Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 3 of 3 items for

  • Author: Jonathan M. Oliver x
Clear All Modify Search
Restricted access

Jonathan M. Oliver, Dustin P. Joubert, Steven E. Martin and Stephen F. Crouse


To determine the effects of creatine supplementation on blood lactate during incremental cycling exercise.


Thirteen male subjects (M ± SD 23 ± 2 yr, 178.0 ± 8.1 cm, 86.3 ± 16.0 kg, 24% ± 9% body fat) performed a maximal, incremental cycling test to exhaustion before (Pre) and after (Post) 6 d of creatine supplementation (4 doses/d of 5 g creatine + 15 g glucose). Blood lactate was measured at the end of each exercise stage during the protocol, and the lactate threshold was determined as the stage before achieving 4 mmol/L. Lactate concentrations during the incremental test were analyzed using a 2 (condition) × 6 (exercise stage) repeated-measures ANOVA. Differences in power at lactate threshold, power at exhaustion, and total exercise time were determined by paired t tests and are presented as M ± SD.


Lactate concentrations were reduced during exercise after supplementation, demonstrating a significant condition effect (p = .041). There was a tendency for increased power at the lactate threshold (Pre 128 ± 45 W, Post 143 ± 26 W; p = .11). Total time to fatigue approached significant increases (Pre 22.6 ± 3.2 min, Post 23.3 ± 3.3 min; p = .056), as did maximal power output (Pre 212.5 ± 32.5 W, Post 220 ± 34.6 W; p = .082).


Our findings demonstrate that creatine supplementation decreases lactate during incremental cycling exercise and tends to raise lactate threshold. Therefore, creatine supplementation could potentially benefit endurance athletes.

Restricted access

Justin J. Merrigan, James J. Tufano, Jonathan M. Oliver, Jason B. White, Jennifer B. Fields and Margaret T. Jones

Purpose: To examine rest redistribution (RR) effects on back squat kinetics and kinematics in resistance-trained women. Methods: Twelve women from strength and college sports (5.0 [2.2] y training history) participated in the randomized crossover design study with 72 hours between sessions (3 total). Participants completed 4 sets of 10 repetitions using traditional sets (120-s interset rest) and RR (30-s intraset rest in the middle of each set; 90-s interset rest) with 70% of their 1-repetition maximum. Kinetics and kinematics were sampled via force plate and 4 linear position transducers. The greatest value of repetitions 1 to 3 (peak repetition) was used to calculate percentage loss, [(repetition 10–peak repetition)/(peak repetition) × 100], and maintenance, {100–[(set mean–peak repetition)/(peak repetition)] × 100}, of velocity and power for each set. Repeated-measures analysis of variance was used for analyses (P < .05). Results: Mean and peak force did not differ between conditions. A condition × repetition interaction existed for peak power (P = .049) but not for peak velocity (P = .110). Peak power was greater in repetitions 7 to 9 (P < .05; d = 1.12–1.27) during RR. The percentage loss of velocity (95% confidence interval, –0.22% to –7.22%; P = .039) and power (95% confidence interval, –1.53% to –7.87%; P = .008) were reduced in RR. Mean velocity maintenance of sets 3 (P = .036; d = 1.90) and 4 (P = .015; d = 2.30) and mean power maintenance of set 4 (P = .006; d = 2.65) were greater in RR. Conclusion: By redistributing a portion of long interset rest into the middle of a set, velocity and power were better maintained. Therefore, redistributing rest may be beneficial for reducing fatigue in resistance-trained women.

Restricted access

Jason D. Stone, Adam C. King, Shiho Goto, John D. Mata, Joseph Hannon, James C. Garrison, James Bothwell, Andrew R. Jagim, Margaret T. Jones and Jonathan M. Oliver

Purpose: To provide a joint-level analysis of traditional (TS) and cluster (CS) set structure during the back-squat exercise. Methods: Eight men (24 [3] y, 177.3 [7.9] cm, 82.7 [11.0] kg, 11.9 [3.5] % body fat, and 150.3 [23.0] kg 1-repetition maximum [1RM]) performed the back-squat exercise (80%1RM) using TS (4 × 6, 2-min interset rest) and CS (4 × [2 × 3], 30-s intraset rest, 90-s interset rest), randomly. Lower-limb kinematics were collected by motion capture, as well as kinetic data by bilateral force platforms. Results: CS attenuated the loss in mean power (TS −21.6% [3.9%]; CS −12.4% [7.5%]; P = .042), although no differences in gross movement pattern (sagittal-plane joint angles) within and between conditions were observed (P ≥ .05). However, joint power produced at the hip increased from repetition (REP) 1 through REP 6 during TS, while a decrease was noted at the knee. A similar pattern was observed in the CS condition but was limited to the hip. Joint power produced at the hip increased from REP 1 through REP 3 but returned to REP 1 values before a similar increase through REP 6, resulting in differences between conditions (REP 4, P = .018; REP 5, P = .022). Conclusions: Sagittal-plane joint angles did not change in either condition, although CS elicited greater power. Differing joint power contributions (hip and knee) suggest potential central mechanism that may contribute to enhanced power output during CS and warrant further study. Practitioners should consider incorporating CS into training to promote greater power adaptations and to mitigate fatigue.