Differences in Lift Quality During the Barbell Back Squat When Using Perceived Recovery Status-Regulated Intrasession Recovery Compared With Standardized Recovery Intervals.

Autor:	Wolfe AA; Department of Health & Human Performance, Tarleton State University, Stephenville, Texas., Laurent CM; Department of Health & Human Performance, Tarleton State University, Stephenville, Texas., Tolusso DV; Department of Kinesiology, Recreation & Sport, Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, Kentucky., Rinehart AN; EXOS Sports Performance, Children's Health Andrew Institute for Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine, Plano, Texas.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	Journal of strength and conditioning research [J Strength Cond Res] 2024 Mar 01; Vol. 38 (3), pp. 444-449. Date of Electronic Publication: 2023 Dec 13.
DOI:	10.1519/JSC.0000000000004649
Abstrakt:	Abstract: Wolfe, AA, Laurent, CM, Tolusso, DV, and Rinehart, AN. Differences in lift quality during the barbell back squat when using perceived recovery status-regulated intrasession recovery compared with standardized recovery intervals. J Strength Cond Res 38(3): 444-449, 2024-The current investigation examined kinetic differences between standardized and perceptually regulated rest internals during power-based resistance training. Recreationally resistance-trained men ( n = 7) and women ( n = 7) completed 3 training sessions. Session 1 consisted of barbell back squat (SQ) 1 repetition maximum (1RM) testing. Two counterbalanced subsequent sessions of perceptually regulated vs. standardized intrasession recovery for 5 sets of 6 repetitions of SQ at 80% 1RM were completed. Lift quality was assessed using a barbell accelerometer that measured concentric and eccentric power and force outputs for each repetition. In each set, subjects reported a rating of perceived exertion (RPE) followed by passive rest for either 2 minutes or a self-selected period using the Perceived Recovery Status (PRS) scale. For the self-selected session, when an individual reported a PRS at level "7," they were instructed to begin the next set. Data were analyzed using a 2 (session) × 5 (set) repeated-measures ANOVA with Bonferroni post hoc analyses performed when appropriate. No significant main effects or interactions were observed for any set quality metrics in the concentric phase or eccentric phase, except peak eccentric power ( p = 0.01). Post hoc analyses revealed a significant increase in peak eccentric power from set 1 to set 2 ( p = 0.003) only. Finally, no significant difference between self-selected vs. standardized work-to-rest strategies on RPE ( p = 0.547) was expressed. These data suggest perceptually regulated intrasession recovery selection yields equivalent lift quality as standardized rest recommendations. Therefore, PRS utilization may provide a more simplified and individualized method of between-set rest prescriptions. (Copyright © 2023 National Strength and Conditioning Association.)
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu