Barbell Squats - Research Update: Bar Placement, ROM and Muscle Activation | Plus: What's 'Best' for Strength & Size?

Where on your traps you place the bar makes a huge difference in biomechanics.

This is not the first article in which I try to shed the light of science on the effects of full vs. partial squats. The effect of where you place the bar during the barbell back squat, however, hasn't been addressed in detail in previous SuppVersity articles.

In fact, I would guess that the novices among the SuppVersity readers may not even be aware that where you place the bar on your traps may significantly affect your biomechanics and, eventually, your training outcomes.

Learn more about the squat and related exercises at the SuppVersity

Partial Squat = Full Strength

100 Body Weight Squats ➯ Jacked

Discontinue Sets Up Your Gais

Full ROM ➯ Full Gains!

Full-Body vs. Split for Athletes

Squat, Bench, Deadlift for Gainz

As Glassbrook et al. (2017) point out in their latest paper, there are two different variations of the back-squat, differentiated by the placement of the barbell on the trapezius musculature. More specifically, there's

• the traditional “high-bar” back-squat (HBBS) which is performed with the barbell placed across the top of the trapezius, just below the process of the C7 vertebra, and is commonly used by Olympic weightlifters to simulate the catch position of the Olympic weightlifting competition lifts; the snatch and clean and jerk and, conversely...
• the “low-bar” back squat (LBBS) where you place the barbell on the lower trapezius, just over the posterior deltoid and along the spine of the scapula, and which is commonly used in competitive powerlifting as it may enable higher loads to be lifted (32).

If you've paid attention in your physics classes at school, you will know that the bar-placement will directly affect your body's center of mass. With the LBBS squat maximizing the posterior displacement of the hips, and increased force through the hip joints in comparison to the knee joints. Details about the potentially far-reaching effects of the modified center of mass are scarce. Glassbrook et al. even go so far to say that "there is no consensus as to the differences between the two back-squat barbell positional variations". Accordingly, the goal of their study was to "compare and contrast the differences in joint angles and Fv of the HBBS and LBBS, up to and including maximal effort, in an effort to create a full profile of the two BBS variations in groups both well versed and newly introduced to these movements" (Glassbrook 2017).

Where you place the bar depends on your sport.

For their study, the scientists from the  Sports Performance Research Institute New Zealand  and the High Performance Sport New Zealand recruited six male powerlifters (height: 179.2 ± 7.8 cm; bodyweight: 87.1 ± 8.0 kg; age: 27.3 ± 4.2 years) of international level, six male Olympic weightlifters (height: 176.7 ± 7.7 cm; bodyweight: 83.1 ± 13 kg; age: 25.3 ± 3.1 years) of national level, and six recreationally trained male athletes (height: 181.9 ± 8.7 cm; bodyweight: 87.9 ± 15.3 kg; age: 27.7 ± 3.8 years). All subjects performed the LBBS, HBBS, and both LBBS and HBBS (respectively) with weight up to and including 100% of their individual 1RM. 

Figure 1: Representation of the order of familiarization and testing dates for the comparison group (Glassbrook 2017).

As the authors point out, only a small to moderate (d = 0.2-0.5) effect size difference was observed between the powerlifters and Olympic weightlifters in joint angles and ground reaction forces (Fv) -with none of them achieving statistical significance. 

Figure 2:  Distance of center of pressure to bar results at 74-100% 1RM; negative numbers indicate a distance behind the center of pressure; the higher this number the greater the involvement of the posterior chain and the lower the contribution of the knee musculature; note: for Gymrats the difference is much smaller than for the extremes, i.e. the Olympic lifters with their high bar and the powerlifters with their low bar placement (Glassbrook 2017).

The latter is in contrast to the significant difference between pros (O-lifters and powerlifters) and recreational athletes where the joint angles and thus the positioning of the bar relative to the center of gravity differed significantly. This observation clearly underlines the effect of resistance training experience and technical proficiency but does not contribute significantly to the scientists' conclusions that ...

Effects of bar placement (originally by Mark Rippetoe).

• practitioners seeking to place em-phasis on the stronger hip musculature should consider placing the bar in the lower position (LBBS) to increase the distance to the center of mass.
• practitioners who want to lift the greatest load possible should likewise prefer LBBS 
• practitioners who train for sports with a more upright torso position (such as the snatch and clean) should rely on the high bar placement and thus a lower distance between bar and the center of mass, which will emphasize the musculature of the knee joint

Similar practically relevant conclusions can also be derived from da Silva's 2017 paper on the muscle activation during the partial and full back squat. As previously pointed out, it is by no means the first investigation into the differential muscle activity of full (or deep) and partial barbell squats, but there's something that makes it particularly interesting.

How deep you should squat depends on your goals.

In contrast to other studies, da Silva, et al. (2017) decided to accommodate for the changes in external load (you can obviously lift much more on the partial squat), which would, in turn, affect and thus mess with the EMG results. In their study, the comparison was, therefore, load-equated and should thus give us an excellent idea of the individual effect of doing full vs. partial squats irrespective of the increased load you can lift if you don't go all the way down.

"Our study utilized a randomized and counterbalanced design with repeated measures to evaluate muscle activation between the partial and full back squat exercise with relative external load equated between conditions. All subjects performed a ten repetition maximum (10RM) test equated for each back squat condition (partial and full back squat). The range of motion was determined by an electrogoniometer on the knee oint, and all subjects performed both conditions in a self-selected cadence. Surface electromyography was measured from the vastus lateralis (VL), vastus medialis (VM), rectus femoris (RF), biceps femoris (BF), semitendinosus (ST), erector spinae (ES), soleus (SL), and gluteus maximus (GM). All electromyographic data were defined by the electrogoniometer data, characterizing both the concentric and eccentric phase of each repetition. The rating of perceived exertion (RPE) was evaluated after each back squat condition" (da Silva. 2017)

With 3-7 years of strength training experience, the 15 subjects in da Silva's study were also better trained than the participants in a lot of other studies - a fact of which the previously discussed paper by Glassbrook showed that it can make a significant difference in terms of how the squat is performed and thus how the individual muscle activity is affected on the testing day, when the subjects performed one set of 10RM for each back squat condition:

• partial back squats with 0-90° knee flexion and 
• full squats squats with 0-140° knee flexion.

The subjects’ feet were positioned at hip width and vertically aligned with the barbell position. The barbell was positioned on the shoulders (high-bar position) for all subjects and experimental conditions. A rest period of 30-min was provided between conditions.

Figure 3: Mean and standard deviation of RMS EMG in different back squat conditions (partial and full). *Means significantly less between amplitudes, p < 0.05 (da Silva. 2017), vastus lateralis (VL), medialis (VM), rectus femoris (RF), gluteus maximus (GM), biceps femoris (BF), semitendinosus (ST), soleus (SL), erector spinae (ES).

The data-analysis showed similar overall muscle activation patterns of the quadriceps femoris with both versions of the back squat. A significantly higher muscle activation of the gluteus maximus, biceps femoris, and erectors spinae, however, was noted in the partial versus full condition.

Contreras et al. (2016) recently com-pared the muscle activity in partial vs. full back vs. front squats. Going deep on both front and back squats increa-sed the vastus lateralis activity but decreases glute+hamstring activity.

Lower activity, greater gains? No, the results of the study at hand are not unique. Only recently Crontreras et al. saw a similar superior effect of partial squats on the peak and avg. activity of the lower glutes and hamstrings (see figure to the left). But don't worry: As explained below, the fact that the overall increase in leg lean mass tends to be greater in previous studies with the full squat could be due to (a) an increased total workload (measured as weight x distance the weight travels) and (b) training the muscle at long muscle lengths. The latter would be in line with the previously discussed observations from Drinkwater et al. (2016), who observed greater increases in muscle size, but smaller increases in strength (which rely at least partly on optimized muscle activation patterns and may thus be better predicted by EMG measures) in their 2016 study.

This may come as a surprise, as Bloomquist et al. (2013) and McMahon et al. (2014) "have shown superior muscular hypertrophy" (da Silva. 2017) when squatting through the full range of motion. Whether this effect is, in fact, a result of an increased muscle activity or, as da Silva et al. speculate, a simple consequence of an extension of the time under tension remains elusive because there's no muscle activation data available for the Bloomquist study. Accordingly, full squats wouldn't build more muscle because of an increased muscle activity, but despite a lower muscle activity and due to an increased training volume (measured as weight x distance across it was moved).

Figure 4: Total leg lean mass and individual CSA changes in the front and back thigh in the Bloomquist study.

In addition to the volume, the repeatedly observed superior hypertrophic response to full vs. partial squats may, as da Silva et al. likewise point out, as well be "be due to training at long muscle lengths, which has been shown to promote greater increases in cross-sectional area compared to training at shorter muscle lengths" (da Silva 2017; cf. Noorkõiv 2014). The latter may, in fact, have a profound effect on the adaptive response that overrides the already small benefits in muscle activity da Silva et al. observed in the study at hand.

The "optimal" squatting depth (and positioning of the bar) will always depend on your individual biomechanics, your squatting technique and - most importantly - your individual training goals. Drinkwater et al., for example, have shown in their 2016 study that found superior strength increases with partial vs. full squats. Their study should remind you that what's "optimal" will always depend on your individual biomechanics, your squatting technique and - most importantly - your individual training goals.

So what's the verdict, then? Training with a low bar position over the full range of motion will probably yield the greatest gains in total leg mass. That's at least what the individual results of the two studies at hand and the previously discussed evidence of a superior hypertrophy response to squatting over the full range of motion (Bloomquist 2013; McMahon 2014) suggest. With the increased muscle activity during the parietal (90°) squat and the results of the previously discussed study by Drinkwater, et al., however, there's partial squats, especially if they are done with the maximal weight you can lift for a given number of reps, may eventually be the better choice for athletes looking to maximize strength, not size gains.

Eventually, it is important to understand, though, that it would be dumb to assume that there's a 'single best way of squatting' that works for everyone. After all, individual biomechanics, your squatting technique and, most importantly, your training goals and the requirements of your sport will always determine what's "optimal" for you during a specific phase of your training | Comment on Facebook!

References:

• Bloomquist, K., et al. "Effect of range of motion in heavy load squatting on muscle and tendon adaptations." European journal of applied physiology 113.8 (2013): 2133-2142.
• Contreras, Bret, et al. "A comparison of gluteus maximus, biceps femoris, and vastus lateralis electromyography amplitude in the parallel, full, and front squat variations in resistance-trained females." Journal of applied biomechanics 32.1 (2016): 16-22.
• da Silva, Josinaldo Jarbas, et al. "Muscle Activation Differs Between Partial And Full Back Squat Exercise With External Load Equated." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research (2017).
• Glassbrook, Daniel J., et al. "The high-bar and low-bar back-squats: A biomechanical analysis." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research (2017).
• McMahon, Gerard E., et al. "Impact of range of motion during ecologically valid resistance training protocols on muscle size, subcutaneous fat, and strength." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 28.1 (2014): 245-255.
• Noorkõiv, Marika, Kazunori Nosaka, and Anthony J. Blazevich. "Neuromuscular adaptations associated with knee joint angle-specific force change." Medicine and science in sports and exercise 46.8 (2014): 1525-1537.

Partial Reps, Full Strength? For Squats, Combining Both via Block Periodization Yields Greater Strength Gains During the Early Phase of the Movement in Trained Gymrats

Not full or partial, but full and partial squats will yield maximal performance increases in trained athletes.

In a recent study from the East Tennessee State and the California Lutheran University researchers were able to show the common wisdom that only full reps would guarantee full development is true, but not the be-all and end-all of strength training wisdom.

When it comes to strength gains on squats, incorporating partial lifts - something that is common practice among strength trainers, anyway (Harris. 2000; Stone. 2000; Clark. 2008 & 2011), is in fact an effective training method for improving maximal strength and early force-time curve characteristics in men with previous strength training experience.

Learn more about building muscle and strength at www.suppversity.com

Tri- or Multi-Set Training for Body Recomp.?

Alternating Squat & Blood Pressure - Productive?

Pre-Exhaustion Exhausts Your Growth Potential

Exercise not Intensity Variation for Max. Gains

Battle the Rope to Get Ripped & Strong

Study Indicates Cut the Volume Make the Gains!

Speaking of men with previous strength training experience, the subjects of the study that was conducted by Caleb Bazyler, Kimitake Sato, Craig Wassinger, Hugh Lamont, and Michael Stone, were 18 recreationally trained college aged males with at least 1 year of resistance training experience on the squat (>=1.3 body mass).

"Throughout the study, subjects were instructed to cease any supplementation use, refrain from lower-body resistance training outside of the study, and they were instructed not to participate in physical activity 24 hours before testing or training sessions. Subjects also completed a dietary log 24 hours before both preintervention testing sessions and were instructed to replicate the log for postintervention testing." (Bazyler. 2014)

The subjects trained according to a classic block-periodized model to control for volume and intensity manipulation (28,33). In that, the scientists included heavy and light days with weights that differed by 10-15% "to manage fatigue and avoid training to failure" (Bazyler. 2014). The load for the squat and partial squat was calculated using percentage of preintervention 1RM.

Table 1: Overview of the strength training program. *RM = repetition maximum. †F (full ROM) performed 6 3 5 on squats; FP (full plus partial ROM) performed 3 3 5 on squats and partial squats. zF performed 6–7 3 3 on squats; FP performed 3 3 3 on squats and partial squats (Bazyler. 2014).

Each training session began with a dynamic warm-up followed by warm-up sets on squat. The F group performed full squats only, whereas the FP group performed full squats followed by partial squats (from 100° knee angle to lockout position).

• All training sessions were supervised to ensure correct technique and safety. 
• Each training session began with a dynamic warm-up followed by warm-up sets on squat. 
• The F group performed full squats only. 
• The FP group performed full squats followed by partial squats (from 100° knee angle to lockout position). 

To assess the effects of the training manipulation, the researchers assessed anthropometrics, 1RM squat, 1RM partial squat, dynamic and isometric strength at the beginning of weeks 4 and 12 dynamic testing sessions.

Figure 1: Changes in 1RM squat and 1RM partial squat (left) and changes in isometric squat peak force (IPFa) at 90 and 120° of knee flexion. 180° is full extension (Bazyler. 2014).

As you can see in Figure 1 the researchers did measure significant differences with respect to the increase in 1RM on both the full squat (FP), only, and the full + partial squat group - albeit without significant inter-group differences. Inter-group differences were obvious, however, for the  allometrically scaled isometric squat peak performance, where the specificity of the exercise is reflected in the difference between the peak performance at different positions, with

• Tip: Partials work with back exercises, as well! Doing partials in the contracted position at the end of almost every back / pulling movement is going to increase the activation of the target muscle | learn more in the SuppVersityEMG Series.
  the full squat increasing the peak performance at a knee-angle of 90° (lower portion of the squat) to a significantly greater extend, and
• the full + partial squat increasing the peak performance at a knee-angle of 120° (upper portion of the squat) to a significantly greater extend,

an observation that would not exactly warrant the scientists conclusion that "[p]ractically, partial squats may be beneficial for strength and power athletes during a strength-speed mesocycle while peaking for competition" (Bazyler. 2014).

Figure 2: Changes in impulse scaled at 90° and 120° knee-angle (Bazyler. 2014).

Against that background it is actually quite surprising that the changes in the scaled impulse at 90° and 120° was significantly larger in the full + partial squat (FP) group for both angles. In physics the impulse is the integral of a force with respect to time, which implies that the overall force the trainees in the FP group were able to apply to the bar over a certain time period was larger at both 90° and 120°, in spite of the fact that the isometric peak force was lower at 90°.

"That's not 90°, yet. Go deeper, if you want to see results!"

Bear in mind: We are not comparing full ROM to partial ROM training. This comparison has been done by McMahon et al. one year ago and as you, as a loyal SuppVersity reader know, the results of their realistic 8 weeks leg training + 4 weeks detraining program shows that "Full ROM = More Growth, More Strength, More Structural Changes & More Sustainable Gains & Fat Loss" | learn more.

A very similar result that is even more closely relate to the study at hand was presented in another study I wrote about. A study by Blomquist et al. in their 2012 study which clearly proves that full squats are better strength builders than partial squats (only!).

Practically speaking this is a significant advantage, because the guys in the FP group would be less likely to "die" at the dead point of the squat exercise at 90° - it's after all not the isometric peak force, but a "constant" force that is applied for an extended period of time that's required to move the bar up (the peak force would matter for exercises like jump squats).

Figure 3: changes in force-time curve with training (Bazyler. 2014)

I guess this advantage will become even more obvious if you take a look at the changes in force-time curve with training in Figure 3, where the orange curve represents the full squat, only, and the orange curves the full + partial (FP) squat groups.

As you can see the overall increase in force development over the 250s periods the researchers assessed increased to a slightly greater extent in the FP vs. F group.

An advantage that should pay off during any event in terms of increased maximal loads, at the latest, when it comes to doing squats for reps.

No changes in body comp - at least none that were different between groups. As Bazyler et al. point out, "[t]here was no statistical difference between groups during pre- and posttesting for any of the anthropometric variables. A time effect was found for body fat percentage (p <= 0.05). Body fat percentage decreased statistically by 10.3 ± 12.4%, d = 0.27 (p = 0.027) in the F group; however, the decrease did not reach statistical significance in the FP group, 5.3 ± 11.1%, d = 0.12 (p = 0.102)" (Bazyler. 2014)

Whether or to which extend the previously discussed advantages of the full + partial squat regimen were related to the overall increase in intensity and volume (see Figure 4) is difficult to tell - the significant correlation Bazyler et al. found between the overall relative training intensity and the pre- to post 1RM squat change (r = 0.64, p = 0.003) would certainly suggest that there is a close relationship between training intensity and strength gains.

Figure 4: Microcycle volume load (left) and relative training intensity (Bazyler. 2014)

Similarly, the researchers observed strong correlations between 1RM squat and IPFa at a knee-angle of 90° (r = 0.72, p < 0.001), and moderate correlation at the higher position of 120° (r = 0.45, p = 0.005), as well as a moderate correlation between the change in IPFa 90° pre- to postintervention and full ROM squat and the total work load (r = 0.42, p = 0.048).

Suggested read: "You Want Maximal Performance & Size Gains + Complete Thigh Development? Then Full Squats are For You!" | learn more.

Bottom Line: Overall the results of the study at hand do suggest that the addition, not the replacement of full with partial squats may offer significant benefits to previously strength trained individuals, if their goal is not solely to increase their 1-RM, where the difference of 1.6% did not reach statistical significance in the course of the 7-week resistance training intervention.

As the authors point out, though, "the larger relative training intensities accomplished by the FP group during the final 3 weeks of training suggests superior adaptations" (Bazyler. 2014). In conjunction with the previously discussed advantages with respect to the overall rate of force development, the findings do thus "support previous claims that partial plus full ROM training is an effective strategy for improving maximal strength in subjects with previous strength training experience" (Bazyler. 2014) | Comment on FB.

References:

• Bazyler, Caleb D., et al. "The Efficacy of Incorporating Partial Squats in Maximal Strength Training." Journal of strength and conditioning research/National Strength & Conditioning Association (2014). 
• Clark, Ross A., Adam L. Bryant, and Brendan Humphries. "An examination of strength and concentric work ratios during variable range of motion training." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 22.5 (2008): 1716-1719. 
• Clark, Ross A., et al. "The influence of variable range of motion training on neuromuscular performance and control of external loads." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 25.3 (2011): 704-711.
• Harris, Glenn R., et al. "Short-term performance effects of high power, high force, or combined weight-training methods." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 14.1 (2000): 14-20.
• Stone, Michael H., et al. "Comparison of the effects of three different weight-training programs on the one repetition maximum squat." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 14.3 (2000): 332-337.

Building the Jack-of-All-Traits Legs Workout With Squats, Jump Squats and Body Weight Plyometrics? At Least for Physical Education Students that Seems to Work.

Image 1 (musclemag.com): You don't have to restrict your plyometrics to leg exercises - plyometric push ups, for example can help you to build a bigger chest and a bigger bench.

"How many sets, how many reps, which exercises...?" These are the standard topics people are chatting about at the gym. Things like ROM (range of motion), explosive training or plyometrics, on the other hand, are almost as rarely talked about as they are done.

What about you? When was the last time you counted the seconds it took you to compile the concentric phase of a squat? What about "plyos" (=plyometric exercises) do you have some in your current routine? No? According to the results of a recently published study by Eduardo Sáez de Villarreal and his Spanish co-workers, this may be a mistake - at least if your goal is not solely to maximize muscle size, but also muscle function.

Plateau busting plyometrics and power building explosives - more than just hilarious bogus?

In a randomized trial, 60 active male physical education students (78.3kg body weight; 12.7% body fat; 20.4y mean age) were randomly assigned to one out of five training groups. For the subsequent 7 weeks the students performed one of the following exercise regimen (see A-E in table 1) three times per week for a total of 21 sessions (participants were instructed to avoid any strenuous physical activity and to maintain their usual dietary habits for the duration of the study).

Table 1: Training program for all the groups, participants were randomized to groups and trained 3x/week for 7 consecutive weeks; velocities are given in m/s for the concentric phases of the full squat equaling 1 m/s = 60% 1RM, 0.9 m/s = 67%, 0.8 m/s = 74%, 0.7 m/s = 80%, 0.6 m/s = 86%; full-squat means thighs to the ground, while squats are done until 60°;
plyometric jumps are done with body weight only (based on Sáez de Villarreal. 2012)

While the subjects in group A performed all types of training within one session, the other three groups served as what you may call a "control" the former "crockpot" regimen was compared to. Thus the researchers expected to be able to decide

Video 1 (click to watch): Loaded countermove- ment jumps (CMJLoaded)

1. whether the combination training (A) would elicit similar performance increases as a specialized training routine and
2. which of the specialized training routines (B-E) would elicit the greatest effects on the two outcome variables of the study.

The latter, i.e. total strength and explosiveness, as well as the 30m sprint performance of all participants were assessed in individual tests at baseline and at the end of the 7-week period and the results did in fact partially confirm what conventional wisdom would tell us: Training for speed will make you faster, training for strength will make you stronger *surprise!*

30m sprint improvements: C > A > B > D > E - but all below 1% and not significantly different

And despite the fact that none of the improvements did result in significantly improved 30m sprint times  (A: 0.23%; B: 0.13%; C: 0.33%; D: −0.68%; E −0.91%), there were statistical significant differences in the dynamic strength / power (measured via 1-RM full squats), as well as the maximal velocity of displacement during the full squat (a measure of the explosiveness), between the five study arms that may give us some clues in terms of what type of training could promote your individual training goals best.

Figure 1: Relative changes in full squat 1RM and full squat velocity (left) and ratio of power (1RM) and explosiveness (velocity) improvements (right) after 7 weeks on the 5 different protocols (based on Sáez de Villarreal. 2012)

So what exactly are the implications for your training regimen, then? Well, lets start with the most obvious things first - so, let's assume that you ...

• want to become more explosive; in that case, you would perform regimen C, because despite the fact that regimen E may be similarly specific (see figure 1, right), the overall increase in full squat velocity with C was 33% greater than with regimen E (25% vs. 16%). 
• want to improve your overall power; in that case you would perform regimen A, because neither the classic power protocol B nor the surprisingly power-specific CMJloaded protocol D (see video 1) elicit similarly pronounced gains in 1-RM squat performance as the combined protocol.

And what if you want to do both - get stronger and faster? Well the answer should be easy: Protocol A! After all, it did not just produce the most pronounced strength gains, it is also a very close second (+22% vs. +25%) as far as the improvements in explosiveness are concerned.

But that's unfair - the volume was much higher!  

Image 2 (muscle-fitness-tips.net): Plyos make an excellent addition to every routine, no matter if you want to gain muscle, build strength or agility or just don't want to do the same boring workout all the time. If you need some inspiration on which ones you could simply add to your current routine, check out the exrx.net list and pick your favorites.

Yeah, that's right... and that's not even all you would have to consider before you draw otherwise foregone conclusions based on the results of the study at hand. Despite the fact that the study participants were trained individuals, for example, their 1RM squat performance at the beginning of the study was (only) roughly their body weight, so that there was still more than enough room for improvements (what's your squat?). The testing procedure, the 1-RM full squat, as another example, is - at least in my humble opinion  - not the very best method to test "real" strength gains as it requires a decent amount of proficiency to be performed correctly. If you are a power lifter and squatting is part of your competition, fine - otherwise, testing leg-strength / power with 1-RM squats always reminds me of telling Mr Average Joe to sprint 100m as fast as he can, while dribbling a soccer ball... nonsensical? Well, so is the 1-RM squat performance test.

I could probably come up with a dozen of other "confounding factors" and "things to consider", but in the end we have to cope with what we have and based on the data from this study it does not appear to be too far-fetched that you could also benefit from incorporating some explosive CMJs (or jump squats) and plyometrics into your regimen - even if it was for nothing else than a speed and agility building, fat burning body weight based HIIT protocol you can perform at the end of your regular workout sessions and even when you are traveling!

Additional resources:

Chest	Biceps	Back	Core	Legs	Triceps	Shoulders
In case you are looking for the best classic exercises click on the body part above to see the most effective ones

References:

1. ExRx.net. Plyometrics and Power Exercises: Instruction and Movement Analysis. < http://www.exrx.net/Lists/PowerExercises.html > retrieved July 15, 2012.
2. Sáez de Villarreal E, et al. Enhancing sprint and strength performance: Combined versus maximal power, traditional heavy-resistance and plyometric training. J Sci Med Sport. 2012.
3. SportStrong.uk. Loaded Countermovement Jump. YouTube Video < youtube.com/?v=f69faqO1tto > retrieved July 15, 2012.