EFFECTS OF TRADITIONAL VS.
ALTERNATING
WHOLE-BODY STRENGTH TRAINING ON
SQUAT PERFORMANCE
ANTHONY B. CICCONE, LEE E. BROWN, JARED W. COBURN,
Center for Sport Performance, Department of Kinesiology, California State University, Fullerton, California
Downloaded from https://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywCX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3z4CBEZThIGxpfIhDKEYbu9r6ub4Lw3E+nYm3+dVGeSrdKSDQBkP2UQ== on 10/01/2019
ABSTRACT
Ciccone, AB, Brown, LE, Coburn, JW, and Galpin, AJ. Effects
of traditional vs. alternating whole-body strength training on
squat performance. J Strength Cond Res 28(9): 2569–2577,
2014—Traditional strength training with 80% of 1 repetition
maximum (1RM) uses 2- to 5-minute rest periods between
sets. These long rest periods minimize decreases in volume
and intensity but result in long workouts. Performing upper-
body exercises during lower-body rest intervals may decrease
workout duration but may affect workout performance. There-
fore, the purpose of this study was to compare the effects of
traditional vs. alternating whole-body strength training on squat
performance. Twenty male (24 6 2 years) volunteers per-
formed 2 workouts. The traditional set (TS) workout consisted
of 4 sets of squats (SQ) at 80% of 1RM on a force plate with
3-minute rest between sets. The alternating set (AS) workout
also consisted of 4 sets of SQ at 80% of 1RM but with bench
press, and bench pull exercises performed between squat sets
1, 2 and 3 with between-exercise rest of 50 seconds, resulting
in approximately 3-minute rest between squat sets. Sets 1–3
were performed for 4 repetitions, whereas set 4 was performed
to concentric failure. Total number of completed repetitions of
the fourth squat set to failure was recorded. Peak ground reac-
tion force (GRF), peak power (PP), and average power (AP) of
every squat repetition were recorded and averaged for each
set. There was no significant interaction for GRF, PP, or AP.
However, volume-equated AP was greater during the TS con-
dition (989 6 183) than the AS condition (937 6 176). During
the fourth squat set, the TS condition resulted in more repeti-
tions to failure (7.5 6 2.2) than the AS condition (6.5 6 2.2).
Therefore, individuals who aim to optimize squat AP should
refrain from performing more than 3 ASs per exercise. Like-
wise, those who aim to maximize squat repetitions to failure
Address correspondence to Lee E. Brown, leebrown@fullerton.edu.
28(9)/2569–2577
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó 2014 National Strength and Conditioning Association
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
AND ANDREW J. GALPIN
should refrain from performing upper-body multijoint exercises
during squat rest intervals.
KEY WORDS periodization, fatigue, rest, power, velocity
INTRODUCTION
B
oth athletes and the general population com-
monly use resistance training with goals that
usually include muscular strength, power, hyper-
trophy, and endurance. Based on the goal(s),
resistance training workouts should use appropriate loads,
repetitions per set, number of sets, and rest intervals. Tradi-
tional strength training normally uses 2- to 5-minute rest
periods between sets (4). Therefore, completing whole-
body strength workouts with multiple sets of lower-body
and upper-body exercises may require long rest periods.
Thus, traditional strength training is time consuming. Unfor-
tunately, lack of time is the single most commonly reported
barrier to regular exercise (8). Furthermore, National Colle-
giate Athletic Association rules limit the total athlete training
time, including mandatory supervised strength and condi-
tioning workouts (17).
In an effort to decrease rest time and increase workout
efficiency, between-set rest intervals may be decreased.
Unfortunately, this strategy can potentially decrease both
exercise intensity and volume. In contrast, alternate sets of
opposing muscle groups (supersets) or rotating through
a series of isotonic exercises that target different muscle
groups (circuit training) may be used. These strategies allow
maintenance of relative rest periods between like exercises
while decreasing absolute rest intervals and total workout
time. The small existing body of literature suggests that these
strategies facilitate shorter workouts without impairing
exercise intensity or volume (2,5,19,20). However, upper-
body high-intensity aerobic exercise performed before
lower-body high-intensity aerobic exercise has been
observed to impair lower-body high-intensity endurance
(6,18,25). This discrepancy may be explained by the rela-
tively greater muscle mass used in the high-intensity aerobic
studies, whereas relatively lesser muscle mass was used in the
isotonic resistance studies. Thus, rotating through isotonic
resistance exercise workouts that use a high amount of total
VOLUME 28 | NUMBER 9 | SEPTEMBER 2014 | 2569
 Effect of Whole-Body Training on Squat Performance
Figure 1. Squat setup.
muscle mass may impair resistance exercise performance
and subsequent adaptations.
Although research suggests that upper-body multijoint
supersets do not impair exercise volume or intensity, and
whole body alternating single-joint/multijoint strength train-
ing does not impair exercise volume or strength gains, there
is a paucity of research focusing on whole body alternating
multijoint exercises. Therefore, the purpose of this study was
to compare the effects of traditional vs. alternating whole-
body strength training on squat performance.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
To compare the effects of whole-body traditional strength
training vs. alternating strength training on squat perfor-
mance, each subject completed 2 workouts in a counter-
balanced fashion. Workouts were separated by at least
48 hours and no longer than 1 week. One workout consisted
Figure 2. Bench pull setup.
the TM
2570 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Figure 3. Bench press setup.
of 4 sets of squats (SQ) at 80% of 1 repetition maximum
(1RM) with 3-minute rest intervals between traditional sets
(TSs). Another workout (alternating set [AS]) also consisted
of 4 SQ at 80% of 1RM with bench press (BPR), and bench
pull (BPU) exercises performed between squat sets 1 and 2,
2 and 3, and 3 and 4 in an alternating manner. Bench
press and BPU exercises were also performed at 80% of
1RM. Between-exercise rest intervals were approximately
50 seconds, resulting in a 3-minute interval between squat
sets. For all exercises, sets 1–3 were performed for 4 repeti-
tions, whereas set 4 was performed to concentric failure. Total
number of completed repetitions of the fourth SQ set to fail-
ure was recorded. Additionally, peak ground reaction force
(GRF), peak power (PP), and average power (AP) of every
SQ repetition and set were recorded on a force plate.
Subjects
Twenty healthy resistance-trained men (age = 24 6 2 years,
mass = 84.6 6 10.0 kg, height = 177.7 6 7 cm, SQ 1RM =
151 6 21 kg, BPR 1RM = 111 6 15 kg, BPU 1RM = 71 6
9 kg) between the ages of 20 and 29 volunteered to complete
this study. Subjects were considered trained if they had par-
ticipated in a minimal average of 3 resistance training work-
outs per week over the past year, and could back squat at
least 1.5 times their body mass. Inclusion criteria also con-
sisted of an absence of current musculoskeletal injury or any
illness that would impair exercise performance. Before data
collection, subjects signed an informed consent document
approved by the University Institutional Review Board.
Baseline Testing and Familiarization
Subjects attended 1 preliminary visit. During this visit, study
details were outlined and subjects signed the informed
consent. Body mass was measured through an electronic
scale (ES200L; Ohaus Corporation, Pinebrook, NJ, USA)
and height through a stadiometer (Seca, Ontario, CA, USA).
After anthropometric measurements, subjects performed
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

One-repetition maximum
testing protocols included sets
of 10, 6, 3, and 1 repetition(s) at
50, 75, 85, and 95% of estimated
1RM (1). Subjects continued to
attempt incrementally greater
resistance until failure. Three-
minute rest intervals separated
each set with 5 minutes between
exercises. After 1RMs, subjects
familiarized themselves with
the workout by completing 1
round of successive SQ, BPR,
and BPU exercises.
Barbell back SQ were per-
formed in a power rack (Mus-
cle Maxx Power Rack; Power
Figure 4. Effect of alternating (AS) vs. traditional set (TS) strength training on squat repetitions to failure during
set 4. *Significantly greater than AS (p # 0.05).
Systems, Inc., Knoxville, TN,
USA) to parallel, which was
signified by the beep of an
electronic level (Safety Squat;
a dynamic warm-up of walking lunges, high-knee pulls, and Bigger Faster Stronger, Salt Lake City, UT, USA). Experi-
Frankensteins over two 15-m lengths. After warm-up, 1RM menters marked each subject’s leg to ensure between trial
testing in order of SQ, BPR, and BPU exercises was done. placement replication (Figure 1).
For the preliminary trial and all experimental trials, each Barbell BPUs were performed on a raised bench to allow
exercise was performed with a 2-second eccentric phase for full range of motion. Subjects laid prone with their arms
followed immediately by an “as fast as possible” maximal extended down grasping a barbell, which they pulled
velocity concentric phase. A metronome cadence of 60 beats vertically to their chest then lowered back to the start
per minute dictated eccentric repetition velocity. position (Figure 2).

Figure 5. The difference in repetitions to failure between alternating (AS) and traditional set (TS) strength training on squat repetitions to failure during set 4 for
each subject.

VOLUME 28 | NUMBER 9 | SEPTEMBER 2014 | 2571

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Effect of Whole-Body Training on Squat Performance

TABLE 1. Effect of TS vs. AS condition and set on squat peak concentric GRF, PP, and AP.*

Set 1 Set 2

Variable TS AS TS AS

GRF (N) 2,570.49 ± 331.50 2,479.49 ± 397.34 2,549.27 ± 332.11 2,518.1 ± 317.04
PP (W) 2,538.21 ± 558.56 2,405.77 ± 587.86 2,429.05 ± 510.98 2,324.19 ± 461.89
AP (W) 1,065.88 ± 199.03 2,405.77 ± 587.86 1,020.43 ± 173.97 956.92 ± 169.83

Set 3 Set 4

Variable TS AS TS AS Partial 2

GRF (N) 2,542.72 ± 321.54 2,539.83 ± 316.07 2,455.86 ± 324.70 2,471.38 ± 320.0 0.083
PP (W) 2,380.46 ± 564.02 2,350.52 ± 467.45 2,044.06 ± 537.09 2,106.49 ± 470.42 0.052
AP (W) 975.48 ± 181.42 945.22 ± 169.38 857.60 ± 154.81 831.80 ± 148.08 0.177
*
TS = traditional set; AS = alternating set; GRF = ground reaction force; PP = peak power; AP = average power.

Barbell BPRs were performed supine with head, back, and
gluteal muscles contacting the bench, and feet flat on the
ground. Subjects began each repetition with the barbell
supported by their vertically extended arms, then lowered it
until it contacted their chest then returned back to the start
position (Figure 3).
Experimental Trials
Each of the 2 experimental trials (TS and AS) began at the
same time of day (6 1 hour). Subjects performed the same
general dynamic warm-up as they did on their preliminary
trial. This was followed by 2 consecutive specific warm-up
sets, separated by 3-minute rest intervals. The TS-specific
warm-up consisted of 2 consecutive SQ sets for 10 and 3
repetitions at 50 and 80% of 1RM, whereas the AS-specific
warm-up included 2 rounds of alternating SQ, BPR, and
BPU exercises for 10 repetitions at 50% of 1RM followed
by 3 repetitions at 80% of 1RM. After the specific warm-up,
subjects completed either a TS or AS workout. During both
workouts, subjects completed the first 3 SQ for 4 repetitions,
whereas the fourth set was performed to concentric failure.
For both workouts, all squat repetitions were performed on
a force place (AMTI, Watertown, MA, USA), sampling at
1,000 Hz and with a barbell collar-mounted linear velocity
transducer (Model V-80-L7M, Unimeasure, Inc., Corvallis,
OR, USA.) interfaced with a personal computer running
custom LabVIEW software (version 2012; National Instru-
ments, Austin, TX, USA). Ground reaction force, PP, and AP
variables were analyzed through the same custom LabVIEW
software. For each set, GRF, PP, and AP values were
averaged.
Volume-Equated Variables
Because the number of completed fourth set repetitions to
failure was not controlled, normal averages of GRF, PP,
and AP may be misleading. Therefore, GRF, PP, and AP
were also analyzed in a manner that equated each subject’s
number of completed repetitions between TS and AS con-
ditions. This was accomplished by determining which
condition resulted in the least number of fourth set

TABLE 2. Effect of set (collapsed across condition) on squat peak concentric GRF, PP, and AP.*

Variable Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Set 4

GRF (N) 2,524.99 6 364.42† 2,533.69 6 324.58† 2,541.28 6 318.81† 2,463.62 6 322.40
PP (W) 2,471.99 6 573.21†z§ 2,376.62 6 486.44† 2,365.49 6 515.74† 2,075.28 6 503.76
AP (W) 1,035.02 6 207.44†z§ 988.68 6 171.90† 960.35 6 175.40† 844.70 6 151.45

*GRF = ground reaction force; PP = peak power; AP = average power.

†Significantly greater than set 4 (p # 0.05).
zSignificantly greater than set 2 (p # 0.05).
§Significantly greater than set 3 (p # 0.05).

the TM

2572 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

TABLE 3. Effect of TS vs. AS condition and set on volume-equated squat peak concentric GRF, PP, and AP.*

Set 1 Set 2

Variable TS AS TS AS

GRF (N) 2,570.49 6 331.50 2,479.49 6 397.34 2,549.27 6 332.11 2,518.10 6 317.04
PP (W) 2,538.21 6 558.56 2,405.77 6 587.86 2,429.05 6 510.98 2,324.19 6 461.89
AP (W) 1,066.88 6 199.03 1,004.15 6 215.85 1,020.42 6 173.97 956.92 6 169.83

Set 3 Set 4

Variable TS AS TS AS Partial h2

GRF (N) 2,542.72 6 321.54 2,539.83 6 316.07 2,468.99 6 328.79 2,473.49 6 320.45 0.096
PP (W) 2,380.46 6 565.02 2,350.53 6 467.44 2,110.84 6 574.25 2,119.91 6 463.66 0.075
AP (W) 975.48 6 181.42 945.22 6 169.38 892.56 6 176.40 840.24 6 150.03 0.194

*TS = traditional set; AS = alternating set; GRF = ground reaction force; PP = peak power; AP = average power.

repetitions and then only that number of repetitions was RESULTS

considered for both conditions. For example, if subject
1 completed 7 fourth set TS repetitions and 5 AS repeti-
tions, only repetitions 1–5 for both conditions were
considered in the averaging of volume-equated GRF, PP,
and AP.
Statistical Analyses
SPSS 20.0 was used to perform all statistical analyses (IBM
Corporation, Somers, NY, USA). Descriptive data (mean
values and SDs) were calculated for all variables. Three 2 3 4
(condition 3 set) repeated measures analysis of variance
(ANOVA) tests were used to analyze differences in GRF,
PP, and AP. Three 2 3 4 (condition 3 set) repeated meas-
ures ANOVA tests were also used to analyze differences in
volume-equated GRF, PP, and AP. A 1-way ANOVA exam-
ined repetitions of the fourth set between workouts. Statis-
tically significant interactions were followed up with LSD
analyses for pairwise differences. An a priori alpha of 0.05
defined significance.
For repetitions to failure in the fourth set, the TS condition
was greater than the AS condition (Figure 4). There was
considerable intersubject variability; however, 12 of the 20
subjects (60%) exhibited fewer repetitions during the AS
condition (Figure 5).
For GRF, there was no significant interaction (Table 1),
but there was a main effect for set where sets 2 and 3 were
greater than set 4 (Table 2). For PP, there was no significant
interaction (Table 1), but there was a main effect for set
where set 1 was greater than sets 2, 3, and 4 and sets 2
and 3 were greater than set 4 (Table 2). For AP, there was
no significant interaction (Table 1), but there was a main
effect for set where set 1 was greater than sets 2, 3, and 4
and sets 2 and 3 were greater than set 4 (Table 2). There
were no main effects for condition for GRF, PP, or AP (p .
0.05) for any analysis.
For volume-equated GRF, there were no significant inter-
actions (Table 3) or main effects (Table 4). For volume-equated

TABLE 4. Effect of set (collapsed across condition) on volume-equated squat peak concentric GRF, PP, and AP.*

Variable Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Set 4

GRF 2,524.99 6 364.42 2,533.69 6 324.58 2,541.28 6 318.81 2,471.24 6 324.62

PP 2,471.99 6 573.21†z§ 2,376.62 6 486.44§ 2,365.49 6 515.74§ 2,115.38 6 518.96
AP 1,035.02 6 207.44†z§ 988.68 6 171.90†z§ 960.35 6 175.40§ 866.4 6 163.22

*GRF = ground reaction force; PP = peak power; AP = average power.

†Significantly greater than set 2 (p # 0.05).
zSignificantly greater than set 3 (p # 0.05).
§Significantly greater than set 4 (p #0.05).

VOLUME 28 | NUMBER 9 | SEPTEMBER 2014 | 2573

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Effect of Whole-Body Training on Squat Performance
Figure 6. Effect of alternating (AS) vs. traditional set (TS) condition on volume-equated squat average power
(AP) across all sets. *Significantly greater than AS (p # 0.05).
PP, there was no significant interaction (Table 3), but there was
a main effect for set where set 1 was greater than sets 2, 3, and
4 and sets 2 and 3 were greater than set 4 (Table 4).
For volume-equated AP, there was no significant interac-
tion (Table 3), but there was a main effect for set where set 1
was greater than sets 2, 3, and 4, and set 2 was greater than
sets 3 and 4, and set 3 was greater than set 4 (Table 4). There
was also a main effect of condition for volume-equated AP
where TS was greater than AS (Figure 6).
DISCUSSION
The primary finding of this study was that performing
upper-body exercises during squat rest intervals impaired
lower-body workout quality as seen in fewer repetitions to
failure and decreased volume-equated AP. Conversely, there
were no between condition differences in squat PP, or GRF.
This might be explained by the accumulation of central
fatigue or greater peripheral fatigue.
There was no difference in AP between conditions, which
might be explained by a difference in the number of
repetitions completed in the fourth set to failure. Because
most subjects completed more repetitions to failure during
the TS condition, and these extra repetitions tended to yield
the lowest GRF, PP, and AP values, fourth set averages were
skewed down, which resulted in misleading results. Once
equated for fourth set volume, squat GRF was still not
affected by the addition of upper-body exercises, whereas
squat AP was. Volume-equated use did not result in statistical
outcome changes to any other variable. Therefore, through-
out this discussion, volume-equated variables will be ad-
dressed. Also, because of the velocity component of PP and
AP data being a measurement of barbell velocity, PP and AP
data do not reflect center of mass velocity and are likely
influenced by changes in trunk coordination (13).
the TM
2574 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
The addition of upper-body
exercises may have magnified
peripheral fatigue by decreasing
blood flow to and oxygenation
of leg muscles (3,28). Addition-
ally, the inclusion of upper-body
exercises likely increased heart
rate above that of TS (2). This
increased blood flow demand
of upper-body and respiratory
muscles (3) may have resulted
in less blood flow to and less
muscle oxygenation of lower-
body muscles during AS, which
could have decreased metabolite
clearance and increased anaero-
bic metabolite production (9)
of the lower-body muscles. Fur-
thermore, the added upper-body
exercises might have decreased
circulating blood pH, which
could have decreased the clearance rate of force-impairing me-
tabolites (21) in lower-body muscles. All of these prospective
mechanisms of increased lower-body muscle metabolite con-
centrations might have impaired excitation-contraction cou-
pling, resulting in decreased force production (16,23).
Although some scientists suggest that build-up of interstitial
potassium rather than acidity is primarily responsible for
fatigue, increased intracellular acidity may have increased
the rate of interstitial potassium build-up (18,25) and expres-
sion of fatigue. Similarly, the build-up of intracellular metab-
olites may have indirectly impaired force production through
the excitation of group III and/or group IV afferents, which
can decrease excitation of alpha motoneurons (22) and other
supraspinal factors that seem to play a major role in central
fatigue (11).
Central fatigue may stem from decreased central drive
(26). Although studies have observed that fatigue of
exercised muscles impairs the central drive to that exer-
cised muscle (12,26), no studies have directly measured
impaired central drive to nonfatigued muscles. In fact,
Taylor et al. (26) observed biceps brachii maximal volun-
tary contraction (MVC) to have no effect on adductor
pollicis MVC. This evidence suggests that it is unlikely that
the upper-body exercises performed in the AS condition
directly affected central drive to the lower-body muscles
involved in the squat exercise. However, because central
fatigue of exercised muscles has been observed (12,26), it is
possible that additional peripheral fatigue of the lower-
body muscles may have increased the amount of central
fatigue during the AS condition, which may have contrib-
uted to decreased AS AP and repetitions to failure. Central
fatigue has been observed to account for 20% of force
decrements in maximal effort muscle actions (15) and is
accompanied by decrements in voluntary muscle

activation (15). Furthermore, Bigland-Ritchie reported
that 5 of 9 (;55%) subjects in their study exhibited central
fatigue (7), which is a similar percentage to this study
(60%). Considering the previously mentioned prospective
mechanisms and the intersubject variability, individual dif-
ferences in buffering capacity may influence a person’s per-
formance when rotating through dissimilar multijoint
resistance training exercises. Previous research supports
this idea as creatine supplementation has been observed
to augment isotonic resistance exercise power and number
of completed repetitions (27).
Although previous studies have found that upper-body
exercise can impair lower-body performance (6,18),
between condition differences in AP and repetitions to fail-
ure, the possibility of a psychological bias favoring TS can-
not be dismissed as initial expectation of performance can
influence task performance (10). Furthermore, scientists
have found that initial psychophysical perception of effort
during exercise is related to performance. Thus, if subjects
in the current study perceived the initial sets of the AS
condition to be more difficult than the TS condition, they
may have performed less repetitions to failure during the
last set and performed less powerful repetitions during the
AS condition.
The lesser number of squat repetitions to failure during
the AS condition is contrary to the findings of previous
studies that used isotonic resistance exercise to examine the
effect of exercising dissimilar muscles during the rest interval
of a particular muscle group and found no significant effect
on repetitions to failure (2,19,20). However, studies imple-
menting high-intensity endurance arm cranking before high-
intensity endurance leg kicking exercise have found that the
added arm cranking exercise impairs leg kicking endurance
(6,18). Although high-intensity endurance exercise is vastly
different than isotonic repetitions to failure, similar physio-
logical mechanisms are likely responsible for fatigue in both
types of exercise. As previously mentioned, perhaps the cur-
rent study and the Bangsbo studies may have found an effect
of added upper-body exercises on lower-body performance
because they incorporated multijoint upper-body exercises,
whereas the Alcaraz studies incorporated single-joint exer-
cises. Another explanation may be that upper-body exercises
can impair lower-body exercise, but lower-body exercise
may not impair upper-body exercise. However, the paucity
of research related to the topic makes this idea purely spec-
ulative and highlights the clear need for further research in
this area.
The current study’s findings of no between-condition
differences in GRF and PP might be explained by the
inherent changes in force and velocity due to a combination
of muscle length and leverage changes throughout the
squat. When participants began the initial concentric por-
tion of the squat, GRF increased as participants gradually
achieved more vertical thigh and trunk positions. Power
initially increased before a brief drop, which preceded
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
a rapid increase that ultimately resulted in PP. Ground
reaction force and PP are instantaneous measurements that
peak near the end of the movement where subjects are in
a relatively advantageous mechanical upright position. This
is similar to previous research that found no effect of
fatigue on GRF because it is largely influenced by the mass
being moved (14,29). Thus, peak GRF may not accurately
reflect the presence or absence of fatigue. Peak power is the
product of instantaneous GRF and bar velocity. Although
we found no main effects for GRF, the main effect of set for
PP is probably due to decreased bar velocity leading into
peak GRF. This is supported by the finding of a main effect
of set for AP, which suggests that bar velocities were
depressed leading into peak GRF. Because of the fluctua-
tions in GRF and bar velocity throughout the squat move-
ment, and PP only reflecting an instantaneous time point
late in the squat, it is not surprising that there were no
between-condition differences in PP. With no between-
condition differences in GRF and PP, it is not likely that
end range of motion was affected by the additional upper-
body exercises.
Unlike GRF and PP, which are instantaneous measure-
ments, AP is the average of PP over the entire concentric
portion of the squat. This is important because GRF and PP
are instantaneous time points measured during the most
biomechanically advantageous portion of the squat, which
neglects the data leading up to and through the “sticking
point” portion of the squat. Thus, AP data encompass
a large portion of the exercise and may be very useful for
analyzing changes in squat quality. Previous research has
indicated that AP does decrease as more sets are completed
(24), which was also observed in the current study. How-
ever, this decrease in acute performance may not translate
into a decreased training response. Although previous
research has found that additional lower-body single-joint
exercises did not affect upper-body strength development
(1), research has also found that the additional lower-body
single-joint exercises had no acute effect on upper-body
performance (2). However, these studies examined the
effect of additional single-joint exercises on performance,
which may have not resulted in as great a blood supply
competition and peripheral fatigue magnification than the
multijoint exercises in the current study. Other studies have
found no effect of antagonist muscle exercise on agonist
muscle exercise performance (19,20). However, the close
proximity and shared vascular pathways of the opposing
muscle groups might have not resulted in as great of
a reduction in exercised muscle blood flow as in the current
study. Furthermore, Robbins et al. implemented longer
4-minute rest intervals, which may have minimized any
fatiguing effect the additional antagonist exercises might
have had on the agonist exercises. Therefore, although
we observed decreased squat AP in the AS condition, AS
workouts may not necessarily result in decreased squat
adaptations.
VOLUME 28 | NUMBER 9 | SEPTEMBER 2014 | 2575
 Effect of Whole-Body Training on Squat Performance
Peripheral, central, and psychological factors have all been
observed to affect performance. Because physiological or
psychological variables were not collected during this study,
explanations of these findings are speculative. Furthermore,
the interdependent nature of peripheral and central fatigue
makes it difficult to ascertain which is responsible for the
decrements of volume-equated AP and PP across sets in
both workouts and differences in volume-equated AP and
repetitions to failure between conditions. Therefore, both
peripheral and central fatigue likely affected performance,
especially in the last set to failure, and this effect may have
been magnified in the AS condition. It is also difficult to
dismiss the potential for psychological influence because this
is the first study to report an effect of multijoint upper-body
exercises on lower-body resistance training performance.
Importantly, although this study did find that rotating
through strength exercises did impair acute AP and repeti-
tions to failure, this difference was small and may or may not
impair strength adaptations.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
When programming time-efficient workouts, caution should
be taken as performing upper-body multijoint exercises
during SQ rest intervals can decrease SQ repetitions to
failure and AP. However, this impairment did not occur until
the fourth set. Thus, individuals can perform high-intensity
(80% 1RM), AS, multijoint exercises with 50-second rest
intervals for 3 sets (each set stopped short of concentric
failure) to decrease total workout duration without impairing
GRF, PP, or AP. Conversely, individuals who aim to
optimize SQ AP should refrain from performing more than
3 ASs per exercise. Likewise, those who aim to maximize SQ
repetitions to failure should refrain from performing upper-
body multijoint exercises during SQ rest intervals. Although
AS through a whole-body strength training workout may
result in small but significant acute performance impairment,
it is unknown if this acute impairment results in impaired
strength gains.
REFERENCES
1. Alcaraz, PE, Perez-Gomez, J, Chavarrias, M, and Blazevich, AJ.
Similarity in adaptations to high-resistance circuit vs. traditional
strength training in resistance-trained men. J Strength Cond Res 25:
2519–2527, 2011.
2. Alcaraz, PE, Sánchez-Lorente, J, and Blazevich, AJ. Physical
performance and cardiovascular responses to an acute bout of
heavy resistance circuit training versus traditional strength training.
J Strength Cond Res 22: 667–671, 2008.
3. Amann, M, Pegelow, DF, Jacques, AJ, and Dempsey, JA. Inspiratory
muscle work in acute hypoxia influences locomotor muscle fatigue
and exercise performance of healthy humans. Am J Physiol Regul
Integr Comp Physiol 293: R2036–R2045, 2007.
4. Baechle, TR, Earle, RW, and Wathen, D. Essentials of Strength and
Conditioning. T.R. Baechle and R.W. Earle, eds. Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics, 2008, pp. 381–411.
5. Baker, D and Newton, RU. Acute effect on power output of
alternating an agonist and antagonist muscle exercise during
complex training. J Strength Cond Res 19: 202–205, 2005.
the TM
2576 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
6. Bangsbo, J, Madsen, K, Kiens, B, and Richter, E. Effect of muscle
acidity on muscle metabolism and fatigue during intense exercise in
man. J Physiol 495: 587–596, 1996.
7. Bigland-Ritchie, B, Jones, D, Hosking, G, and Edwards, R. Central
and peripheral fatigue in sustained maximum voluntary contractions
of human quadriceps muscle. Clin Sci Mol Med 54: 609–614, 1978.
8. Booth, ML, Bauman, A, Owen, N, and Gore, CJ. Physical activity
preferences, preferred sources of assistance, and perceived barriers
to increased activity among physically inactive Australians. Prev
Med 26: 131–137, 1997.
9. Engelen, M, Porszasz, J, Riley, M, Wasserman, K, Maehara, K, and
Barstow, TJ. Effects of hypoxic hypoxia on O2 uptake and heart rate
kinetics during heavy exercise. J Appl Physiol (1985) 81: 2500–2508,
1996.
10. Feather, N. Performance at a difficult task in relation to initial
expectation of success, test anxiety, and need achievement1. J Pers
33: 200–217, 1965.
11. Gandevia, S. Spinal and supraspinal factors in human muscle fatigue.
Physiol Rev 81: 1725–1789, 2001.
12. Gandevia, S, Allen, GM, Butler, JE, and Taylor, JL. Supraspinal
factors in human muscle fatigue: Evidence for suboptimal output
from the motor cortex. J Physiol 490: 529–536, 1996.
13. Gorelick, M, Brown, J, and Groeller, H. Short-duration fatigue alters
neuromuscular coordination of trunk musculature: Implications for
injury. Appl Ergon 34: 317–325, 2003.
14. Hodges, SJ, Patrick, RJ, and Reiser, RF. Effects of fatigue on
bilateral ground reaction force asymmetries during the squat
exercise. J Strength Cond Res 25: 3107–3117, 2011.
15. Kent-Braun, JA. Central and peripheral contributions to muscle
fatigue in humans during sustained maximal effort. Eur J Appl
Physiol Occup Physiol 80: 57–63, 1999.
16. Metzger, JM and Moss, RL. pH modulation of the kinetics of a Ca2
(+)-sensitive cross-bridge state transition in mammalian single
skeletal muscle fibres. J Physiol 428: 751–764, 1990.
17. National Collegiate Athletic Association. 2013-14 NCAA Division I
Manual. Indianapolis, IN: National Collegiate Athletics Association,
2013.
18. Nordsborg, N, Mohr, M, Pedersen, LD, Nielsen, JJ, Langberg, H,
and Bangsbo, J. Muscle interstitial potassium kinetics during intense
exhaustive exercise: Effect of previous arm exercise. Am J Physiol
Regul Integr Comp Physiol 285: R143–R148, 2003.
19. Robbins, DW, Young, WB, Behm, DG, and Payne, WR. The effect
of a complex agonist and antagonist resistance training protocol on
volume load, power output, electromyographic responses, and
efficiency. J Strength Cond Res 24: 1782–1789, 2010.
20. Robbins, DW, Young, WB, Behm, DG, Payne, WR, and
Klimstra, MD. Physical performance and electromyographic
responses to an acute bout of paired set strength training versus
traditional strength training. J Strength Cond Res 24: 1237, 2010.
21. Roth, DA and Brooks, GA. Lactate and pyruvate transport is
dominated by a pH gradient-sensitive carrier in rat skeletal muscle
sarcolemmal vesicles. Arch Biochem Biophys 279: 386–394, 1990.
22. Rotto, DM and Kaufman, MP. Effect of metabolic products of
muscular contraction on discharge of group III and IV afferents.
J Appl Physiol (1985) 64: 2306–2313, 1988.
23. Sahlin, K and Ren, J. Relationship of contraction capacity to
metabolic changes during recovery from a fatiguing contraction.
J Appl Physiol (1985) 67: 648–654, 1989.
24. Spreuwenberg, LP, Kraemer, WJ, Spiering, BA, Volek, JS,
Hatfield, DL, Silvestre, R, Vingren, JL, Fragala, MS, Häkkinen, K,
and Newton, RU. Influence of exercise order in a resistance-training
exercise session. J Strength Cond Res 20: 141–144, 2006.
25. Street, D, Nielsen, J-J, Bangsbo, J, and Juel, C. Metabolic alkalosis
reduces exercise-induced acidosis and potassium accumulation in
human skeletal muscle interstitium. J Physiol 566: 481–489, 2005.

26. Taylor, JL, Butler, JE, Allen, GM, and Gandevia, S. Changes in
motor cortical excitability during human muscle fatigue. J Physiol
490: 519–528, 1996.
27. Volek, JS, Kraemer, WJ, Bush, JA, Boetes, M, Incledon, T, Clark, KL,
and Lynch, JM. Creatine supplementation enhances muscular
performance during high-intensity resistance exercise. J Am Diet
Assoc 97: 765–770, 1997.
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
28. Volianitis, S, Krustrup, P, Dawson, E, and Secher, N. Arm blood flow
and oxygenation on the transition from arm to combined arm and
leg exercise in humans. J Physiol 547: 641–648, 2003.
29. Zink, AJ, Perry, AC, Robertson, BL, Roach, KE, and Signorile, JF.
Peak power, ground reaction forces, and velocity during the squat
exercise performed at different loads. J Strength Cond Res 20: 658–
664, 2006.
VOLUME 28 | NUMBER 9 | SEPTEMBER 2014 | 2577