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

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

Department of Human Movement Sciences, Carroll University, Waukesha, WI 53186, USA
Department of Exercise Science, Sacred Heart University, Fairfield, CT 06825, USA
Department of Health and Human Performance, The Citadel—The Military College of South Carolina, Charleston, SC 29409, USA
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;
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.

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.

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.

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

Back to TopTop