The contribution of volume, technique, and load to single-repetition and total-repetition kinematics and kinetics in response to three loading schemes

Blair T. Crewther, John Cronin, Justin W L Keogh

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

12 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Crewther, BT, Cronin, J, and Keogh, JWL The contribution of volume, technique, and load to single-repetition and total-repetition kinematics and kinetics in response to three loading schemes. J Strength Cond Res 22(6): 1908-1915, 2008-This study examined the effect of volume, technique, and load upon single-repetition and total-repetition kinematics and kinetics during three loading schemes. Eleven recreationally trained males each performed a power (8 sets of 6 repetitions at 45% of one-repetition maximum [1 RM], 3-minute rest periods, explosive and ballistic movements), hypertrophy (10 sets of 10 repetitions at 75% 1 RM, 2-minute rest periods, controlled movements), and maximal strength (6 sets of 4 repetitions at 88% 1 RM, 4-minute rest periods, explosive intent) scheme involving squats. Examination of repetition data showed that load intensity (% 1 RM) generally had a direct effect on forces, contraction times, impulses, and work (i.e., increasing with load), whereas power varied across loads (p < 0.001). However, total-repetition forces, contraction times, impulses, work, and power were all greater in the hypertrophy scheme (p < 0.001), because of the greater number of repetitions performed (volume) as well as lifting technique. No differences in total forces were found between the equal-volume power and maximal strength schemes, but the former did produce greater total contraction times, work, and power (p < 0.001), which may also be attributed to repetition and technique differences. Total impulses were the only variable greater in the maximal strength scheme (p < 0.001). Thus, the interaction of load, volume, and technique plays an important role in determining the mechanical responses (stimuli) afforded by these workouts. These findings may explain disparities cited within research, regarding the effectiveness of different loading strategies for hypertrophy, maximal strength, and power adaptation.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1908-1915
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Volume22
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Nov 2008
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Biomechanical Phenomena
Hypertrophy
Research

Cite this

@article{3c6e94fe373c4a208de401632deb0817,
title = "The contribution of volume, technique, and load to single-repetition and total-repetition kinematics and kinetics in response to three loading schemes",
abstract = "Crewther, BT, Cronin, J, and Keogh, JWL The contribution of volume, technique, and load to single-repetition and total-repetition kinematics and kinetics in response to three loading schemes. J Strength Cond Res 22(6): 1908-1915, 2008-This study examined the effect of volume, technique, and load upon single-repetition and total-repetition kinematics and kinetics during three loading schemes. Eleven recreationally trained males each performed a power (8 sets of 6 repetitions at 45{\%} of one-repetition maximum [1 RM], 3-minute rest periods, explosive and ballistic movements), hypertrophy (10 sets of 10 repetitions at 75{\%} 1 RM, 2-minute rest periods, controlled movements), and maximal strength (6 sets of 4 repetitions at 88{\%} 1 RM, 4-minute rest periods, explosive intent) scheme involving squats. Examination of repetition data showed that load intensity ({\%} 1 RM) generally had a direct effect on forces, contraction times, impulses, and work (i.e., increasing with load), whereas power varied across loads (p < 0.001). However, total-repetition forces, contraction times, impulses, work, and power were all greater in the hypertrophy scheme (p < 0.001), because of the greater number of repetitions performed (volume) as well as lifting technique. No differences in total forces were found between the equal-volume power and maximal strength schemes, but the former did produce greater total contraction times, work, and power (p < 0.001), which may also be attributed to repetition and technique differences. Total impulses were the only variable greater in the maximal strength scheme (p < 0.001). Thus, the interaction of load, volume, and technique plays an important role in determining the mechanical responses (stimuli) afforded by these workouts. These findings may explain disparities cited within research, regarding the effectiveness of different loading strategies for hypertrophy, maximal strength, and power adaptation.",
author = "Crewther, {Blair T.} and John Cronin and Keogh, {Justin W L}",
year = "2008",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181839f61",
language = "English",
volume = "22",
pages = "1908--1915",
journal = "Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research",
issn = "1064-8011",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams & Wilkins",
number = "6",

}

The contribution of volume, technique, and load to single-repetition and total-repetition kinematics and kinetics in response to three loading schemes. / Crewther, Blair T.; Cronin, John; Keogh, Justin W L.

In: Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, Vol. 22, No. 6, 11.2008, p. 1908-1915.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - The contribution of volume, technique, and load to single-repetition and total-repetition kinematics and kinetics in response to three loading schemes

AU - Crewther, Blair T.

AU - Cronin, John

AU - Keogh, Justin W L

PY - 2008/11

Y1 - 2008/11

N2 - Crewther, BT, Cronin, J, and Keogh, JWL The contribution of volume, technique, and load to single-repetition and total-repetition kinematics and kinetics in response to three loading schemes. J Strength Cond Res 22(6): 1908-1915, 2008-This study examined the effect of volume, technique, and load upon single-repetition and total-repetition kinematics and kinetics during three loading schemes. Eleven recreationally trained males each performed a power (8 sets of 6 repetitions at 45% of one-repetition maximum [1 RM], 3-minute rest periods, explosive and ballistic movements), hypertrophy (10 sets of 10 repetitions at 75% 1 RM, 2-minute rest periods, controlled movements), and maximal strength (6 sets of 4 repetitions at 88% 1 RM, 4-minute rest periods, explosive intent) scheme involving squats. Examination of repetition data showed that load intensity (% 1 RM) generally had a direct effect on forces, contraction times, impulses, and work (i.e., increasing with load), whereas power varied across loads (p < 0.001). However, total-repetition forces, contraction times, impulses, work, and power were all greater in the hypertrophy scheme (p < 0.001), because of the greater number of repetitions performed (volume) as well as lifting technique. No differences in total forces were found between the equal-volume power and maximal strength schemes, but the former did produce greater total contraction times, work, and power (p < 0.001), which may also be attributed to repetition and technique differences. Total impulses were the only variable greater in the maximal strength scheme (p < 0.001). Thus, the interaction of load, volume, and technique plays an important role in determining the mechanical responses (stimuli) afforded by these workouts. These findings may explain disparities cited within research, regarding the effectiveness of different loading strategies for hypertrophy, maximal strength, and power adaptation.

AB - Crewther, BT, Cronin, J, and Keogh, JWL The contribution of volume, technique, and load to single-repetition and total-repetition kinematics and kinetics in response to three loading schemes. J Strength Cond Res 22(6): 1908-1915, 2008-This study examined the effect of volume, technique, and load upon single-repetition and total-repetition kinematics and kinetics during three loading schemes. Eleven recreationally trained males each performed a power (8 sets of 6 repetitions at 45% of one-repetition maximum [1 RM], 3-minute rest periods, explosive and ballistic movements), hypertrophy (10 sets of 10 repetitions at 75% 1 RM, 2-minute rest periods, controlled movements), and maximal strength (6 sets of 4 repetitions at 88% 1 RM, 4-minute rest periods, explosive intent) scheme involving squats. Examination of repetition data showed that load intensity (% 1 RM) generally had a direct effect on forces, contraction times, impulses, and work (i.e., increasing with load), whereas power varied across loads (p < 0.001). However, total-repetition forces, contraction times, impulses, work, and power were all greater in the hypertrophy scheme (p < 0.001), because of the greater number of repetitions performed (volume) as well as lifting technique. No differences in total forces were found between the equal-volume power and maximal strength schemes, but the former did produce greater total contraction times, work, and power (p < 0.001), which may also be attributed to repetition and technique differences. Total impulses were the only variable greater in the maximal strength scheme (p < 0.001). Thus, the interaction of load, volume, and technique plays an important role in determining the mechanical responses (stimuli) afforded by these workouts. These findings may explain disparities cited within research, regarding the effectiveness of different loading strategies for hypertrophy, maximal strength, and power adaptation.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=61949352646&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181839f61

DO - 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181839f61

M3 - Article

VL - 22

SP - 1908

EP - 1915

JO - Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

JF - Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

SN - 1064-8011

IS - 6

ER -