods

The purpose of this review was to provide a physiological rationale for the use of eccentric resistance training and to provide an overview of the most commonly prescribed eccentric training methods. Based on the existing literature, there is a strong physiological rationale for the incorporation of eccentric training into a training program for an individual seeking to maximize muscle size, strength, and power. Specific adaptations may include an increase in muscle cross-sectional area, force output, and fiber shortening velocities, all of which have the potential to benefit power production characteristics. Tempo eccentric training, flywheel inertial training, accentuated eccentric loading, and plyometric training are commonly implemented in applied contexts. These methods tend to involve different force absorption characteristics and thus, overload the muscle or musculotendinous unit in different ways during lengthening actions. For this reason, they may produce different magnitudes of improvement in hypertrophy, strength, and power. The constraints to which they are implemented can have a marked effect on the characteristics of force absorption and therefore, could affect the nature of the adaptive response. However, the versatility of the constraints when prescribing these methods mean that they can be effectively implemented to induce these adaptations within a variety of populations.

The Importance of Muscular Strength: Training Considerations

This review covers underlying physiological characteristics and training considerations that may affect muscular strength including improving maximal force expression and time-limited force expression. Strength is underpinned by a combination of morphological and neural factors including muscle cross-sectional area and architecture, musculotendinous stiffness, motor unit recruitment, rate coding, motor unit synchronization, and neuromuscular inhibition. Although single- and multi-targeted block periodization models may produce the greatest strength-power benefits, concepts within each model must be considered within the limitations of the sport, athletes, and schedules. Bilateral training, eccentric training and accentuated eccentric loading, and variable resistance training may produce the greatest comprehensive strength adaptations. Bodyweight exercise, isolation exercises, plyometric exercise, unilateral exercise, and kettlebell training may be limited in their potential to improve maximal strength but are still relevant to strength development by challenging time-limited force expression and differentially challenging motor demands. Training to failure may not be necessary to improve maximum muscular strength and is likely not necessary for maximum gains in strength. Indeed, programming that combines heavy and light loads may improve strength and underpin other strength-power characteristics. Multiple sets appear to produce superior training benefits compared to single sets; however, an athlete's training status and the dose-response relationship must be considered. While 2- to 5-min interset rest intervals may produce the greatest strength-power benefits, rest interval length may vary based an athlete's training age, fiber type, and genetics. Weaker athletes should focus on developing strength before emphasizing power-type training. Stronger athletes may begin to emphasize power-type training while maintaining/improving their strength. Future research should investigate how best to implement accentuated eccentric loading and variable resistance training and examine how initial strength affects an athlete's ability to improve their performance following various training methods.

Accentuated Eccentric Loading for Training and Performance: A Review

Accentuated eccentric loading (AEL) prescribes eccentric load magnitude in excess of the concentric prescription using movements that require coupled eccentric and concentric actions, with minimal interruption to natural mechanics. This method has been theorized to potentiate concentric performance through higher eccentric loading and, thus, higher concentric force production. There is also evidence for favorable chronic adaptations, namely shifts to faster myosin heavy chain isoforms and changes in IIx-specific muscle cross-sectional area. However, research concerning the acute and chronic responses to AEL is inconclusive, likely due to inconsistencies in subjects, exercise selection, load prescription, and method of providing AEL. Therefore, the purpose of this review is to summarize: (1) the magnitudes and methods of AEL application; (2) the acute and chronic implications of AEL as a means to enhance force production; (3) the potential mechanisms by which AEL enhances acute and chronic performance; and (4) the limitations of current research and the potential for future study.

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.

Effects of a 6-Week Bench Press Program Using the Freak Bar in a Sample of Collegiate Club Powerlifters

Ghigiarelli, JJ, Pelton, LM, Gonzalez, AM, Fulop, AM, Gee, JY, and Sell, KM. Effects of a 6-week bench press program using the freak bar in a sample of collegiate club powerlifters. J Strength Cond Res 32(4): 938-949, 2018-Powerlifters train using specialty bars for unstable load (UL) training. For the bench press, the acute effects of UL are mixed, with few studies that examine training interventions. The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of a 6-week bench press training program that uses the Freak Bar (FB) as compared to a traditional barbell (TB) on maximum bench press, peak force, and peak impulse. Seven men and 3 women (21 ± 2.0 years, 172.2 ± 2.9 cm, and 95.3 ± 20.3 kg) were required to bench press 2 days per week as part of a structured program. On the second bench press day, the FB and TB groups performed 3-position pause bench presses at 60-70% one repetition maximum (1RM). One repetition maximum, peak force, and peak impulse were measured before test and after test after the 6-week program. Peak force and peak impulse were tested at 3 bench positions, including the presticking, sticking, and poststicking points, defined by the distance of the barbell from the chest. Posttraining 1RM for the FB group and TB group increased 6.7% (6.78 ± 1.6 kg, p = 0.006) and 4.3% (4.5 ± 2.7 kg, p = 0.23), respectively, with no significant differences between the groups (p = 0.589, ηp = 0.044). There were no significant differences between the groups at each bench position for peak force (p = 0.606) or peak impulse (p = 0.542). Freak Bar can be an alternative for improving maximum strength and peak force but is not significantly better than TB training when performing the 3-position pause bench press.

The Effects of Intensive Weight Reduction on Body Composition and Serum Hormones in Female Fitness Competitors

Worries about the potential negative consequences of popular fat loss regimens for aesthetic purposes in normal weight females have been surfacing in the media. However, longitudinal studies investigating these kinds of diets are lacking. The purpose of the present study was to investigate the effects of a 4-month fat-loss diet in normal weight females competing in fitness-sport. In total 50 participants finished the study with 27 females (27.2 ± 4.1 years) dieting for a competition and 23 (27.7 ± 3.7 years) acting as weight-stable controls. The energy deficit of the diet group was achieved by reducing carbohydrate intake and increasing aerobic exercise while maintaining a high level of protein intake and resistance training in addition to moderate fat intake. The diet led to a ~12% decrease in body weight (P < 0.001) and a ~35-50% decrease in fat mass (DXA, bioimpedance, skinfolds, P < 0.001) whereas the control group maintained their body and fat mass (diet × group interaction P < 0.001). A small decrease in lean mass (bioimpedance and skinfolds) and in vastus lateralis muscle cross-sectional area (ultrasound) were observed in diet (P < 0.05), whereas other results were unaltered (DXA: lean mass, ultrasound: triceps brachii thickness). The hormonal system was altered during the diet with decreased serum concentrations of leptin, triiodothyronine (T3), testosterone (P < 0.001), and estradiol (P < 0.01) coinciding with an increased incidence of menstrual irregularities (P < 0.05). Body weight and all hormones except T3 and testosterone returned to baseline during a 3-4 month recovery period including increased energy intake and decreased levels aerobic exercise. This study shows for the first time that most of the hormonal changes after a 35-50% decrease in body fat in previously normal-weight females can recover within 3-4 months of increased energy intake.

Acute effects of movement velocity on blood lactate and growth hormone responses after eccentric bench press exercise in resistance-trained men

This study aimed to compare the effects of different velocities of eccentric muscle actions on acute blood lactate and serum growth hormone (GH) concentrations following free weight bench press exercises performed by resistance-trained men. Sixteen healthy men were divided into two groups: slow eccentric velocity (SEV; n = 8) and fast eccentric velocity (FEV; n = 8). Both groups performed four sets of eight eccentric repetitions at an intensity of 70% of their one repetition maximum eccentric (1RMecc) test, with 2-minute rest intervals between sets. The eccentric velocity was controlled to 3 seconds per range of motion for SEV and 0.5 seconds for the FEV group. There was a significant difference (P < 0.001) in the kinetics of blood lactate removal (at 3, 6, 9, 15, and 20 min) and higher mean values for peak blood lactate (P = 0.001) for the SEV group (9.1 ± 0.5 mM) compared to the FEV group (6.1 ± 0.4 mM). Additionally, serum GH concentrations were significantly higher (P < 0.001) at 15 minutes after bench press exercise in the SEV group (1.7 ± 0.6 ng · mL⁻¹) relative to the FEV group (0.1 ± 0.0 ng · mL⁻¹). In conclusion, the velocity of eccentric muscle action influences acute responses following bench press exercises performed by resistance-trained men using a slow velocity resulting in a greater metabolic stress and hormone response.