Trial reportPloS one2026
The effect of squat training with different eccentric contraction tempos on lower limb muscle strength.
Trial report in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aims to investigate the impact of 8-week squat training with different eccentric contraction tempos on maximal squat strength, jump height, and sprint performance among university students majoring in sports training.
methodsThirty participants were randomly assigned to either the 4/0/X/0 group, the 2/0/X/0, or the self-selected eccentric, isometric and inter-repetition tempo group (V/V/X/V), performing tempo-specific loaded squat training twice weekly for 8 weeks. Maximal squat strength, 30-meter sprint performance, countermovement jump (CMJ), and squat jump (SJ) heights were assessed before and after the intervention. A two-way repeated-measures ANOVA and effect size analysis were used to evaluate the training outcomes.
results1) For maximal squat strength, no statistically significant inter-group difference was detected (P > 0.05). All three groups exhibited significant within-group improvements relative to baseline (P < 0.05 to P < 0.01). Descriptive effect size analysis showed the magnitude of improvement ranked as follows: 2/0/X/0 group (ES = 1.45)> V/V/X/V group (ES = 0.85)> 4/0/X/0 group (ES = 0.64). 2) For CMJ height, both the 2/0/X/0 and V/V/X/V groups showed significant improvement compared to pre-intervention (P < 0.05), while the 4/0/X/0 group exhibited a significant decrease (P < 0.01). ES magnitudes followed the order: 2/0/X/0 group (ES = 1.07) > V/V/X/V group (ES = 0.30) > 4/0/X/0 group (ES = -0.90). 3) SJ height results mirrored CMJ trends, with ES values ranking:2/0/X/0 group (ES = 1.09) > V/V/X/V group (ES = 0.34) > 4/0/X/0 group (ES = -0.83). 4) In 30-meter sprint performance, the 2/0/X/0 group demonstrated significant improvement (P < 0.05), the 4/0/X/0 group showed significant decline (P < 0.01), and the V/V/X/V group exhibited no significant change. Effect sizes indicated significant improvement in the 2/0/X/0 group (ES = -0.76), no meaningful change in the V/V/X/V group (ES = -0.10), and a significant decline in the 4/0/X/0 group (ES = 0.63). Notably, despite significant gains in maximal strength, the 4/0/X/0 group displayed concurrent decrements in stretch-shortening cycle-based explosive performances.
conclusionCompared with the 4/0/X/0 and V/V/X/V tempos, the 2/0/X/0 tempo showed the most favorable improvement trend in lower-limb maximal strength, and induced significantly greater enhancements in explosive power performance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.