Jared W. Skinner

Kinetic and Kinematic Differences Between Squats Performed With and Without Elastic Bands

Israetel, MA, McBridem, JM, Nuzzo, JL, Skinner, JW, and Dayne, AM. Kinetic and kinematic differences between squats performed with and without elastic bands. J Strength Cond Res 24(1): 190-194, 2010-The purpose of this investigation was to compare kinetic and kinematic variables between squats performed with and without elastic bands equalized for total work. Ten recreationally weight trained males completed 1 set of 5 squats without (Wht) and with (Band) elastic bands as resistance. Squats were completed while standing on a force platform with bar displacement measured using 2 potentiometers. Electromyography (EMG) was obtained from the vastus lateralis. Average force-time, velocity-time, power-time, and EMG-time graphs were generated and statistically analyzed for mean differences in values between the 2 conditions during the eccentric and concentric phases. The Band condition resulted in significantly higher forces in comparison to the Wht condition during the first 25% of the eccentric phase and the last 10% of the concentric phase (p ≤ 0.05). However, the Wht condition resulted in significantly higher forces during the last 5% of the eccentric phase and the first 5% of the concentric phase in comparison to the Band condition. The Band condition resulted in significantly higher power and velocity values during the first portion of the eccentric phase and the latter portion of the concentric phase. Vastus lateralis muscle activity during the Band condition was significantly greater during the first portion of the eccentric phase and latter portion of the concentric phase as well. This investigation indicates that squats equalized for total work with and without elastic bands significantly alter the force-time, power-time, velocity-time, and EMG-time curves associated with the movements. Specifically, elastic bands seem to increase force, power, and muscle activity during the early portions of the eccentric phase and latter portions of the concentric phase.

Power Output in the Jump Squat in Adolescent Male Athletes

Dayne, AM, McBride, JM, Nuzzo, JL, Triplett, NT, Skinner, J, and Burr, A. Power output in the jump squat in Adolescent male athletes J Strength Cond Res 25(3): 585-589, 2011-The load that maximizes power output in the jump squat (JS) in college-aged athletic males has been reported to be 0% of 1 repetition maximum [1RM] squat strength) or in other words body mass. No data exist concerning adolescent athletic males. In addition, strength levels have been theorized to possibly affect the load that maximizes power output in the JS. The purpose of this investigation was to identify the load that maximizes power output in the JS in adolescent athletic men, and concurrently describe their strength level and its effect on the load that maximizes power output. Eleven high-school male athletes were tested on 2 occasions, first determining their 1RM in the squat (1RM = 141.14 ± 28.08 kg; squat 1RM-to-body mass ratio = 1.76 ± 0.15) and then performing JS testing at loads equal to 0% (body mass), 20, 40, 60, and 80% of squat 1RM. Peak power (PP), peak force, peak velocity (PV), and peak displacement were measured at each load. Jump squat at the 0% load produced significantly (p ≤ 0.05) higher PP, PV, and peak displacement in comparison with the 40, 60, and 80% loading conditions. It was concluded that the load that maximizes power output in the JS is 0% of 1RM in adolescent athletic men, the same as found in college-aged athletic men. In addition, strength level relative to body mass did not affect the load that maximized power output. Practically, when devising a training program to increase PP, it is important to include JSs at body mass along with traditional strength training at heavier loads to increase power output across the entire loading spectrum.

Comparison of kinetic variables and muscle activity during a squat vs. a box squat.

McBride, JM, Skinner, JW, Schafer, PC, Haines, TL, and Kirby, TJ. Comparison of kinetic variables and muscle activity during a squat vs. a box squat. J Strength Cond Res 24(12): 3195-3199, 2010-The purpose of this investigation was to determine if there was a difference in kinetic variables and muscle activity when comparing a squat to a box squat. A box squat removes the stretch-shortening cycle component from the squat, and thus, the possible influence of the box squat on concentric phase performance is of interest. Eight resistance trained men (Height: 179.61 ± 13.43 cm; Body Mass: 107.65 ± 29.79 kg; Age: 24.77 ± 3.22 years; 1 repetition maximum [1RM]: 200.11 ± 58.91 kg) performed 1 repetition of squats and box squats using 60, 70, and 80% of their 1RM in a randomized fashion. Subjects completed the movement while standing on a force plate and with 2 linear position transducers attached to the bar. Force and velocity were used to calculate power. Peak force and peak power were determined from the force-time and power-time curves during the concentric phase of the lift. Muscle activity (electromyography) was recorded from the vastus lateralis, vastus medialis, biceps femoris, and longissimus. Results indicate that peak force and peak power are similar between the squat and box squat. However, during the 70% of 1RM trials, the squat resulted in a significantly lower peak force in comparison to the box squat (squat = 3,269 ± 573 N, box squat = 3,364 ± 575 N). In addition, during the 80% of 1RM trials, the squat resulted in significantly lower peak power in comparison to the box squat (squat = 2,050 ± 486 W, box squat = 2,197 ± 544 W). Muscle activity was generally higher during the squat in comparison to the box squat. In conclusion, minimal differences were observed in kinetic variables and muscle activity between the squat and box squat. Removing the stretch-shortening cycle during the squat (using a box) appears to have limited negative consequences on performance.

Effect of supportive equipment on force, velocity, and power in the squat.

Abstract Blatnik, JA, Skinner, JW, and McBride, JM. Effect of supportive equipment on force, velocity, and power in the squat. J Strength Cond Res 26(12): 3204–3208, 2012—The purpose of this investigation was to examine various kinetic and kinematic variables associated with squats without and with the use of a squat suit (SS). No previous investigation has examined the effect of an SS on squat performance. Participants were 8 elite or professional level male powerlifters (height = 178.59 ± 3.5 cm; body mass = 106.8 ± 30.4 kg; age = 25 ± 2.2 years; mean 1 repetition maximum [1RM] =197.7 ± 53 kg). Subjects participated in 3 testing sessions, with the first session involving a 1RM squat without a squat suit (NSS). Sessions 2 and 3 involved a testing session completing 2 trials in the squat at 3 intensities (80, 90, and 100% of 1RM) either without (NSS) or with an SS. The session and order of the intensities were all randomized. Force-time, velocity-time, and power-time graphs were calculated from data from a force plate and 2 linear position transducers attached to the barbell. Peak eccentric force was significantly higher during SS at 100% of 1RM (NSS-100 = 3196.2 ± 470.6, SS-100 = 3369.7 ± 589.9 N). Peak concentric velocity was significantly higher during SS in comparison to NSS at all intensities. Peak concentric power was significantly higher during SS at 80% of 1RM (NSS-80 = 1566.5 ± 388.4 W, SS-80 = 1770.4 ± 483.2 W) and 90% of 1RM (NSS-90 = 1493.1 ± 296.2 W, SS-90 = 1723.8 ± 449.5 W). The current investigation has demonstrated significantly different kinetic and kinematic characteristics between squats without (NSS) and with an SS, which could ultimately aid in enhancing squat performance.

A comparison of men's and women's strength to body mass ratio and varus/valgus knee angle during jump landings

Abstract The purpose of this investigation was to compare valgus/varus knee angles during various jumps and lower body strength between males and females relative to body mass. Seventeen recreationally active females (age: 21.94 ± 2.59 years; height: 1.67 ± 0.05 m; mass: 64.42 ± 8.39 kg; percent body fat: 26.89 ± 6.26%; squat one-repetition maximum: 66.18 ± 19.47 kg; squat to body mass ratio: 1.03 ± 0.28) and 13 recreationally active males (age: 21.69 ± 1.65 years; height: 1.77 ± 0.07 m; mass: 72.39 ± 9.23 kg; percent body fat: 13.15 ± 5.18%; squat one-repetition maximum: 115.77 ± 30.40 kg; squat to body mass ratio: 1.59 ± 0.31) performed a one-repetition maximum in the squat and three of each of the following jumps: countermovement jump, 30 cm drop jump, 45 cm drop jump, and 60 cm drop jump. Knee angles were analysed using videography and body composition was analysed by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry to allow for squat to body mass ratio and squat to fat free mass ratio to be calculated. Significant differences (P ≤ 0.05) were found between male and female one-repetition maximum, male and female squat to body mass ratio, and male and female squat to fat free mass ratio. Significant differences were found between male and female varus/valgus knee positions during maximum flexion of the right and left leg in the countermovement jump, drop jump from 30 cm, drop jump from 45 cm, and drop jump from 60 cm. Correlations between varus/valgus knee angles and squat to body mass ratio for all jumps displayed moderate, non-significant relationships (countermovement jump: r = 0.445; drop jump from 30 cm: r = 0.448; drop jump from 45 cm: r = 0.449; drop jump from 60 cm: r = 0.439). In conclusion, males and females have significantly different lower body strength and varus/valgus knee position when landing from jumps.