Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 2 of 2 items for

  • Author: Christopher B. Taber x
Clear All Modify Search
Restricted access

Timothy J. Suchomel, Christopher B. Taber and Glenn A. Wright

The purpose of this study was to examine the effect that load has on the mechanics of the jump shrug. Fifteen track and field and club/intramural athletes (age 21.7 ± 1.3 y, height 180.9 ± 6.6 cm, body mass 84.7 ± 13.2 kg, 1-repetition-maximum (1RM) hang power clean 109.1 ± 17.2 kg) performed repetitions of the jump shrug at 30%, 45%, 65%, and 80% of their 1RM hang power clean. Jump height, peak landing force, and potential energy of the system at jump-shrug apex were compared between loads using a series of 1-way repeated-measures ANOVAs. Statistical differences in jump height (P < .001), peak landing force (P = .012), and potential energy of the system (P < .001) existed; however, there were no statistically significant pairwise comparisons in peak landing force between loads (P > .05). The greatest magnitudes of jump height, peak landing force, and potential energy of the system at the apex of the jump shrug occurred at 30% 1RM hang power clean and decreased as the external load increased from 45% to 80% 1RM hang power clean. Relationships between peak landing force and potential energy of the system at jump-shrug apex indicate that the landing forces produced during the jump shrug may be due to the landing strategy used by the athletes, especially at lighter loads. Practitioners may prescribe heavier loads during the jump-shrug exercise without viewing landing force as a potential limitation.

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.