Next Article in Journal
Relation between Motor and Cognitive Skills in Italian Basketball Players Aged between 7 and 10 Years Old
Next Article in Special Issue
Optimum Power Loads for Elite Boxers: Case Study with the Brazilian National Olympic Team
Previous Article in Journal
Adolescent Finswimmers: Early Myocardial Adaptations in Different Swimming Styles
Previous Article in Special Issue
Repetition-to-Repetition Differences Using Cluster and Accentuated Eccentric Loading in the Back Squat
Article

Force-Time Differences between Ballistic and Non-Ballistic Half-Squats

1
Department of Human Movement Sciences, Carroll University, Waukesha, WI 53186, USA
2
Department of Exercise Science, Sacred Heart University, Fairfield, CT 06825, USA
3
Department of Health and Human Performance, The Citadel—The Military College of South Carolina, Charleston, SC 29409, USA
4
Department of Exercise and Sport Sciences, Center of Excellence for Sport Science and Coach Education, East Tennessee State University, Johnson City, TN 37614, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sports 2018, 6(3), 79; https://doi.org/10.3390/sports6030079
Received: 18 July 2018 / Revised: 29 July 2018 / Accepted: 10 August 2018 / Published: 12 August 2018
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Neuromuscular Research)
The purpose of this study was to examine the force-time differences between concentric-only half-squats (COHS) performed with ballistic (BAL) or non-ballistic (NBAL) intent across a range of loads. Eighteen resistance-trained men performed either BAL or NBAL COHS at 30%, 50%, 70%, and 90% of their one repetition maximum (1RM) COHS. Relative peak force (PF) and relative impulse from 0–50 ms (Imp50), 0–90 ms (Imp90), 0–200 ms (Imp200), and 0–250 ms (Imp250) were compared using a series of 2 × 4 (intent × load) repeated measures ANOVAs with Bonferroni post hoc tests. Cohen’s d effect sizes were calculated to provide measures of practical significance between the BAL and NBAL COHS and each load. BAL COHS produced statistically greater PF than NBAL COHS at 30% (d = 3.37), 50% (d = 2.88), 70% (d = 2.29), and 90% 1RM (d = 1.19) (all p < 0.001). Statistically significant main effect differences were found between load-averaged BAL and NBAL COHS for Imp90 (p = 0.006, d = 0.25), Imp200 (p = 0.001, d = 0.36), and Imp250 (p < 0.001, d = 0.41), but not for Imp50 (p = 0.018, d = 0.21). Considering the greater PF and impulse observed during the BAL condition, performing COHS with BAL intent may provide a favorable training stimulus compared to COHS performed with NBAL intent. View Full-Text
Keywords: partial squat; intent; resistance training; strength partial squat; intent; resistance training; strength
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Suchomel, T.J.; Taber, C.B.; Sole, C.J.; Stone, M.H. Force-Time Differences between Ballistic and Non-Ballistic Half-Squats. Sports 2018, 6, 79. https://doi.org/10.3390/sports6030079

AMA Style

Suchomel TJ, Taber CB, Sole CJ, Stone MH. Force-Time Differences between Ballistic and Non-Ballistic Half-Squats. Sports. 2018; 6(3):79. https://doi.org/10.3390/sports6030079

Chicago/Turabian Style

Suchomel, Timothy J., Christopher B. Taber, Christopher J. Sole, and Michael H. Stone. 2018. "Force-Time Differences between Ballistic and Non-Ballistic Half-Squats" Sports 6, no. 3: 79. https://doi.org/10.3390/sports6030079

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop