Anthony B. Ciccone

Effects of traditional vs. alternating whole-body strength training on squat performance.

Abstract Ciccone, AB, Brown, LE, Coburn, JW, and Galpin, AJ. Effects of traditional vs. alternating whole-body strength training on squat performance. J Strength Cond Res 28(9): 2569–2577, 2014—Traditional strength training with 80% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM) uses 2- to 5-minute rest periods between sets. These long rest periods minimize decreases in volume and intensity but result in long workouts. Performing upper-body exercises during lower-body rest intervals may decrease workout duration but may affect workout performance. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare the effects of traditional vs. alternating whole-body strength training on squat performance. Twenty male (24 ± 2 years) volunteers performed 2 workouts. The traditional set (TS) workout consisted of 4 sets of squats (SQ) at 80% of 1RM on a force plate with 3-minute rest between sets. The alternating set (AS) workout also consisted of 4 sets of SQ at 80% of 1RM but with bench press, and bench pull exercises performed between squat sets 1, 2 and 3 with between-exercise rest of 50 seconds, resulting in approximately 3-minute rest between squat sets. Sets 1–3 were performed for 4 repetitions, whereas set 4 was performed to concentric failure. Total number of completed repetitions of the fourth squat set to failure was recorded. Peak ground reaction force (GRF), peak power (PP), and average power (AP) of every squat repetition were recorded and averaged for each set. There was no significant interaction for GRF, PP, or AP. However, volume-equated AP was greater during the TS condition (989 ± 183) than the AS condition (937 ± 176). During the fourth squat set, the TS condition resulted in more repetitions to failure (7.5 ± 2.2) than the AS condition (6.5 ± 2.2). Therefore, individuals who aim to optimize squat AP should refrain from performing more than 3 ASs per exercise. Likewise, those who aim to maximize squat repetitions to failure should refrain from performing upper-body multijoint exercises during squat rest intervals.

Electromyographic and Force Plate Analysis of the Deadlift Performed With and Without Chains

Abstract Nijem, RM, Coburn, JW, Brown, LE, Lynn, SK, and Ciccone, AB. Electromyographic and force plate analysis of the deadlift performed with and without chains. J Strength Cond Res 30(5): 1177–1182, 2016—The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of deadlift chain variable resistance on surface electromyography (EMG) of the gluteus maximus, erector spinae, and vastus lateralis muscles, ground reaction forces (GRFs), and rate of force development (RFD). Thirteen resistance-trained men (24.0 ± 2.1 years, 179.3 ± 4.8 cm, 87.0 ± 10.6 kg) volunteered for the study. On day 1, subjects performed 1 repetition maximum (1RM) testing of the deadlift exercise. On day 2, subjects performed one set of 3 repetitions with a load of 85% 1RM with chains (CH) and without chains (NC). The order of the CH and NC conditions was randomly determined for each subject. For the CH condition, the chains accounted for approximately 20% (19.9 ± 0.6%) of the 85% 1RM load, matched at the top of the lift. Surface EMG was recorded to differentiate muscle activity between conditions (CH, NC), range of motion (ROM; bottom, top), and phase (concentric, eccentric). Peak GRFs and RFD were measured using a force plate. Electromyography results revealed that for the gluteus maximus there was significantly greater EMG activity during the NC condition vs. the CH condition. For the erector spinae, EMG activity was greater at the bottom than the top ROM (p ⩽ 0.05). Force plate results revealed that deadlifting at 85% 1RM with an accommodating chain resistance of approximately 20% results in a reduction in GRFs (p ⩽ 0.05) and no change in RFD (p > 0.05). Collectively, these results suggest that the use of chain resistance during deadlifting can alter muscle activation and force characteristics of the lift.