eccentric training methods including tempo training, flywheel inertial training, accentuated eccentric loading (AEL), accelerated eccentric exercises, and plyometrics [3]. Although some general training recommendations for each eccentric training method have been made [4, 5], further research is needed to provide more concrete programming recommendations. Specifically, further information on how different eccentric training methods should be loaded may provide unique insight into their potential for strength-power adaptations for athletes.  
AEL is a form of eccentric training that has three primary requirements: a greater load during the eccentric phase compared to the concentric phase, coupled eccentric and concentric muscle actions within a stretch-shortening cycle action, and minimal disruption of the natural movement mechanics of the exercise [6]. AEL is unique in that it can be used with ballistic exercises such as dumbbell jumps [7, 8, 9] and jump squats [10] but also with strength-based movements like the back squat [11, 12, 13] and bench press [14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19]. Beyond the obvious benefits to the braking (eccentric) due to greater loads, AEL may provide a within-set potentiation effect to benefit the concentric movement as well [14, 15, 16]. In fact, researchers have shown that 5-10 weeks of AEL training may lead to improvements in maximal strength [20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26] and power output [7, 25, 26]. Despite the existing literature, limited information exists on how best to implement AEL with strength-based movements from a loading standpoint and thus, further research is warranted.  
[PERSON] and colleagues [13] examined the braking and propulsion force-time characteristics and barbell velocity differences between traditional (TRAD) (i.e., using the same load during the eccentric and concentric movement), maximal AEL (AEL-MAX), and supramaximal AEL (AEL-SUPRA) back squats performed with 50, 60, 70, and 80% 1 RM in resistance-trained men. The authors showed that moderate-large (g = 0.99-3.52) and large (g = 1.67-2.24) braking impulses were produced during AEL-MAX (i.e., 100% 1 RM) and AEL-SUPRA (i.e., 110% 1 RM) back squats compared to TRAD squats across the loads, respectively. Moreover, these impulses were underpinned by moderate (g = 0.77-1.16) and large (g = 1.67-2.24) differences in braking mean force while only trivial-small (g = 0.01-0.57) differences in braking duration existed across conditions. It should, however, be noted that the previous authors also found trivial-small effects for all propulsion and barbell velocity variables, indicating little to no difference between conditions. Although the previous study provides insight into how different loading methods can impact the braking and propulsion back squat stimulus, it was performed on a sample that included only resistance-trained men. Like much of the strength and conditioning literature [27], there is a limited amount of AEL research that has examined its effects in female populations. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare the braking and propulsion force-time and barbell velocity characteristics between back squat sets performed using TRAD, AEL-MAX, and AEL-SUPRA loading in resistance-trained women. Based on the existing literature, it was hypothesized that the AEL conditions would display a greater braking stimulus compared to TRAD but would not negatively impact the propulsion phase characteristics of the movement.