Maximal and submaximal intended velocity squat sets: Do they selectively impact mechanical performance in paired multijoint upper‐body exercise sets?
Metadata
Show full item recordAuthor
Janicijevic, Danica; Miras Moreno, Sergio; Morenas Aguilar, María Dolores; Baena Raya, Andrés; Weakley, Jonathon; García Ramos, AmadorEditorial
John Wiley & Sons
Materia
Fatigue Resistance training Superset
Date
2024-02-01Referencia bibliográfica
Janicijevic, D., Miras-Moreno, S., Morenas-Aguilar, M.D., Baena-Raya, A., Weakley, J. and García-Ramos, A. (2024), Maximal and submaximal intended velocity squat sets: Do they selectively impact mechanical performance in paired multijoint upper-body exercise sets?. Eur J Sport Sci, 24: 200-209. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsc.12078
Sponsorship
National Natural Science Foundation of China under grant 12250410237; Funding for open access charge: Universidad de Granada/CBUAAbstract
This study aimed to investigate how squat protocols performed at maximal and
submaximal intended velocities during interset periods of paired upper‐body exercises
that impact the mechanical performance of these multijoint upper‐body
exercises. Twenty‐one young and healthy adults (seven women) completed three
experimental sessions, each comprising four sets of five repetitions at 75% of their
1‐repetition maximum, with a 4‐min break between sets using the bench press and
bench pull exercises. The experimental sessions differed in the protocol utilized
during the interset periods: (i) Passive—no physical exercise was performed; (ii)
SQfast—5 repetitions of the squat exercise at maximal intended velocity against the
load associated with a mean velocity (MV) of 0.75 m s−1; and (iii) SQslow—5 repetitions
of the squat exercise at submaximal velocity (intended MV of 0.50 m s−1)
against the load associated with an MV of 0.75 m s−1. Level of significance was
p ≤ 0.05. The main findings revealed negligible differences (effect size [ES] < 0.20)
among the exercise protocols (passive vs. SQfast vs. SQslow) for all mechanical variables
during the bench pull, whereas during the bench press, small differences (ES
from 0.23 to 0.31) emerged favoring the passive protocol over SQfast and SQslow in
terms of mean set velocity and fastest MV of the set. The absence of significant
differences between the SQfast and SQslow protocols, irrespective of the particular
upper‐body exercise, implies that the intended lifting velocity does not influence the
potential interference effect during paired set training procedures.