Effect of Strength on Velocity and Power During Back Squat Exercise in Resistance-Trained Men and Women.

Askow, AT, Merrigan, JJ, Neddo, JM, Oliver, JM, Stone, JD, Jagim, AR, and Jones, MT. Effect of strength on velocity and power during back squat exercise in resistance-trained men and women. J Strength Cond Res 33(1): 1-7, 2019-The purpose was to examine load-velocity and load-power relationships of back squat in resistance-trained men (n = 20, 21.3 ± 1.4 years, 183.0 ± 8.0 cm, 82.6 ± 8.0 kg, 11.5 ± 5.0% total body fat) and women (n = 18; 20.0 ± 1.0 years; 166.5 ± 6.9 cm; 63.9 ± 7.9 kg, 20.3 ± 5.0% body fat). Body composition testing was performed followed by determination of back squat 1 repetition maximum (1RM). After at least 72 hours of recovery, subjects returned to the laboratory and completed 2 repetitions at each of 7 separate loads (30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, and 90% 1RM) in a random order. During each repetition, peak and average velocity and power were quantified using a commercially available linear position transducer. Men produced higher absolute peak and average power and velocity at all loads. When power output was normalized for body mass, significant differences remained. However, when normalizing for strength, no significant differences were observed between sexes. Furthermore, when subjects were subdivided into strong and weak groups, those above the median 1RM produced higher peak power, but only at loads greater than 60% 1RM. It was concluded that differences between men and women may be a result of strength rather than biological sex. Furthermore, training for maximal strength may be an appropriate method to augment maximal power output in those athletes who exhibit low levels of strength.

Availability of a sports dietitian may lead to improved performance and recovery of NCAA division I baseball athletes.

BACKGROUND: The purpose was to survey dietary habits (DH) and nutrient timing (NT) practices of baseball student-athletes (mean ± SD; 20.7 ± 1.4 yr.) from three NCAA Division I institutions, and examine the effect of a sports dietitian (SD) in regard to nutrition practices. METHODS: Descriptive statistics and Pearson X2 analyses were run. Responses on 10 DH and 5 NT items differed (p ≤ 0.10) between athletes who sought dietary planning from a SD (n = 36) versus those who consulted a strength and conditioning coach (SCC, n = 42). RESULTS: In regard to DH items, the SD group found it easier to eat before activity (92% vs. 71%, p = 0.03), did not consume fast food (31% vs. 14%, p = 0.02), caffeinated beverages (57% vs. 46%, p = 0.02), or soda (56% vs. 37%, p = 0.10), prepared their own meals more often (86% vs. 73%, p = 0.07), and took daily multi-vitamins (56% vs. 32%, p = 0.02). The SCC group ate more at burger locations (21% vs. 6%, p = 0.02). In regard to NT items, the SD group ate breakfast before training/lifting sessions (67% vs. 37%, p = 0.02), and had post-workout nutrition options provided (61% vs. 27%, p = 0.01). The SCC group reported pre-competition meals of fast food (58% vs. 45%, p = 0.01), and sport coaches who were less aware of healthy food options (39% vs. 65%, p = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The SD is as a valuable asset to an intercollegiate athletics program. In the current study, athletes from the SD group consumed less high calorie/low nutrient dense items, ate before exercise, and consumed healthier options post-exercise. The presence of a SD was linked to provision of healthier food options during team trips. The evidence-based eating strategies and dietary plan provided by a SD may lead to improved performance and recovery.