FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2954927595> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2954927595 endingPage "919" @default.
• W2954927595 startingPage "919" @default.
• W2954927595 abstract "Squat exercise variations are considered a cornerstone of resistance training (RT) programs. Understanding the effectiveness of differing squat exercise variations is important for coaches and athletes in order to optimizing the effectiveness of a RT program. PURPOSE: The current investigation examined a comparison of the standard Olympic barbell loaded back squat (BS) with a squat performed with the safety squat bar (SSB). METHODS: Twenty eight Division I male baseball players (19.2±1.1 years, 182.5±5.6 cm, 87.6±5.1 kg) participated in a RT program comprised of two workout sessions a week for nine weeks, performing either a BS or SSB utilizing an autoregulatory progressive resistance periodization protocol, concurrent with their existing, season-specific, RT program. Pitchers (n=14) utilized the SSB bar with the goal of minimizing stress on the shoulder and elbow joints during the execution of the squat. The non-pitchers (n=14) performed the Olympic barbell BS. Lower body strength (estimated 1RM squat: kgs), sprint speed (54.86 m sprint: secs), and vertical jump (VJ: cms) were assessed prior to and following the RT training period. RESULTS: The VJ had a significant positive improvement from pre to post RT for both the BS (pre: 74.6±8.1, post: 76.5±8.0) and SSB (pre: 72.4±7.6, post: 75.3±8.3) groups (p<0.05). The estimated squat 1RMs had a significant positive improvement from pre to post RT for both the BS (pre: 136.2±11.0, post: 166.1±23.7) and SSB groups (pre: 112.3 ± 14.9, post: 152.6 ± 22.0) (p<0.05). The 54.86 m sprint did not improve significantly from pre to post RT for either the BS (pre: 7.12±0.33, post: 7.05±0.26) or SSB groups (pre: 7.27±0.17, post: 7.19±0.20) (p>0.05). When comparing gain scores between each group there were no significant difference between the BS and SSB groups for either 54.86 m sprint or VJ (p>0.05). However, the estimated squat 1RM gain score for the SSB was significantly greater than the BS group (p<0.05) noting that the effect size of change from pre to post RT was 2.69 and 2.71 standard deviations for the BS and SSB groups respectively. CONCLUSION: Given that both squat modalities yielded approximately equal improvements in VJ and lower body strength, coaches and athletes can consider the SSB variation of the squat as a viable option for developing lower body strength and power." @default.
• W2954927595 created "2019-07-12" @default.
• W2954927595 creator A5056225398 @default.
• W2954927595 creator A5085486911 @default.
• W2954927595 date "2019-06-01" @default.
• W2954927595 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W2954927595 title "A Comparison of Back Squat & Safety Squat Bar on Measures of Strength, Speed, and Power in NCAA Division I Baseball Players" @default.
• W2954927595 doi "https://doi.org/10.1249/01.mss.0000563255.51821.ce" @default.
• W2954927595 hasPublicationYear "2019" @default.
• W2954927595 type Work @default.
• W2954927595 sameAs 2954927595 @default.
• W2954927595 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2954927595 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2954927595 hasAuthorship W2954927595A5056225398 @default.
• W2954927595 hasAuthorship W2954927595A5085486911 @default.
• W2954927595 hasConcept C121332964 @default.
• W2954927595 hasConcept C153294291 @default.
• W2954927595 hasConcept C1862650 @default.
• W2954927595 hasConcept C188721877 @default.
• W2954927595 hasConcept C2776868573 @default.
• W2954927595 hasConcept C2777188771 @default.
• W2954927595 hasConcept C2777456745 @default.
• W2954927595 hasConcept C2778820510 @default.
• W2954927595 hasConcept C2780695682 @default.
• W2954927595 hasConcept C3019424981 @default.
• W2954927595 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W2954927595 hasConcept C62520636 @default.
• W2954927595 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2954927595 hasConcept C99508421 @default.
• W2954927595 hasConceptScore W2954927595C121332964 @default.
• W2954927595 hasConceptScore W2954927595C153294291 @default.
• W2954927595 hasConceptScore W2954927595C1862650 @default.
• W2954927595 hasConceptScore W2954927595C188721877 @default.
• W2954927595 hasConceptScore W2954927595C2776868573 @default.
• W2954927595 hasConceptScore W2954927595C2777188771 @default.
• W2954927595 hasConceptScore W2954927595C2777456745 @default.
• W2954927595 hasConceptScore W2954927595C2778820510 @default.
• W2954927595 hasConceptScore W2954927595C2780695682 @default.
• W2954927595 hasConceptScore W2954927595C3019424981 @default.
• W2954927595 hasConceptScore W2954927595C33923547 @default.
• W2954927595 hasConceptScore W2954927595C62520636 @default.
• W2954927595 hasConceptScore W2954927595C71924100 @default.
• W2954927595 hasConceptScore W2954927595C99508421 @default.
• W2954927595 hasIssue "6S" @default.
• W2954927595 hasLocation W29549275951 @default.
• W2954927595 hasOpenAccess W2954927595 @default.
• W2954927595 hasPrimaryLocation W29549275951 @default.
• W2954927595 hasRelatedWork W2007132637 @default.
• W2954927595 hasRelatedWork W2022917486 @default.
• W2954927595 hasRelatedWork W2079094442 @default.
• W2954927595 hasRelatedWork W2547350349 @default.
• W2954927595 hasRelatedWork W2616964226 @default.
• W2954927595 hasRelatedWork W2762305360 @default.
• W2954927595 hasRelatedWork W2914279517 @default.
• W2954927595 hasRelatedWork W3181411648 @default.
• W2954927595 hasRelatedWork W3182965356 @default.
• W2954927595 hasRelatedWork W4200102532 @default.
• W2954927595 hasVolume "51" @default.
• W2954927595 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2954927595 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2954927595 magId "2954927595" @default.
• W2954927595 workType "article" @default.