Effects of changing from full range of motion to partial range of motion on squat kinetics

Drinkwater, Eric J., Moore, Norman R. and Bird, Stephen P. 2012, Effects of changing from full range of motion to partial range of motion on squat kinetics, Journal of strength and conditioning research, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 890-896, doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e318248ad2e.

Attached Files
Name Description MIMEType Size Downloads

Title Effects of changing from full range of motion to partial range of motion on squat kinetics
Author(s) Drinkwater, Eric J.ORCID iD for Drinkwater, Eric J. orcid.org/0000-0002-9594-9360
Moore, Norman R.
Bird, Stephen P.
Journal name Journal of strength and conditioning research
Volume number 26
Issue number 4
Start page 890
End page 896
Total pages 7
Publisher Lippincot Williams & Wilkins
Place of publication Philadelphia, Pa.
Publication date 2012-04
ISSN 0264-0414
Keyword(s) resistance training
performance measures
peak velocity
peak force
work output
optical encoder
Summary It is commonplace for people involved in recreational weight training to limit squat depth to lift heavier loads. This study compares differences in movement kinetics when squatting in the full range of motion (FROM) vs. partial range of motion (PROM). Ten men with a 1-year minimum of resistance training attended 4 sessions each comprising 4 sets of squats following one of FROM for 10 repetitions (FROM10) at an intensity of 67% 1 repetition maximum (1RM) FROM squat, PROM for 10 repetitions (PROM10) at 67% 1RM PROM squat, FROM for 5 repetitions (FROM5) at 83% FROM squat or PROM for 5 repetitions (PROM5) at 83% 1RM PROM squat. Movement velocity was not specified. Squat kinetics data were collected using an optical encoder. Differences between conditions were analyzed by repeated-measures analysis of variance and expressed as mean differences and standardized (Cohen) effect sizes with 95% confidence limits. The PROM5 power was substantially more than the PROM10 (98 W, -21 to 217; mean, lower and upper 95% confidence limits), FROM5 (168 W, 47-289), and FROM10 (255 W, 145-365). The force produced during PROM5 was substantially more than PROM10 (372 N, 254-490), FROM5 (854 N, 731-977), and FROM10 (1,069 N, 911-1227). The peak velocity produced during FROM10 was substantially more than FROM5 (0.105 m·s(-1), 0.044-0.166), PROM10 (0.246 m·s(-1), 0.167-0.325), and PROM5 (0.305 m·s(-1), 0.228-0.382). The FROM5 was substantially more than FROM10 (86 J, 59-113), PROM5 (142 J, 90-194), and PROM10 (211 J, 165-257). Therefore, either range of motion can have practical implications in designing resistance training programs depending on if the training goal is related to power and force development, maximizing work output or speed. Moderate-load PROM training, common among recreational weight trainers, is unlikely to provide higher movement kinetics.
Language eng
DOI 10.1519/JSC.0b013e318248ad2e
Field of Research 1106 Human Movement And Sports Science
Socio Economic Objective 929999 Health not elsewhere classified
HERDC Research category C1.1 Refereed article in a scholarly journal
ERA Research output type C Journal article
Copyright notice ©2012, National Strength and Conditioning Association
Persistent URL http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30083047

Document type: Journal Article
Collections: Faculty of Health
School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences
Connect to link resolver
Unless expressly stated otherwise, the copyright for items in DRO is owned by the author, with all rights reserved.

Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 22 times in TR Web of Science
Scopus Citation Count Cited 16 times in Scopus
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Access Statistics: 274 Abstract Views, 2 File Downloads  -  Detailed Statistics
Created: Tue, 26 Apr 2016, 12:37:47 EST

Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that permission has been obtained for items included in DRO. If you believe that your rights have been infringed by this repository, please contact drosupport@deakin.edu.au.