split squat

The purpose of this dissertation was to examine the effects of three post-exercise recovery modalities — active recovery (AR), passive static stretching (PS), and passive recovery (PR) — on performance and recovery markers following high-volume resistance training typically performed during the strength-endurance phase of block periodization. Fifteen resistance-trained individuals (10 males, 5 females) completed a randomized counterbalanced crossover design with three conditions separated by 11-day washout periods. Training consisted of barbell back squat, split squat, bench press, and push press (3 × 10 repetitions at 70% 1RM). AR consisted of 3 × 10 repetitions of back squat and bench press at 20% 1RM; PS consisted of 3 × 30-second static stretches targeting the quadriceps, pectorals, and deltoids; and PR consisted of 5 minutes of seated rest. Each intervention lasted approximately 5–6 minutes and was performed immediately post-exercise and repeated at 24 hours. Perceived muscle soreness, jump performance (static and countermovement jump under unloaded and loaded conditions), muscle morphology (muscle thickness and pennation angle via ultrasound), and body water distribution (ECW/TBW via bioelectrical impedance analysis) were assessed at pre-exercise, immediately post-exercise, 24 hours, and 48 hours. A back squat to volitional failure test assessed work capacity at 48 hours, with blood lactate and RPE measured before and after each training session and the squat to failure test. Perceived muscle soreness increased significantly following training and remained elevated at 48 hours, with no significant differences between conditions (p = .14). A significant main effect of time was observed for all jump performance variables (p < .001), with significant time × condition interactions for unloaded conditions (p < .05); however, no meaningful between-condition differences were identified. Muscle thickness remained significantly elevated above baseline at 24 and 48 hours regardless of condition (p < .001), while pennation angle returned to baseline by 24 hours. No significant effects were observed for ECW/TBW or work capacity across conditions. These findings indicate that AR and PS do not provide meaningful advantages over PR for reducing soreness, restoring jump performance, accelerating muscle morphological recovery, or improving subsequent work capacity following high-volume resistance training in trained individuals.

matched text: “split squat”

<h4>Purpose: </h4> This study aimed to compare the effects of velocity-based resistance training (VBT) and traditional percentage-based training (PBT) on boxing-specific performance in collegiate boxers. <h4>Methods:</h4> Twenty-eight male collegiate boxers were randomly assigned to either the VBT group (n = 14) or the PBT group (n = 14) for an 8-week program. Both groups performed four sets of back squat, Bulgarian split-squat, and deadlift at 70% of their one-repetition maximum (1RM). VBT group performed repetitions until mean velocity decreased by more than 10% from the fastest repetition of the set, whereas PBT group performed five repetitions per set. The pre- and post-tests included the lead and rear straight punch (LSP, RSP) force and 10s, 30s, and 1min continuous punch (CP) frequency. <h4>Results:</h4> Except for the 1min-CP frequency (p = 0.293), all variables showed significant main effects of “time” (p ≤ 0.023; averaged Hedges’ g = 0.57 for the VBT group and 0.18 for the PBT group). Significant “time” × “group” interactions were observed for LSP, RSP, 10s-CP, and 30s-CP (p ≤ 0.043). VBT group exhibited small-to-moderate greater improvements in LSP force (g = 0.42), RSP force (g = 0.48), 10s-CP frequency (g = 0.68), and 30s-CP frequency (g = 0.38). <h4>Conclusion:</h4> VBT was more effective than PBT in enhancing high-velocity performance tasks.

matched text: “split squat”