Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 6 of 6 items for

  • Author: Harry G. Banyard x
  • Refine by Access: All Content x
Clear All Modify Search
Restricted access

Harry G. Banyard, Ken Nosaka, Kimitake Sato, and G. Gregory Haff

Purpose:

To examine the validity of 2 kinematic systems for assessing mean velocity (MV), peak velocity (PV), mean force (MF), peak force (PF), mean power (MP), and peak power (PP) during the full-depth free-weight back squat performed with maximal concentric effort.

Methods:

Ten strength-trained men (26.1 ± 3.0 y, 1.81 ± 0.07 m, 82.0 ± 10.6 kg) performed three 1-repetition-maximum (1RM) trials on 3 separate days, encompassing lifts performed at 6 relative intensities including 20%, 40%, 60%, 80%, 90%, and 100% of 1RM. Each repetition was simultaneously recorded by a PUSH band and commercial linear position transducer (LPT) (GymAware [GYM]) and compared with measurements collected by a laboratory-based testing device consisting of 4 LPTs and a force plate.

Results:

Trials 2 and 3 were used for validity analyses. Combining all 120 repetitions indicated that the GYM was highly valid for assessing all criterion variables while the PUSH was only highly valid for estimations of PF (r = .94, CV = 5.4%, ES = 0.28, SEE = 135.5 N). At each relative intensity, the GYM was highly valid for assessing all criterion variables except for PP at 20% (ES = 0.81) and 40% (ES = 0.67) of 1RM. Moreover, the PUSH was only able to accurately estimate PF across all relative intensities (r = .92–.98, CV = 4.0–8.3%, ES = 0.04–0.26, SEE = 79.8–213.1 N).

Conclusions:

PUSH accuracy for determining MV, PV, MF, MP, and PP across all 6 relative intensities was questionable for the back squat, yet the GYM was highly valid at assessing all criterion variables, with some caution given to estimations of MP and PP performed at lighter loads.

Restricted access

Harry G. Banyard, Kazunori Nosaka, Alex D. Vernon, and G. Gregory Haff

Purpose: To examine the reliability of peak velocity (PV), mean propulsive velocity (MPV), and mean velocity (MV) in the development of load–velocity profiles (LVP) in the full-depth free-weight back squat performed with maximal concentric effort. Methods: Eighteen resistance-trained men performed a baseline 1-repetition maximum (1-RM) back-squat trial and 3 subsequent 1-RM trials used for reliability analyses, with 48-h intervals between trials. 1-RM trials comprised lifts from 6 relative loads including 20%, 40%, 60%, 80%, 90%, and 100% 1-RM. Individualized LVPs for PV, MPV, or MV were derived from loads that were highly reliable based on the following criteria: intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) >.70, coefficient of variation (CV) ≤10%, and Cohen d effect size (ES) <0.60. Results: PV was highly reliable at all 6 loads. MPV and MV were highly reliable at 20%, 40%, 60%, 80%, and 90% but not 100% 1-RM (MPV: ICC = .66, CV = 18.0%, ES = 0.10, SEM = 0.04 m·s−1; MV: ICC = .55, CV = 19.4%, ES = 0.08, SEM = 0.04 m·s−1). When considering the reliable ranges, almost perfect correlations were observed for LVPs derived from PV20–100% (r = .91–.93), MPV20–90% (r = .92–.94), and MV20–90% (r = .94–.95). Furthermore, the LVPs were not significantly different (P > .05) between trials or movement velocities or between linear regression versus 2nd-order polynomial fits. Conclusions: PV20–100%, MPV20–90%, and MV20–90% are reliable and can be utilized to develop LVPs using linear regression. Conceptually, LVPs can be used to monitor changes in movement velocity and employed as a method for adjusting sessional training loads according to daily readiness.

Restricted access

Harry G. Banyard, James J. Tufano, Jose Delgado, Steve W. Thompson, and Kazunori Nosaka

Purpose: To compare kinetic and kinematic data from 3 different velocity-based training sessions and a 1-repetition-maximum (1RM)-percent-based training (PBT) session using full-depth, free-weight back squats with maximal concentric effort. Methods: Fifteen strength-trained men performed 4 randomized resistance-training sessions 96 h apart: PBT session involved 5 sets of 5 repetitions using 80% 1RM; load–velocity profile (LVP) session contained 5 sets of 5 repetitions with a load that could be adjusted to achieve a target velocity established from an individualized LVP equation at 80% 1RM; fixed sets 20% velocity loss threshold (FSVL20) session consisted of 5 sets at 80% 1RM, but sets were terminated once the mean velocity (MV) dropped below 20% of the threshold velocity or when 5 repetitions were completed per set; and variable sets 20% velocity loss threshold session comprised 25 repetitions in total, but participants performed as many repetitions in a set as possible until the 20% velocity loss threshold was exceeded. Results: When averaged across all repetitions, MV and peak velocity (PV) were significantly (P < .05) faster during the LVP (MV effect size [ES] = 1.05; PV ES = 1.12) and FSVL20 (MV ES = 0.81; PV ES = 0.98) sessions compared with PBT. Mean time under tension (TUT) and concentric TUT were significantly less during the LVP sessions compared with PBT. The FSVL20 sessions had significantly less repetitions, total TUT, and concentric TUT than PBT. No significant differences were found for all other measurements between any of the sessions. Conclusions: Velocity-based training permits faster velocities and avoids additional unnecessary mechanical stress but maintains similar measures of force and power output compared with strength-oriented PBT in a single training session.

Restricted access

Steve W. Thompson, David Rogerson, Alan Ruddock, Harry G. Banyard, and Andrew Barnes

Purpose: This study compared pooled against individualized load–velocity profiles (LVPs) in the free-weight back squat and power clean. Methods: A total of 10 competitive weightlifters completed baseline 1-repetition maximum assessments in the back squat and power clean. Three incremental LVPs were completed, separated by 48 to 72 hours. Mean and peak velocity were measured via a linear-position transducer (GymAware). Linear and nonlinear (second-order polynomial) regression models were applied to all pooled and individualized LVP data. A combination of coefficient of variation (CV), intraclass correlation coefficient, typical error of measurement, and limits of agreement assessed between-subject variability and within-subject reliability. Acceptable reliability was defined a priori as intraclass correlation coefficient > .7 and CV < 10%. Results: Very high to practically perfect inverse relationships were evident in the back squat (r = .83–.96) and power clean (r = .83–.89) for both regression models; however, stronger correlations were observed in the individualized LVPs for both exercises (r = .85–.99). Between-subject variability was moderate to large across all relative loads in the back squat (CV = 8.2%–27.8%) but smaller in the power clean (CV = 4.6%–8.5%). The power clean met our criteria for acceptable reliability across all relative loads; however, the back squat revealed large CVs in loads ≥90% of 1-repetition maximum (13.1%–20.5%). Conclusions: Evidently, load–velocity characteristics are highly individualized, with acceptable levels of reliability observed in the power clean but not in the back squat (≥90% of 1-repetition maximum). If practitioners want to adopt load–velocity profiling as part of their testing and monitoring procedures, an individualized LVP should be utilized over pooled LVPs.

Restricted access

Harry G. Banyard, James J. Tufano, Jonathon J.S. Weakley, Sam Wu, Ivan Jukic, and Kazunori Nosaka

Purpose: To compare the effects of velocity-based training (VBT) and 1-repetition-maximum (1RM) percentage-based training (PBT) on changes in strength, loaded countermovement jump (CMJ), and sprint performance. Methods: A total of 24 resistance-trained males performed 6 weeks of full-depth free-weight back squats 3 times per week in a daily undulating format, with groups matched for sets and repetitions. The PBT group lifted with fixed relative loads varying from 59% to 85% of preintervention 1RM. The VBT group aimed for a sessional target velocity that was prescribed from pretraining individualized load–velocity profiles. Thus, real-time velocity feedback dictated the VBT set-by-set training load adjustments. Pretraining and posttraining assessments included the 1RM, peak velocity for CMJ at 30%1RM (PV-CMJ), 20-m sprint (including 5 and 10 m), and 505 change-of-direction test (COD). Results: The VBT group maintained faster (effect size [ES] = 1.25) training repetitions with less perceived difficulty (ES = 0.72) compared with the PBT group. The VBT group had likely to very likely improvements in the COD (ES = −1.20 to −1.27), 5-m sprint (ES = −1.17), 10-m sprint (ES = −0.93), 1RM (ES = 0.89), and PV-CMJ (ES = 0.79). The PBT group had almost certain improvements in the 1RM (ES = 1.41) and possibly beneficial improvements in the COD (ES = −0.86). Very likely favorable between-groups effects were observed for VBT compared to PBT in the PV-CMJ (ES = 1.81), 5-m sprint (ES = 1.35), and 20-m sprint (ES = 1.27); likely favorable between-groups effects were observed in the 10-m sprint (ES = 1.24) and nondominant-leg COD (ES = 0.96), whereas the dominant-leg COD (ES = 0.67) was possibly favorable. PBT had small (ES = 0.57), but unclear differences for 1RM improvement compared to VBT. Conclusions: Both training methods improved 1RM and COD times, but PBT may be slightly favorable for stronger individuals focusing on maximal strength, whereas VBT was more beneficial for PV-CMJ, sprint, and COD improvements.

Restricted access

James J. Tufano, Jenny A. Conlon, Sophia Nimphius, Lee E. Brown, Harry G. Banyard, Bryce D. Williamson, Leslie G. Bishop, Amanda J. Hopper, and G. Gregory Haff

Purpose:

To determine the effects of intraset rest frequency and training load on muscle time under tension, external work, and external mechanical power output during back-squat protocols with similar changes in velocity.

Methods:

Twelve strength-trained men (26.0 ± 4.2 y, 83.1 ± 8.8 kg, 1.75 ± 0.06 m, 1.88:0.19 one-repetition-maximum [1RM] body mass) performed 3 sets of 12 back squats using 3 different set structures: traditional sets with 60% 1RM (TS), cluster sets of 4 with 75% 1RM (CS4), and cluster sets of 2 with 80% 1RM (CS2). Repeated-measures ANOVAs were used to determine differences in peak force (PF), mean force (MF), peak velocity (PV), mean velocity (MV), peak power (PP), mean power (MP), total work (TW), total time under tension (TUT), percentage mean velocity loss (%MVL), and percentage peak velocity loss (%PVL) between protocols.

Results:

Compared with TS and CS4, CS2 resulted in greater MF, TW, and TUT in addition to less MV, PV, and MP. Similarly, CS4 resulted in greater MF, TW, and TUT in addition to less MV, PV, and MP than TS did. There were no differences between protocols for %MVL, %PVL, PF, or PP.

Conclusions:

These data show that the intraset rest provided in CS4 and CS2 allowed for greater external loads than with TS, increasing TW and TUT while resulting in similar PP and %VL. Therefore, cluster-set structures may function as an alternative method to traditional strength- or hypertrophy-oriented training by increasing training load without increasing %VL or decreasing PP.