Effect of instantaneous performance feedback during 6 weeks of velocity-based resistance training on sport-specific performance tests

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of instantaneous performance feedback (peak velocity) provided after each repetition of squat jump exercises over a 6-week training block on sport-specific performance tests. Thirteen professional rugby players were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 groups, feedback (n = 7) and non-feedback (n = 6). Both groups completed a 6-week training program (3 sessions per week) comprising exercises typical of their normal preseason conditioning program. Squat jumps were performed in 2 of the 3 sessions each week during which both groups performed 3 sets of 3 concentric squat jumps using a barbell with an absolute load of 40 kg. Participants in group 1 were given real-time feedback on peak velocity of the squat jump at the completion of each repetition using a linear position transducer and customized software, whereas those in group 2 did not receive any feedback. Pre and posttesting consisted of vertical jump, horizontal jump, and 10-/20-/30-m timed sprints. The relative magnitude (effect size) of the training effects for all performance tests was found to be small (0.18-0.28), except for the 30-m sprint performance, which was moderate (0.46). The probabilities that the use of feedback during squat jump training for 6 weeks was beneficial to increasing performance of sport-specific tests was 45% for vertical jump, 65% for 10-m sprints, 49% for 20-m sprints, 83% for horizontal jump, and 99% for 30-m sprints. In addition to improvements in the performance of sport-specific tests, suggesting the potential for greater adaptation and larger training effects, the provision of feedback may also be used in applications around performance targets and thresholds during training.     

Acute effects of augmented eccentric loading on jump squat performance

The purpose of this study was to determine the acute effects of a spectrum of eccentric loads on force, velocity, and power during the concentric portion of maximal-effort jump squats utilizing a repeated measures design. Thirteen resistance-trained men (age = 22.8 +/- 2.9 years, weight = 87.1 +/- 11.8 kg, 163.5 +/- 28.6 kg squat 1 repetition maximum [1RM]; mean +/- SD), who routinely incorporated back squats into their training, participated as subjects in this investigation. Jump squat performance was assessed using 4 experimental conditions. The first of these conditions consisted of an isoinertial load equal to 30% of back squat 1RM. The remaining conditions consisted of jump squats with a concentric load of 30% 1RM, subsequent to the application of experimental augmented eccentric loading (AEL) conditions of 20, 50, and 80% of back squat 1RM, respectively. All subjects performed 2 sets of 1RM of maximum-effort jump squats with all experimental conditions in a counter-balanced sequence. Forty-eight hours after completing the first testing session, subjects repeated the experimental testing protocol to establish stability reliability. Peak performance values for the reliable variables of force, velocity, and power, as well as force and power values obtained at 20-ms intervals during the initial 400 ms of the concentric jump squat range of motion, showed no statistical difference (p > 0.05) across the experimental AEL loads. These results suggest that load-spectrum AEL prior to a 30% 1RM jump squat fails to acutely enhance force, velocity, and power.     

The acute effects of heavy loads on jump squat performance: an evaluation of the complex and contrast methods of power development

The purpose of this investigation was to examine power performance in jump squats when using the complex and contrast training methods. Eleven (n = 11) women participated in a familiarization session and in three randomly ordered testing sessions. One session involved completing sets of power exercises (jump squats) before sets of half squats (traditional method). The second session involved sets of half squats before sets of jump squats (complex method). A third session involved the alternation of sets of half squats and jump squats (contrast method). No significant difference in jump squat performance between each of the training methods was found. There was a significant difference (p < 0.05) in the first set of each session, with the complex method having a significantly lower peak power. Further, there was a significant difference (p < 0.05) in performance changes between the higher and lower strength groups, with the higher strength group having a greater improvement in performance using the contrast training method compared with the traditional method. It was concluded that contrast training is advantageous for increasing power output but only for athletes with relatively high strength levels.     

The effect of heavy- vs. light-load jump squats on the development of strength, power, and speed

The purpose of this investigation was to examine the effect of an 8-week training program with heavy- vs. light-load jump squats on various physical performance measures and electromyography (EMG). Twenty-six athletic men with varying levels of resistance training experience performed sessions of jump squats with either 30% (JS30, n = 9) or 80% (JS80, n = 10) of their one repetition maximum in the squat (1RM) or served as a control (C, n = 7). An agility test, 20-m sprint, and jump squats with 30% (30J), 55% (55J), and 80% (80J) of their 1RM were performed before and after training. Peak force, peak velocity (PV), peak power (PP), jump height, and average EMG (concentric phase) were calculated for the jumps. There were significant increases in PP and PV in the 30J, 55J, and 80J for the JS30 group (p 相似文献   

Effects of changing from full range of motion to partial range of motion on squat kinetics

It is commonplace for people involved in recreational weight training to limit squat depth to lift heavier loads. This study compares differences in movement kinetics when squatting in the full range of motion (FROM) vs. partial range of motion (PROM). Ten men with a 1-year minimum of resistance training attended 4 sessions each comprising 4 sets of squats following one of FROM for 10 repetitions (FROM10) at an intensity of 67% 1 repetition maximum (1RM) FROM squat, PROM for 10 repetitions (PROM10) at 67% 1RM PROM squat, FROM for 5 repetitions (FROM5) at 83% FROM squat or PROM for 5 repetitions (PROM5) at 83% 1RM PROM squat. Movement velocity was not specified. Squat kinetics data were collected using an optical encoder. Differences between conditions were analyzed by repeated-measures analysis of variance and expressed as mean differences and standardized (Cohen) effect sizes with 95% confidence limits. The PROM5 power was substantially more than the PROM10 (98 W, -21 to 217; mean, lower and upper 95% confidence limits), FROM5 (168 W, 47-289), and FROM10 (255 W, 145-365). The force produced during PROM5 was substantially more than PROM10 (372 N, 254-490), FROM5 (854 N, 731-977), and FROM10 (1,069 N, 911-1227). The peak velocity produced during FROM10 was substantially more than FROM5 (0.105 m·s(-1), 0.044-0.166), PROM10 (0.246 m·s(-1), 0.167-0.325), and PROM5 (0.305 m·s(-1), 0.228-0.382). The FROM5 was substantially more than FROM10 (86 J, 59-113), PROM5 (142 J, 90-194), and PROM10 (211 J, 165-257). Therefore, either range of motion can have practical implications in designing resistance training programs depending on if the training goal is related to power and force development, maximizing work output or speed. Moderate-load PROM training, common among recreational weight trainers, is unlikely to provide higher movement kinetics.     

Comparison of weighted jump squat training with and without eccentric braking

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of weighted jump squat training with and without eccentric braking. Twenty male subjects were divided into two groups (n = 10 per group), Non-Braking Group and Braking Group. The subjects were physically active, but not highly trained. The program for Non-Braking Group consisted of 6 sets of 6 repetitions of weighted jump squats without reduction of eccentric load for 8 weeks. The training program for the Braking Group consisted of the same sets and repetitions, but eccentric load was reduced by using an electromagnetic braking mechanism. Jump and reach, countermovement jump, static jump, drop jump, one repetition maximum half squat, weighted jump squat, and isometric/isokinetic knee extension/flexion at several different positions/angular velocities were tested pre- and posttraining intervention. The Non-Braking Group exhibited greater improvement in peak torque during isokinetic concentric knee flexion at 300 degrees/s [Non-Braking Group: (mean +/- SD) 124.0 +/- 22.6 Nm at pre- and 134.1 +/- 18.4 Nm at posttraining, and Braking Group: 118.5 +/- 32.7 Nm at pre- and 113.2 +/- 26.7 Nm at posttraining]. Braking Group exhibited superior adaptations in peak power relative to body mass during weighted jump squat [Non-Braking Group: (mean +/- SD) 49.1 +/- 8.6 W/kg at pre- and 50.9 +/- 6.2 W/kg at posttraining, and Braking Group: 47.9 +/- 6.9 W/kg at pre- and 53.7 +/- 7.3 W/kg at posttraining]. It appears that power output in relatively slow movement (weighted jump squat) was improved more in the Braking Group, however strength in high velocity movements (isokinetic knee flexion at 300 degrees/s) was improved more in Non-Braking Group. This study supports load and velocity specific effects of weighted jump squat training.     

Acute effects of heavy preloading on vertical and horizontal jump performance

The purpose of this study was to investigate the acute effects of a heavy dynamic preload, consisting of 1 set of 5 repetition maximum (5RM) back squats, on countermovement vertical jump (VJ) and horizontal jump (HJ) performance. The study also investigated the ability of subjects to learn to apply the effects of the preload over subsequent training sessions. Nineteen (N = 19) resistance-trained men (age = 25.0 +/- 4.8 years; weight = 79.3 +/- 6.6 kg) participated in the study. Each subject took part in 4 practice and 4 testing sessions. The 4 practice sessions were included to allow for any learning effects of VJ and HJ to stabilize and to establish a true 5RM back squat. The 4 testing sessions were included to see if subjects were able to capitalize on the repeat exposure to the protocol. One practice session consisted of a 10-minute warm-up (5 minutes of cycling and 5 minutes of stretching), 2 sets of VJ and HJ (each set of VJ and HJ consisted of 4 jump repetitions) with a 5-minute rest between sets, progressive 5RM back squat evaluation, and 2 final sets of VJ and HJ. Both VJ and HJ increased approximately 2% over the 4 practice sessions, and 5RM back squat strength improved from 164.2 +/- 25.1 kg to 196.9 +/- 23.0 kg (p < or = 0.05). The 4 testing sessions each consisted of the standardized warm-up, 1 set of 4 VJs and HJs, a 5-minute rest, 5RM back squat, a 5-minute rest, and the final set of VJs and HJs. Pre- and post-5RM VJ and HJ order was randomly assigned. The results indicated no significant differences occurred between the mean or maximal values for either VJ or HJ as a consequence of the dynamic preload exercise. In addition, the results reflected an inability of subjects to benefit from the repeated exposure to the heavy dynamic preload exercise protocol.     

Kinetic analysis of complex training rest interval effect on vertical jump performance

Complex training has been recommended as a method of incorporating plyometrics with strength training. Some research suggests that plyometric performance is enhanced when performed 3-4 minutes after the strength training set, whereas other studies have failed to find any complex training advantage when plyometrics are performed immediately after the strength training portion of the complex. The purpose of this study was to determine if there is an ergogenic advantage associated with complex training and if there is an optimal time for performing plyometrics after the strength training set. Subjects were 21 NCAA Division I athletes who performed a countermovement vertical jump, a set of 5 repetitions maximum (5 RM) squats, and 5 trials of countermovement vertical jump at intervals of 10 seconds and 1, 2, 3, and 4 minutes after the squat. Jump height and peak ground reaction forces were acquired via a force platform. The pre-squat jump performance was compared with the post-squat jumps. Repeated measures ANOVA determined a difference (p 0.05) was found comparing subsequent jumps (0.72-0.76 m) to the pre-squat condition (0.74 m). When comparing high to low strength individuals, there was no effect on jump performance following the squat (p > 0.05). In conclusion, complex training does not appear to enhance jumping performance significantly and actually decreases it when the jump is performed immediately following the strength training set; however, a nonsignificant trend toward improvement seemed to be present. Therefore to optimize jump performance it appears that athletes should not perform jumps immediately following resistance training. It may be possible that beyond 4 minutes of recovery performance could be enhanced; however, that was not within the scope of the current study.     

Comparison of loaded and unloaded jump squat training on strength/power performance in college football players

The purpose of this study was to explore the effects of 5 weeks of eccentrically loaded and unloaded jump squat training in experienced resistance-trained athletes during the strength/ power phase of a 15-week periodized off-season resistance training program. Forty-seven male college football players were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups. One group performed the jump squat exercise using both concentric and eccentric phases of contraction (CE; n = 15). A second group performed the jump squat exercise using the concentric phase only (n = 16), and a third group did not perform the jump squat exercise and served as control (CT; n = 16). No significant differences between the groups were seen in power, vertical jump height, 40-yd sprint speed and agility performance. In addition, no differences between the groups were seen in integrated electromyography activity during the jump squat exercise. Significant differences between the CE and CT groups were seen in Delta 1RM squat (65.8 and 27.5 kg, respectively) and Delta 1RM power clean (25.9 and 3.8 kg, respectively). No other between-group differences were observed. Results of this study provide evidence of the benefits of the jump squat exercise during a short-duration (5-week) training program for eliciting strength and power gains. In addition, the eccentric phase of this ballistic movement appears to have important implications for eliciting these strength gains in college football players during an off-season training program. Thus, coaches incorporating jump squats (using both concentric and eccentric phases of contraction) in the off-season training programs of their athletes can see significant performance improvements during a relatively short duration of training.     

Comparing the performance-enhancing effects of squats on a vibration platform with conventional squats in recreationally resistance-trained men

The purpose of this investigation was to compare the performance-enhancing effects of squats on a vibration platform with conventional squats in recreationally resistance-trained men. The subjects were 14 recreationally resistance-trained men (age, 21-40 years) and the intervention period consisted of 5 weeks. After the initial testing, subjects were randomly assigned to either the "squat whole body vibration" (SWBV) group (n = 7), which performed squats on a vibration platform on a Smith Machine, or the "squat"(S) group (n = 7), which performed conventional squats with no vibrations on a Smith Machine. Testing was performed at the beginning and the end of the study and consisted of 1 repetition maximum (1RM) in squat and maximum jump height in countermovement jump (CMJ). A modified daily undulating periodization program was used during the intervention period in both groups. Both groups trained at the same percentage of 1RM in squats (6-10RM). After the intervention, CMJ performance increased significantly only in the SWBV (p < 0.01), but there was no significant difference between groups in relative jump height increase (p = 0.088). Both groups showed significant increases in 1RM performance in squats (p < 0.01). Although there was a trend toward a greater relative strength increase in the SWBV group, it did not reach a significant level. In conclusion, the preliminary results of this study point toward a tendency of superiority of squats performed on a vibration platform compared with squats without vibrations regarding maximal strength and explosive power as long as the external load is similar in recreationally resistance-trained men.     

Effects of self-selected music on strength, explosiveness, and mood

There has been much investigation into the use of music as an ergogenic aid to facilitate physical performance. However, previous studies have primarily focused on predetermined music and aerobic exercise. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of self-selected music (SSM) vs. those of no music (NM) on the mood and performance of the athletes performing bench press and squat jump. Twenty resistance trained collegiate men completed 2 experimental conditions, one while listening to SSM and the other with NM. The subjects reported their profile of mood states (POMS) and rating of perceived exertion (RPE) before and after performing 3 sets to failure of the bench press at 75% 1 repetition maximum (1RM) and 3 reps of the squat jump at 30% 1RM. Statistical analyses revealed no differences in squat jump height or relative ground reaction force, but the takeoff velocity (SSM-2.06 ± 0.17 m·s(-1); NM-1.99 ± 0.18 m·s(-1)), rate of velocity development (SSM-5.92 ± 1.46 m·s(-2); NM-5.63 ± 1.70 m·s(-2)), and rate of force development (SSM-3175.61 ± 1792.37 N·s(-1); NM-2519.12 ± 1470.32 N·s(-1)) were greater with SSM, whereas RPE (SSM-5.71 ± 1.37; NM-6.36 ± 1.61) was greater with NM. Bench press reps to failure and RPE were not different between conditions. The POMS scores of vigor (SSM-20.15 ± 5.58; NM-17.45 ± 5.84), tension (SSM-8.40 ± 3.99; NM-6.07 ± 3.26), and fatigue (SSM-8.65 ± 4.49; NM-7.40 ± 4.38) were greater with SSM. This study demonstrated increased performance during an explosive exercise and an altered mood state when listening to SSM. Therefore, listening to SSM might be beneficial for acute power performance.     

Postactivation potentiation response in athletic and recreationally trained individuals

To determine if training status directly impacted the response to postactivation potentiation, athletes in sports requiring explosive strength (ATH; n = 7) were compared to recreationally trained (RT; n = 17) individuals. Over the course of 4 sessions, subjects performed rebound and concentric-only jump squats with 30%, 50%, and 70% 1 RM loads. Jump squats were performed 5 minutes and 18.5 minutes following control or heavy load warm-ups. Heavy load warm-up consisted of 5 sets of 1 repetition at 90% 1 RM back squat. Jump squat performance was assessed with a force platform and position transducer. Heavy load warm-up did not have an effect on the subjects as a single sample. However, when percent potentiation was compared between ATH and RT groups, force and power parameters were significantly greater for ATH (p < 0.05). Postactivation potentiation may be a viable method of acutely enhancing explosive strength performance in athletic but not recreationally trained individuals. Reference Data: Chiu, L.Z.F., A.C. Fry, L.W. Weiss, B.K. Schilling, L.E. Brown, and S.L. Smith. Postactivation potentiation response in athletic and recreationally trained individuals.     

Are changes in maximal squat strength during preseason training reflected in changes in sprint performance in rugby league players?

Because previous research has shown a relationship between maximal squat strength and sprint performance, this study aimed to determine if changes in maximal squat strength were reflected in sprint performance. Nineteen professional rugby league players (height = 1.84 ± 0.06 m, body mass [BM] = 96.2 ± 11.11 kg, 1 repetition maximum [1RM] = 170.6 ± 21.4 kg, 1RM/BM = 1.78 ± 0.27) conducted 1RM squat and sprint tests (5, 10, and 20 m) before and immediately after 8 weeks of preseason strength (4-week Mesocycle) and power (4-week Mesocycle) training. Both absolute and relative squat strength values showed significant increases after the training period (pre: 170.6 ± 21.4 kg, post: 200.8 ± 19.0 kg, p < 0.001; 1RM/BM pre: 1.78 ± 0.27 kg·kg(-1), post: 2.05 ± 0.21 kg·kg(-1), p < 0.001; respectively), which was reflected in the significantly faster sprint performances over 5 m (pre: 1.05 ± 0.06 seconds, post: 0.97 ± 0.05 seconds, p < 0.001), 10 m (pre: 1.78 ± 0.07 seconds, post: 1.65 ± 0.08 seconds, p < 0.001), and 20 m (pre: 3.03 ± 0.09 seconds, post: 2.85 ± 0.11 seconds, p < 0.001) posttraining. Whether the improvements in sprint performance came as a direct consequence of increased strength or whether both are a function of the strength and power mesocycles incorporated into the players' preseason training is unclear. It is likely that the increased force production, noted via the increased squat performance, contributed to the improved sprint performances. To increase short sprint performance, athletes should, therefore, consider increasing maximal strength via the back squat.     

Effect of warm-up on the standing broad jump in trained and untrained men and women

The effect of 3 warm-up routines on standing broad jump (SBJ) performance was investigated. Thirty-two men and women participated as subjects. Following the determination of 1-repetition maximum (1RM) squat, subjects completed warm-up routines and broad jumps on 4 occasions in a randomized order. Subjects performed SBJ immediately (POST) and 15 min following (POST15) the given warm-up routine. The routines were high force, consisting of high % 1RM, low repetition squats; high power, consisting of low % 1RM, low repetition speed squats; stretching, consisting of static stretches; and no activity, a control condition. Repeated measures analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) revealed no differences among broad jump performance following any of the warm-up routines (p = 0.157). A strong correlation (R = 0.805) was found between 1RM squat and SBJ. These data indicate that warm-up of any type has little effect on jump performance and that maximum strength is strongly related to jumping ability.     

Relationship between countermovement jump performance and multijoint isometric and dynamic tests of strength

The purpose of this investigation was to determine the relationship between countermovement vertical jump (CMJ) performance and various methods used to assess isometric and dynamic multijoint strength. Twelve NCAA Division I-AA male football and track and field athletes (age, 19.83 +/- 1.40 years; height, 179.10 +/- 4.56 cm; mass, 90.08 +/- 14.81 kg; percentage of body fat, 11.85 +/- 5.47%) participated in 2 testing sessions. The first session involved 1 repetition maximum (1RM) (kg) testing in the squat and power clean. During the second session, peak force (N), relative peak force (N x kg(-1)), peak power (W), relative peak power (W x kg(-1)), peak velocity (m x s(-1)), and jump height (meters) in a CMJ, and peak force and rate of force development (RFD) (N x s(-1)) in a maximal isometric squat (ISO squat) and maximal isometric mid-thigh pull (ISO mid-thigh) were assessed. Significant correlations (P < or = 0.05) were found when comparing relative 1RMs (1RM/body mass), in both the squat and power clean, to relative CMJ peak power, CMJ peak velocity, and CMJ height. No significant correlations existed between the 4 measures of absolute strength, which did not account for body mass (squat 1RM, power clean 1RM, ISO squat peak force, and ISO mid-thigh peak force) when compared to CMJ peak velocity and CMJ height. In conclusion, multijoint dynamic tests of strength (squat 1RM and power clean 1RM), expressed relative to body mass, are most closely correlated with CMJ performance. These results suggest that increasing maximal strength relative to body mass can improve performance in explosive lower body movements. The squat and power clean, used in a concurrent strength and power training program, are recommended for optimizing lower body power.     

Effects of electromyostimulation training and volleyball practice on jumping ability

The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of a 4-week electromyostimulation (EMS) training program on the vertical jump performance of 12 volleyball players. EMS sessions were incorporated into volleyball sessions 3 times weekly. EMS consisted of 20-22 concomitant stimulations of the knee extensor and plantar flexor muscles and lasted approximately 12 minutes. No significant changes were observed after EMS training for squat jump (SJ) and counter movement jump (CMJ) performance, while the mean height and the mean power maintained during 15 seconds of consecutive CMJs significantly increased by approximately 4% (p < 0.05). Ten days after the end of EMS training, the jumping height significantly (p < 0.05) increased compared with baseline also for single jumps (SJ +6.5%, CMJ +5.4%). When the aim of EMS resistance training is to enhance vertical jump ability, sport-specific workouts following EMS would enable the central nervous system to optimize the control to neuromuscular properties.     

Effects of weightlifting vs. kettlebell training on vertical jump, strength, and body composition

Effects of weightlifting vs. kettlebell training on vertical jump, strength, and body composition. J Strength Cond Res 26(5): 1199-1202, 2012-The present study compared the effects of 6 weeks of weightlifting plus traditional heavy resistance training exercises vs. kettlebell training on strength, power, and anthropometric measures. Thirty healthy men were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 groups: (a) weightlifting (n = 13; mean ± SD: age, 22.92 ± 1.98 years; body mass, 80.57 ± 12.99 kg; height, 174.56 ± 5.80 cm) or (b) kettlebell (n = 17; mean ± SD: age, 22.76 ± 1.86 years; body mass, 78.99 ± 10.68 kg; height, 176.79 ± 5.08 cm) and trained 2 times a week for 6 weeks. A linear periodization model was used for training; at weeks 1-3 volume was 3 × 6 (kettlebell swings or high pull), 4 × 4 (accelerated swings or power clean), and 4 × 6 (goblet squats or back squats), respectively, and the volume increased during weeks 4-6 to 4 × 6, 6 × 4, and 4 × 6, respectively. Participants were assessed for height (in centimeters), body mass (in kilograms), and body composition (skinfolds). Strength was assessed by the back squat 1 repetition maximum (1RM), whereas power was assessed by the vertical jump and power clean 1RM. The results of this study indicated that short-term weightlifting and kettlebell training were effective in increasing strength and power. However, the gain in strength using weightlifting movements was greater than that during kettlebell training. Neither method of training led to significant changes in any of the anthropometric measures. In conclusion, 6 weeks of weightlifting induced significantly greater improvements in strength compared with kettlebell training. No between-group differences existed for the vertical jump or body composition.     

Anthropometrical, physiological, and tracked power profiles of elite taekwondo athletes 9 weeks before the Olympic competition phase

Physiological, anthropometric, and power profiling data were retrospectively analyzed from 4 elite taekwondo athletes from the Australian National Olympic team 9 weeks from Olympic departure. Power profiling data were collected weekly throughout the 9-week period. Anthropometric skinfolds generated a lean mass index (LMI). Physiological tests included a squat jump and bench throw power profile, bleep test, 20-m sprint test, running VO2max test, and bench press and squat 3 repetition maximum (3RM) strength tests. After this, the athletes power, velocity, and acceleration profile during unweighted squat jumps and single-leg jumps were tracked using a linear position transducer. Increases in power, velocity, and acceleration between weeks and bilateral comparisons were analyzed. Athletes had an LMI of 37.1 ± 0.4 and were 173.9 ± 0.2 m and 67 ± 1.1 kg. Relatively weaker upper body (56 ± 11.97 kg 3RM bench press) compared to lower body strength (88 ± 2.89 kg 3RM squat) was shown alongside a VO2max of 53.29 ml(-1)·min(-1)·kg, and a 20-m sprint time of 3.37 seconds. Increases in all power variables for single-leg squat and squat jumps were found from the first session to the last. Absolute peak power in single-leg squat jumps increased by 13.4-16% for the left and right legs with a 12.9% increase in squat jump peak power. Allometrically scaled peak power showed greater increases for single-leg (right leg: 18.55%; left: 23.49%) and squat jump (14.49%). The athlete's weight did not change significantly throughout the 9-week mesocycle. Progressions in power increases throughout the weeks were undulating and can be related to the intensity of the prior week's training and athlete injury. This analysis has shown that a 9-week mesocycle before Olympic departure that focuses on core lifts has the ability to improve power considerably.     

Determining the Optimum Power Load in Jump Squat Using the Mean Propulsive Velocity

The jump squat is one of the exercises most frequently used to improve lower body power production, which influences sports performance. However, the traditional determination of the specific workload at which power production is maximized (i.e., optimum power load) is time-consuming and requires one-repetition maximum tests. Therefore, the aim of this study was to verify whether elite athletes from different sports would produce maximum mean propulsive power values at a narrow range of mean propulsive velocities, resulting in similar jump heights. One hundred and nine elite athletes from several individual/team sport disciplines underwent repetitions at maximal velocity with progressive loads, starting at 40% of their body mass with increments of 10% to determine the individual optimum power zone. Results indicated that regardless of sport discipline, the athletes’ optimum mean propulsive power was achieved at a mean propulsive velocity close to 1.0 m.s⁻¹ (1.01 ± 0.07 m.s⁻¹) and at a jump height close to 20 cm (20.47 ± 1.42 cm). Data were narrowly scattered around these values. Therefore, jump squat optimum power load can be determined simply by means of mean propulsive velocity or jump height determination in training/testing settings, allowing it to be implemented quickly in strength/power training.     

Baseline strength can influence the ability of salivary free testosterone to predict squat and sprinting performance

The objective of this study was to determine if salivary free testosterone can predict an athlete's performance during back squats and sprints over time and the influence baseline strength on this relationship. Ten weight-trained male athletes were divided into 2 groups based on their 1 repetition maximum (1RM) squats, good squatters (1RM > 2.0 × body weight, n = 5) and average squatters (1RM < 1.9 × body weight, n = 5). The good squatters were stronger than the average squatters (p < 0.05). Each subject was assessed for squat 1RM and 10-m sprint times on 10 separate occasions over a 40-day period. A saliva sample was collected before testing and assayed for free testosterone and cortisol. The pooled testosterone correlations were strong and significant in the good squatters (r = 0.92 for squats, r = -0.87 for sprints, p < 0.01), but not significant for the average squatters (r = 0.35 for squats, r = -0.18 for sprints). Cortisol showed no significant correlations with 1RM squat and 10-m sprint performance, and no differences were identified between the 2 squatting groups. In summary, these results suggest that free testosterone is a strong individual predictor of squat and sprinting performance in individuals with relatively high strength levels but a poor predictor in less strong individuals. This information can assist coaches, trainers, and performance scientists working with stronger weight-trained athletes, for example, the preworkout measurement of free testosterone could indicate likely training outcomes or a readiness to train at a certain intensity level, especially if real-time measurements are made. Our results also highlight the need to separate group and individual hormonal data during the repeated testing of athletes with variable strength levels.