Matthew R. Moreno

The 1 repetition maximum mechanics of a high-handle hexagonal bar deadlift compared with a conventional deadlift as measured by a linear position transducer

Abstract Lockie, RG, Moreno, MR, Lazar, A, Risso, FG, Liu, TM, Stage, AA, Birmingham-Babauta, SA, Torne, IA, Stokes, JJ, Giuliano, DV, Davis, DL, Orjalo, AJ, and Callaghan, SJ. The 1 repetition maximum mechanics of a high-handle hexagonal bar deadlift compared with a conventional deadlift as measured by a linear position transducer. J Strength Cond Res 32(1): 150–161, 2018—The high-handle hexagonal bar deadlift (HHBD), a variation of the conventional deadlift (CD), is said to reduce the lift range of motion, which may change the mechanics of the lift. However, no research has investigated this. This study compared the mechanics between a 1 repetition maximum (1RM) CD and HHBD. Thirty-one strength-trained subjects (21 men, 10 women) completed a 1RM CD and HHBD. A linear position transducer measured lift distance, duration, and work; and peak and mean power, velocity, and force. The presence of a sticking region (SR) was determined for each lift. A repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) calculated differences between 1RM CD and HHBD mechanics. A one-way ANOVA compared the mechanics of each lift between subjects who exhibited an SR or not, and the SR between the CD and HHBD. Significance was set at p < 0.01. Subjects lifted a greater load in the HHBD (154.50 ± 45.29 kg) compared with the CD (134.72 ± 40.63 kg). Lift distance and duration were 22 and 25% shorter during the 1RM HHBD, respectively. The HHBD featured greater peak power and velocity, and peak and mean force; more work was done in the CD. Most subjects did not exhibit a CD (68%) or HHBD (77%) SR. There were no differences in CD or HHBD mechanics between subjects with or without an SR, and no differences in SR region distance or duration between the CD and HHBD. Greater force can be generated in the HHBD, which could have implications for strength-training adaptations over time.

Relationships and Predictive Capabilities of Jump Assessments to Soccer-Specific Field Test Performance in Division I Collegiate Players

Leg power is an important characteristic for soccer, and jump tests can measure this capacity. Limited research has analyzed relationships between jumping and soccer-specific field test performance in collegiate male players. Nineteen Division I players completed tests of: leg power (vertical jump (VJ), standing broad jump (SBJ), left- and right-leg triple hop (TH)); linear (30 m sprint; 0–5 m, 5–10 m, 0–10, 0–30 m intervals) and change-of-direction (505) speed; soccer-specific fitness (Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery Test Level 2); and 7 × 30-m sprints to measure repeated-sprint ability (RSA; total time (TT), performance decrement (PD)). Pearson’s correlations (r) determined jump and field test relationships; stepwise regression ascertained jump predictors of the tests (p < 0.05). All jumps correlated with the 0–5, 0–10, and 0–30 m sprint intervals (r = −0.65–−0.90). VJ, SBJ, and left- and right-leg TH correlated with RSA TT (r = −0.51–−0.59). Right-leg TH predicted the 0–5 and 0–10 m intervals (R2 = 0.55–0.81); the VJ predicted the 0–30 m interval and RSA TT (R2 = 0.41–0.84). Between-leg TH asymmetry correlated with and predicted left-leg 505 and RSA PD (r = −0.68–0.62; R2 = 0.39–0.46). Improvements in jumping ability could contribute to faster speed and RSA performance in collegiate soccer players.

An Investigation of the Mechanics and Sticking Region of a One-Repetition Maximum Close-Grip Bench Press versus the Traditional Bench Press

The close-grip bench press (CGBP) is a variation of the traditional bench press (TBP) that uses a narrower grip (~95% of biacromial distance (BAD)) and has potential application for athletes performing explosive arm actions from positions where the hands are held close to the torso. Limited research has investigated CGBP mechanics compared to the TBP. Twenty-seven resistance-trained individuals completed a one-repetition maximum TBP and CGBP. The TBP was performed with the preferred grip; the CGBP with a grip width of 95% BAD. A linear position transducer measured lift distance and duration; peak and mean power, velocity, and force; distance and time when peak power occurred; and work. Pre-sticking region (PrSR), sticking region, and post-sticking region distance and duration for each lift was measured. A repeated measures ANOVA was used to derive differences between TBP and CGBP mechanics (p < 0.01); effect sizes (d) were also calculated. A greater load was lifted in the TBP, thus mean force was greater (d = 0.16–0.17). Peak power and velocity were higher in the CGBP, which had a longer PrSR distance (d = 0.49–1.32). The CGBP could emphasize power for athletes that initiate explosive upper-body actions with the hands positioned close to the torso.

Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery Test Level 2 and Its Relationship With Other Typical Soccer Field Tests in Female Collegiate Soccer Players

Abstract Lockie, RG, Jalilvand, F, Moreno, MR, Orjalo, AJ, Risso, FG, and Nimphius, S. Yo-Yo intermittent recovery test level 2 and its relationship with other typical soccer field tests in female collegiate soccer players. J Strength Cond Res 31(10): 2667–2677, 2017—The ability to complete high-intensity running is essential for soccer. The Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery Test Level 2 (YYIRT2) can measure this capacity, but there is limited information regarding this assessment in collegiate female soccer players. This study investigated the YYIRT2 as a measure of high-intensity running in this population, and its relationship to other soccer field tests. Twenty-one players from a Division I team were recruited. In addition to the YYIRT2, subjects completed linear (0–5, 0–10, and 0–30 m sprint intervals) and change-of-direction (pro-agility and 60-yard shuttle) speed tests, as well as the YYIRT Level 1 (YYIRT1), to assess relationships with YYIRT2 by correlations (p ⩽ 0.05). The correlation of YYIRT1 with the speed tests was also assessed. The YYIRT1 and YYIRT2 were standardized using z-scores for comparison with elite benchmarks to investigate relative performance on each test. The YYIRT2 and YYIRT1 distances did not significantly correlate with those of the speed tests (r = −0.251 to 0.274). There was a large relationship between YYIRT2 and YYIRT1 distances (r = 0.582), although the explained variance was low (33.87%). Mean YYIRT2 z-scores (−4.29 ± 1.66) indicated a performance further from elite benchmarks than those of the YYIRT1 (−1.92 ± 1.61), and 90.5% (19 of 21) subjects performed relatively better in the YYIRT1 than YYIRT2. The YYIRT2 provided a more specific measure of high-intensity running to that of the YYIRT1 in collegiate female soccer players. Coaches may consider using the YYIRT2 to gauge and track progress of high-intensity running capabilities and create training programs to improve this ability in female players.

Relationships between mechanical variables in the traditional and close-grip bench press

Abstract The study aim was to determine relationships between mechanical variables in the one-repetition maximum (1RM) traditional bench press (TBP) and close-grip bench press (CGBP). Twenty resistance-trained men completed a TBP and CGBP 1RM. The TBP was performed with the preferred grip; the CGBP with a grip width of 95% biacromial distance. A linear position transducer measured: lift distance and duration; work; and peak and mean power, velocity, and force. Paired samples t-tests (p < 0.05) compared the 1RM and mechanical variables for the TBP and CGBP; effect sizes (d) were also calculated. Pearson’s correlations (r; p < 0.05) computed relationships between the TBP and CGBP. 1RM, lift duration, and mean force were greater in the TBP (d = 0.30-3.20). Peak power and velocity was greater for the CGBP (d = 0.50-1.29). The 1RM TBP correlated with CGBP 1RM, power, and force (r = 0.685-0.982). TBP work correlated with CGBP 1RM, lift distance, power, force, and work (r = 0.542-0.931). TBP power correlated with CGBP 1RM, power, force, velocity, and work (r = 0.484-0.704). TBP peak and mean force related to CGBP 1RM, power, and force (r = 0.596-0.980). Due to relationships between the load, work, power, and force for the TBP and CGBP, the CGBP could provide similar strength adaptations to the TBP with long-term use. The velocity profile for the CGBP was different to that of the TBP. The CGBP could be used specifically to improve high-velocity, upper-body pushing movements.

A Preliminary Case Analysis of the Post- Activation Potentiation Effects of Plyometrics on Sprint Performance in Women

Abstract This study provided a case analysis of the effects of plyometrics on post-activation potentiation (PAP) of 20-m (0-5, 0-10, 0-20 m intervals) sprint performance in strength-trained females. Three college-aged participants performed a one-repetition maximum (1RM) squat, which was used to set the load for a jump squat with 30% 1RM (JS30). Over three sessions, participants performed three PAP protocols: a control condition of 4 min rest (CC); 3 sets x 5 repetitions of the JS30; and 3 sets x 10 repetitions of the alternate leg bound (ALB). Peak and mean power were recorded during the JS30. Participants performed two baseline sprints prior to each condition, and then six sprints from immediately after for 16 min post. Results indicated that the JS30 and ALB could potentiate sprinting, although responses were highly individual. The two more powerful participants experienced more sprint enhancements across more time points than the less powerful participant. Any performance changes were in the range of 1-4%, which is typical of PAP research. It cannot, however, be confirmed whether the JS30 and ALB were superior to the CC. Nonetheless, the data suggest the JS30 and ALB could potentiate sprinting in females. Further research is needed to confirm these findings.

A Methodological Report: Adapting the 505 Change-of-Direction Speed Test Specific to American Football.

Abstract Lockie, RG, Jalilvand, F, Orjalo, AJ, Giuliano, DV, Moreno, MR, and Wright, GA. A methodological report: Adapting the 505 change-of-direction speed test specific to American football. J Strength Cond Res 31(2): 539–547, 2017—The 505 involves a 10-m sprint past a timing gate, followed by a 180° change-of-direction (COD) performed over 5 m. This methodological report investigated an adapted 505 (A505) designed to be football-specific by changing the distances to 10 and 5 yd. Twenty-five high school football players (6 linemen [LM]; 8 quarterbacks, running backs, and linebackers [QB/RB/LB]; 11 receivers and defensive backs [R/DB]) completed the A505 and 40-yd sprint. The difference between A505 and 0 to 10-yd time determined the COD deficit for each leg. In a follow-up session, 10 subjects completed the A505 again and 10 subjects completed the 505. Reliability was analyzed by t-tests to determine between-session differences, typical error (TE), and coefficient of variation. Test usefulness was examined via TE and smallest worthwhile change (SWC) differences. Pearsons correlations calculated relationships between the A505 and 505, and A505 and COD deficit with the 40-yd sprint. A 1-way analysis of variance (p ⩽ 0.05) derived between-position differences in the A505 and COD deficit. There were no between-session differences for the A505 (p = 0.45–0.76; intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.84–0.95; TE = 2.03–4.13%). Additionally, the A505 was capable of detecting moderate performance changes (SWC0.5 > TE). The A505 correlated with the 505 and 40-yard sprint (r = 0.58–0.92), suggesting the modified version assessed similar qualities. Receivers and defensive backs were faster than LM in the A505 for both legs, and right-leg COD deficit. Quarterbacks, running backs, and linebackers were faster than LM in the right-leg A505. The A505 is reliable, can detect moderate performance changes, and can discriminate between football position groups.

Loading Range for the Development of Peak Power in the Close-Grip Bench Press versus the Traditional Bench Press

The close-grip bench press (CGBP) is a variation of the traditional bench press (TBP) that uses a narrower grip (~95% biacromial distance) and has application for athletes performing explosive arm actions where the hands are positioned close to the torso. Limited research has investigated CGBP peak power. Twenty-six strength-trained individuals completed a one-repetition maximum TBP and CGBP. During two other sessions, subjects completed two repetitions as explosively as possible with loads from 20% to 90% for each exercise, with peak power measured by a linear position transducer. A factorial ANOVA calculated between- and within-exercise differences in peak power. Partial correlations controlling for sex determined relationships between absolute and relative strength and peak power load. Peak power for the TBP occurred at 50% 1RM, and 30% 1RM for the CGBP. There were no significant (p = 0.680) differences between peak power at each load when comparing the TBP and CGBP. For the within-exercise analysis, there were generally no significant differences in TBP and CGBP peak power for the 20–50% 1RM loads. There were no significant relationships between strength and peak power load (p = 0.100–0.587). A peak power loading range of 20–50% 1RM for the TBP and CGBP is suggested for strength-trained individuals.

Limited Post-activation Potentiation Effects Provided by the Walking Lunge on Sprint Acceleration: A Preliminary Analysis

RESEARCH ARTICLE Limited Post-activation Potentiation Effects Provided by the Walking Lunge on Sprint Acceleration: A Preliminary Analysis Robert G. Lockie, Adrina Lazar, Fabrice G. Risso, Dominic V. Giuliano, Tricia M. Liu, Alyssa A. Stage, Samantha A. Birmingham-Babauta, John J. Stokes, DeShaun L. Davis, Matthew R. Moreno and Ashley J. Orjalo Department of Kinesiology, California State University, Fullerton, USA Department of Kinesiology, California State University, Northridge, USA

Between-Leg Mechanical Differences as Measured by the Bulgarian Split-Squat: Exploring Asymmetries and Relationships with Sprint Acceleration

Between-leg strength differences can negatively influence sprint acceleration. The challenge is to find a method to measure this within a unilateral exercise. This study analyzed a five repetition-maximum (5RM) Bulgarian split-squat (BSS) to identify between-leg differences for the dominant and non-dominant legs in peak and mean power, force, and velocity as measured by a linear position transducer. Between-leg differences in these variables were correlated with 20-m (0–5, 0–10, 0–20 m intervals) sprint velocity. Eight men were assessed in the 5RM BSS and 20-m sprint. T-tests calculated between-leg differences in power, force, and velocity. Spearman’s correlations calculated relationships between the between-leg differences in the mechanical variables with velocity over each interval. When comparing the dominant and non-dominant legs, there were significant (p = 0.002–0.056) differences in 11 of 12 variables. However, percentage differences were low (~0.3–12%). There was one large, non-significant correlation (best repetition mean force between-leg difference and 0–5 m velocity; ρ = −0.810) out of 36 relationships. The BSS can provide a profile of between-leg differences in power, force, and velocity. There were limited relationships between the BSS between-leg differences and 20-m sprint velocities. Smaller between-leg differences in BSS power, force, and velocity could ensure minimal impact on acceleration.