Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 2 of 2 items for

  • Author: Brad H. DeWeese x
Clear All Modify Search
Restricted access

Timothy J. Suchomel, Kimitake Sato, Brad H. DeWeese, William P. Ebben and Michael H. Stone

The purposes of this study were to examine the effect of ballistic concentric-only half-squats (COHS) on subsequent squat-jump (SJ) performances at various rest intervals and to examine the relationships between changes in SJ performance and bilateral symmetry at peak performance. Thirteen resistance-trained men performed an SJ immediately and every minute up to 10 min on dual force plates after 2 ballistic COHS repetitions at 90% of their 1-repetition-maximum COHS. SJ peak force, peak power, net impulse, and rate of force development (RFD) were compared using a series of 1-way repeated-measures ANOVAs. The percent change in performance at which peak performance occurred for each variable was correlated with the symmetry index scores at the corresponding time point using Pearson correlation coefficients. Statistical differences in peak power (P = .031) existed between rest intervals; however, no statistically significant pairwise comparisons were present (P > .05). No statistical differences in peak force (P = .201), net impulse (P = .064), and RFD (P = .477) were present between rest intervals. The relationships between changes in SJ performance and bilateral symmetry after the rest interval that produced the greatest performance for peak force (r = .300, P = .319), peak power (r = –.041, P = .894), net impulse (r = –.028, P = .927), and RFD (r = –.434, P = .138) were not statistically significant. Ballistic COHS may enhance SJ performance; however, the changes in performance were not related to bilateral symmetry.

Restricted access

Kevin M. Carroll, Jake R. Bernards, Caleb D. Bazyler, Christopher B. Taber, Charles A. Stuart, Brad H. DeWeese, Kimitake Sato and Michael H. Stone

Purpose: To compare repetition maximum (RM) to relative intensity using sets and repetitions (RISR) resistance training on measures of training load, vertical jump, and force production in well-trained lifters. Methods: Fifteen well-trained (isometric peak force = 4403.61 [664.69] N, mean [SD]) males underwent resistance training 3 d/wk for 10 wk in either an RM group (n = 8) or RISR group (n = 7). Weeks 8 to 10 consisted of a tapering period for both groups. The RM group achieved a relative maximum each day, whereas the RISR group trained based on percentages. Testing at 5 time points included unweighted (<1 kg) and 20-kg squat jumps, countermovement jumps, and isometric midthigh pulls. Mixed-design analyses of variance and effect size using Hedge’s g were used to assess within- and between-groups alterations. Results: Moderate between-groups effect sizes were observed for all squat-jump and countermovement-jump conditions supporting the RISR group (g = 0.76–1.07). A small between-groups effect size supported RISR for allometrically scaled isometric peak force (g = 0.20). Large and moderate between-groups effect sizes supported RISR for rate of force development from 0 to 50 ms (g = 1.25) and 0 to 100 ms (g = 0.89). Weekly volume load displacement was not different between groups (P > .05); however, training strain was statistically greater in the RM group (P < .05). Conclusions: Overall, this study demonstrated that RISR training yielded greater improvements in vertical jump, rate of force development, and maximal strength compared with RM training, which may be explained partly by differences in the imposed training stress and the use of failure/nonfailure training in a well-trained population.