Skip to main content
2024 NSCA National Conference Main banner
Icon Legend
This session is not in your schedule.
This session is in your schedule. Click again to remove it.
Back
Rate ePoster

Speed/Power Development

(31) A COMPARISON OF TRADITIONAL AND FLYWHEEL INERTIAL TRAINING SQUAT LOAD-VELOCITY CHARACTERISTICS

Thursday, July 11, 2024
2:00 PM – 3:30 PM East Coast USA Time
Location: Exhibit Hall
Abstract Details:

Purpose: To examine the differences in load-velocity characteristics between free weight back squats and flywheel inertial training (FIT) squats.

Methods: 18 resistance-trained individuals, including ten men (age = 24.5 ± 3.8 years, height = 173.3 ± 7.5 cm, body mass = 79.3 ± 11.4 kg, relative one repetition maximum [1RM] back squat = 1.95 ± 0.30 kg/kg) and eight women (age = 23.0 ± 3.8 years, height = 167.6 ± 7.5 cm, body mass = 71.5 ± 11.4 kg, relative 1RM back squat = 1.43 ± 0.30 kg/kg), completed three separate squatting sessions. During the first session, the 1RM back squat of the subjects was assessed, and they were familiarized with FIT squats. The following two sessions required the subjects to perform either traditional back squats with 40, 50, 60, 70, and 80% of their 1RM or FIT squats with inertial loads of 0.010, 0.025, 0.050, 0.075, and 0.100 kgm2. The mean (MBV) and peak barbell (PBV) velocity of the propulsion phase of each squat repetition were captured using a linear position transducer attached to the barbell (traditional) or a PVC pipe (FIT) positioned on the upper back of the subjects. Three squat repetitions at each load were measured and the average performances were used for statistical comparison. Two, 2 (mode) x 5 (load) repeated measures ANOVA were used to compare the differences in MBV and PBV of traditional and FIT squats. In addition, Hedge’s g effect sizes were calculated to determine the magnitude of the differences between squat conditions.

Results: There was a significant type x load interaction effect for MBV (p < 0.001) and PBV (p < 0.001). Descriptive statistics and post hoc analyses are displayed in Table 1. There were trivial differences in MBV at 40% 1RM/0.01 kgm2 (g = 0.10) and moderate differences in MBV at 50, 60, and 70%1RM/0.025, 0.050, and 0.075 kgm2 (g = 0.68-1.15). Additionally, there were small differences in MBV at 80% 1RM/0.1 kgm2 (g = 0.22). There were small differences in PBV at 40% 1RM/0.01 kgm2 (g = 0.57). In addition, there were large differences in PBV at 50, 60, 70, and 80% 1RM/0.025, 0.050, 0.075, and 0.1 kgm2 (g = 1.30-1.54).

Conclusions: In general, MBV and PBV was greater during traditional squats compared to FIT squats; however, the magnitude of the differences varied based on the loads compared. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS: The use of standardized FIT sizes prevented the loads from being relative to each subject; therefore, it is likely that these wheel sizes do not mimic the same relative loads for traditional squats. Practitioners using MBV and PBV to prescribe loads and monitor resistance training should ensure that specific velocity zones are used based on the type of squats that are being performed.

Acknowledgements: None