Sentences with phrase «swinton et»

Comparing the effects of barbell type, Swinton et al. (2011a) found that there was no difference in ankle net joint moments when comparing straight bar and hexagonal bar deadlifts.

Comparing the effects of different training variables, Swinton et al. (2011a) reported data showing that knee net joint moments increased with increasing relative loads ranging between 10 — 80 % of 1RM with both straight bar and hexagonal bar deadlifts.

Comparing the effects of different training variables, Swinton et al. (2011a) found that there was no difference in peak knee joint angles when using relative loads ranging between 10 — 80 % of 1RM with the straight bar and hexagonal bar deadlifts.

Comparing the effects of different training variables, Swinton et al. (2011a) reported data showing that ankle net joint moments increased with increasing relative loads ranging between 10 — 80 % of 1RM with both straight bar and hexagonal bar deadlifts.

Comparing the effects of different training variables, Swinton et al. (2011a) explored the effects of relative load between 10 — 80 % of 1RM and found that power outputs increased to a peak at 30 % of 1RM for straight bar deadlifts and to a peak at 40 % of 1RM hexagonal bar deadlifts, before reducing to a minimum at 80 % of 1RM.

Similarly, Swinton et al. (2011b) showed data that demonstrated clear increases in ground reaction forces from 30 % of 1RM to 70 % of 1RM, both when lifting with maximal velocity and with submaximal velocity.

Testing loads at 30 %, 50 % and 70 % of 1RM, Swinton et al. (2011b) reported data showing that rate of force development increased with increasing relative load with both submaximal velocities (4,887 ± 2,432, 5,631 ± 2,727, 6,408 ± 2,606 N / s) and with maximal velocities (7,658 ± 3,853, 9,485 ± 3,911, 11,219 ± 4,362 N / s).

Comparing the effects of barbell type, Swinton et al. (2011a) found that there was no difference in peak trunk angle when comparing straight bar and hexagonal bar deadlifts.

Comparing the effects of barbell type, Swinton et al. (2011a) found that power outputs were higher when using the hexagonal bar compared to the straight bar (using the same absolute loads).

Swinton et al. (2011b) also reported that lifting with maximal velocity involved greater ground reaction forces than lifting with submaximal velocity, at all tested loads between 30 % of 1RM and 70 % of 1RM.

Comparing the effects of different training variables, Swinton et al. (2011a) found that ground reaction forces increased with increasing relative loads from 10 to 80 % of 1RM with both the straight bar and hexagonal bar deadlifts.

Comparing the effects of barbell type, Swinton et al. (2011a) found that there was no difference in peak joint angles when comparing straight bar and hexagonal bar deadlifts.

Swinton et al. (2011b) found contrary results when testing deadlifts performed with maximal velocity and with submaximal velocity.

Comparing the effects of barbell type, Swinton et al. (2011a) found that there was a difference in knee external moment arm length in the straight bar deadlift compared to the hexagonal bar deadlift.

Comparing the effects of barbell type, Swinton et al. (2011a) found that there was no difference in ankle external moment arm length in the straight bar deadlift compared to the hexagonal bar deadlift but there was a non-significant trend for a greater moment arm in the straight bar deadlift (16.5 cm vs. 11.9 cm).

Test of transfer (cross-sectional): sometimes, high - velocity strength measures are better predictors of sprinting ability than low - velocity strength measures (Alexander, 1989; Nesser et al. 1996; Blazevich & Jenkins, 1998; Dowson et al. 1998; Baker & Nance, 1999; Newman et al. 2004; Misjuk et al. 2013; Loturco et al. 2017), but this is not always the case (Swinton et al. 2014), and there are often no associations between strength at any velocity and sprinting (Farrar & Thorland, 1987; Wilson et al. 1996; Cronin & Hansen, 2005; Requena et al. 2009; Alemdaroğlu, 2012).

In general, the powerlifting technique appears to lead to a greater hip extension moment than the traditional or Olympic back squat (Wretenberg et al. 1996; Swinton et al. 2012).

Swinton et al. (2012) found that the peak hip angle was less acute in the traditional squat than in the powerlifting squat variation but there was no difference between either of these variations and the box squat.

Comparing different squat variations, Swinton et al. (2012) reported that lumbosacral extensor moments were greater in the traditional squat variation than in either the box or powerlifting squat variations, but there was no difference between box and powerlifting squats.

Wretenberg et al. (1996) found that peak knee extensor moments were lower during powerlifting squats than during Olympic weightlifting - style squats, even though the powerlifting squats involved the use of greater absolute loads; Swinton et al. (2012) reported that peak knee extensor moments were greater in the box squat variation than in either the traditional or powerlifting squat variations, but there was no difference between traditional and powerlifting squats.

Comparing different squat variations, Swinton et al. (2012) reported that peak knee extension moment arm lengths were greatest in the order box > traditional > powerlifting squat variations.

This was accepted as fact for many years until later studies reported that power outputs during sub-maximal deadlifts are actually comparable with those produced in the Olympic lifts (Swinton et al. 2011).

Comparing different squat variations, Swinton et al. (2012) reported that peak lumbosacral moment arm lengths were greater in the traditional and powerlifting squat variations than in the box squat variations.

The test - re-test reliability of 1RM back squat as measured by ICC has most often been reported as either nearly perfect (Soares - Caldeira et al. 2009, Ritti - Dias et al. 2011, Seo et al. 2012; Comfort and McMahon, 2014) or very large (Swinton et al. 2012, Augustsson and Svantesson, 2013).

Assessing the effect of exercise, Aspe and Swinton et al. (2014) compared the back squat and overhead squat performed with relative loads of 60, 75 and 90 % of the 3RM.

Comparing different squat variations, Swinton et al. (2012) reported that peak ankle plantar flexor moments were greater in the traditional squat variation than in either the box or powerlifting squat variations, but there was no difference between box and powerlifting squats.

Swinton et al. (2012) found that peak trunk angle was similar in the traditional and powerlifting squat variations but was much less acute during the box squat.

Swinton et al. (2012) found that peak ankle angles were less acute in the order box squat > powerlifting > traditional variations.

Comparing the back squat and box squat, Swinton et al. (2012) found that rate of force development was 3 — 4 times greater during the box squat variation than during the traditional and powerlifting squat variations.

Comparing different squat variations, Swinton et al. (2012) reported that peak ankle moment arm lengths were greater in the traditional squat variation than in either the powerlifting or box squat variations.

Not exact matches

Both Willardson et al. (2009) and Aspe and Swinton (2014) reported that greater relative loads produced greater levels of muscle activity.

Exploring training variables, Aspe and Swinton (2014) reported that greater relative loads produced greater levels of muscle activity but Li et al. (2013) found that greater relative loads did not lead to greater increases in muscle activity.

Exploring training variables, Li et al. (2013), Aspe and Swinton (2014) and Gomes et al. (2015) all reported that greater relative loads produced greater levels of muscle activity.

Exploring the effects of training variables, McCaw and Melrose (1999), Li et al. (2013), Aspe and Swinton (2014) and Gomes et al. (2015) all reported that greater relative loads produced greater levels of muscle activity and Luera et al. (2014) showed that the correlation between increasing squat force and muscle activity was strong and linear.

Exploring the effects of training variables, Bressel et al. (2009), Willardson et al. (2009), Li et al. (2013) and Aspe and Swinton (2014) all reported that greater relative loads produced greater levels of muscle activity.

Studies have found that gluteus maximus EMG amplitude increases during the back squat with both load (Savelberg et al. 2007; Li et al. 2013; Aspe and Swinton, 2014; Gomes et al. 2015; Giroux et al. 2015) and speed (Manabe et al. 2007).

Generally, researchers have reported that gluteus maximus EMG amplitude is much lower than quadriceps EMG amplitude in the back squat (Isear et al. 1997; McCaw & Melrose, 1999; Manabe et al. 2007; Paoli et al. 2009; Lynn & Noffal, 2012; Li et al. 2013; Aspe & Swinton, 2014; Yavuz et al. 2015; Contreras et al. 2015b), although musculoskeletal modelling investigations indicate that both muscle groups are important (Bryanton et al. 2015).