The effect of loading on kinematic and kinetic variables during the midthigh clean pull

The ability to develop high levels of muscular power is considered a fundamental component for many different sporting activities; however, the load that elicits peak power still remains controversial. The primary aim of this study was to determine at which load peak power output occurs during the midthigh clean pull. Sixteen participants (age 21.5 ± 2.4 years; height 173.86 ± 7.98 cm; body mass 70.85 ± 11.67 kg) performed midthigh clean pulls at intensities of 40, 60, 80, 100, 120, and 140% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM) power clean in a randomized and balanced order using a force plate and linear position transducer to assess velocity, displacement, peak power, peak force (Fz), impulse, and rate of force development (RFD). Significantly greater Fz occurred at a load of 140% (2,778.65 ± 151.58 N, p < 0.001), impulse within 100, 200, and 300 milliseconds at a load of 140% 1RM (196.85 ± 76.56, 415.75 ± 157.56, and 647.86 ± 252.43 N·s, p < 0.023, respectively), RFD at a load of 120% (26,224.23 ± 2,461.61 N·s, p = 0.004), whereas peak velocity (1.693 ± 0.042 m·s, p < 0.001) and peak power (3,712.82 ± 254.38 W, p < 0.001) occurred at 40% 1RM. Greatest total impulse (1,129.86 ± 534.86 N·s) was achieved at 140% 1RM, which was significantly greater (p < 0.03) than at all loads except the 120% 1RM condition. Results indicate that increased loading results in significant (p < 0.001) decreases in peak power and peak velocity during the midthigh clean pull. Moreover, if maximizing force production is the goal, then training at a higher load may be advantageous, with peak Fz occurring at 140% 1RM.     

Peak power, ground reaction forces, and velocity during the squat exercise performed at different loads

This study examined the changes in peak power, ground reaction force and velocity with different loads during the performance of the parallel squat movement. Twelve experienced male lifters (26.83 +/- 4.67 years of age) performed the standard parallel squat, using loads equal to 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, and 90% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM). Each subject performed all parallel squats with as much explosiveness as possible using his own technique. Peak power (PP), peak ground reaction force (PGRF), peak barbell velocity (PV), force at the time of PP (FPP), and velocity at the time of PP (VPP) were determined from force, velocity, and power curves calculated using barbell velocity and ground reaction force data. No significant differences were detected among loads for PP; however, the greatest PP values were associated with loads of 40 and 50% of 1RM. Higher loads produced greater PGRF and FPP values than lower loads (p < 0.05) in all cases except between loads equal to 60-50, 50-40, and 40-30% of 1RM for PGRF, and between loads equal to 70-60 and 60-50% of 1RM for FPP. Higher loads produced lower PV and VPP values than lower loads (p < 0.05) in all cases except between the 20-30, 70-80, and 80-90% of 1RM conditions. These results may be helpful in determining loads when prescribing need-specific training protocols targeting different areas of the load-velocity continuum.     

Peak power, force, and velocity during jump squats in professional rugby players

Training at the optimal load for peak power output (PPO) has been proposed as a method for enhancing power output, although others argue that the force, velocity, and PPO are of interest across the full range of loads. The aim of this study was to examine the influence of load on PPO, peak barbell velocity (BV), and peak vertical ground reaction force (VGRF) during the jump squat (JS) in a group of professional rugby players. Eleven male professional rugby players (age, 26 ± 3 years; height, 1.83 ± 6.12 m; mass, 97.3 ± 11.6 kg) performed loaded JS at loads of 20-100% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM) JS. A force plate and linear position transducer, with a mechanical braking unit, were used to measure PPO, VGRF, and BV. Load had very large significant effects on PPO (p < 0.001, partial η2 = 0.915); peak VGRF (p < 0.001, partial η2 = 0.854); and peak BV (p < 0.001, partial η2 = 0.973). The PPO and peak BV were the highest at 20% 1RM, though PPO was not significantly greater than that at 30% 1RM. The peak VGRF was significantly greater at 1RM than all other loads, with no significant difference between 20 and 60% 1RM. In resistance trained professional rugby players, the optimal load for eliciting PPO during the loaded JS in the range measured occurs at 20% 1RM JS, with decreases in PPO and BV, and increases in VGRF, as the load is increased, although greater PPO likely occurs without any additional load.     

Occurrence of fatigue during sets of static squat jumps performed at a variety of loads

Research has identified that the optimal power load for static squat jumps (with no countermovement) is lower than the loads usually recommended for power training. Lower loads may permit the performance of additional repetitions before the onset of fatigue compared with heavier loads; therefore, the aim of this study was to determine the point of fatigue during squat jumps at various loads (0, 20, 40, 60% 1-repetition maximum [1RM]). Seventeen professional rugby league players performed sets of 6 squat jumps (with no countermovement), using 4 loading conditions (0, 20, 40, and 60% of 1RM back squat). Repeated measures analysis of variance revealed no significant differences (p > 0.05) in force, velocity, power, and displacement between repetitions, for the 0, 20, and 40% loading conditions. The 60% condition showed no significant difference (p > 0.05) in peak force between repetitions; however, velocity (1.12 + 0.10 and 1.18 + 0.11 m·s(-1)), power (3,385 + 343 and 3,617 + 396 W) and displacement (11.13 + 2.31 and 11.85 + 2.16 cm) were significantly (p < 0.02) lower during repetition 6 compared with repetition 2. These findings indicate that when performing squat jumps (with no countermovement) with a load <40% 1RM back squat, up to >6 repetitions can be completed without inducing fatigue and a minimum of 4-6 repetitions should be performed to achieve peak power output. When performing squat jumps (with no countermovement) with a load equal to the 60% 1RM only, 5 repetitions should be performed to minimize fatigue and ensure maintenance of velocity and power.     

A biomechanical analysis of straight and hexagonal barbell deadlifts using submaximal loads

The purpose of the investigation was to compare the kinematics and kinetics of the deadlift performed with 2 distinct barbells across a range of submaximal loads. Nineteen male powerlifters performed the deadlift with a conventional straight barbell and a hexagonal barbell that allowed the lifter to stand within its frame. Subjects performed trials at maximum speed with loads of 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, and 80% of their predetermined 1-repetition maximum (1RM). Inverse dynamics and spatial tracking of the external resistance were used to quantify kinematic and kinetic variables. Subjects were able to lift a heavier 1RM load in the hexagonal barbell deadlift (HBD) than the straight barbell deadlift (SBD) (265 ± 41 kg vs. 245 ± 39 kg, p < 0.05). The design of the hexagonal barbell significantly altered the resistance moment at the joints analyzed (p < 0.05), resulting in lower peak moments at the lumbar spine, hip, and ankle (p < 0.05) and an increased peak moment at the knee (p < 0.05). Maximum peak power values of 4,388 ± 713 and 4,872 ± 636 W were obtained for the SBD and HBD, respectively (p < 0.05). Across the submaximal loads, significantly greater peak force, peak velocity and peak power values were produced during the HBD compared to during the SBD (p < 0.05). The results demonstrate that the choice of barbell used to perform the deadlift has a significant effect on a range of kinematic and kinetic variables. The enhanced mechanical stimulus obtained with the hexagonal barbell suggests that in general the HBD is a more effective exercise than the SBD.     

Influence of different relative intensities on power output during the hang power clean: identification of the optimal load

The influence of different relative intensities on power output was investigated in the present study in order to identify the optimal load that maximizes power output during the hang power clean. Fifteen men (age: 22.1 +/- 2.0 years, height: 180.1 +/- 6.3 cm, and body mass: 89.4 +/- 14.7 kg) performed the hang power cleans on a forceplate at 30-90% of one repetition maximum (1RM). Peak power was maximized at 70% 1RM, which was, however, not significantly different from peak power at 50, 60, 80, and 90% 1RM. Average power also was maximized at 70% 1RM, which was not significantly different from average power at 40, 50, 60, 80, and 90% 1RM. It was concluded that (a) the relative intensity had a significant influence on power output, and (b) power output can be maximized at a submaximal load during the hang power clean.     

Power-load curve in trained sprinters

The levels of lower-limb strength and power can distinguish between athletes of different levels in a number of sports, specifically in sprinting. In this sense, the purposes of this study were (a) to define the power–load curve in a modified half squat machine in trained sprinters in the competitive cycle and (b) to correlate the peak power (PP) production with 60-m sprint performance. In this sense, a cross-sectional study was carried out with 10 national level sprinters. After the calculation of 1 repetition maximum (1RM) of the participants, a progressive test, which consisted of moving loads of 30, 45, 60, 70, and 80% of the 1RM as quickly as possible in the concentric phase, was performed. It was found that PP occurred at 60% of 1RM. The power output with all loads was not significantly different (p ≤ 0.05) from each other. No significant correlations were found between 60-m performance and PP with the different loads. Therefore, we may conclude that the sprinters of national level analyzed present values of PP output, in the competitive period, near to 60% of 1RM in the half squat exercise; however, this power is not significantly different from the other loads.     

Comparison of kinetic variables and muscle activity during a squat vs. a box squat

The purpose of this investigation was to determine if there was a difference in kinetic variables and muscle activity when comparing a squat to a box squat. A box squat removes the stretch-shortening cycle component from the squat, and thus, the possible influence of the box squat on concentric phase performance is of interest. Eight resistance trained men (Height: 179.61 ± 13.43 cm; Body Mass: 107.65 ± 29.79 kg; Age: 24.77 ± 3.22 years; 1 repetition maximum [1RM]: 200.11 ± 58.91 kg) performed 1 repetition of squats and box squats using 60, 70, and 80% of their 1RM in a randomized fashion. Subjects completed the movement while standing on a force plate and with 2 linear position transducers attached to the bar. Force and velocity were used to calculate power. Peak force and peak power were determined from the force-time and power-time curves during the concentric phase of the lift. Muscle activity (electromyography) was recorded from the vastus lateralis, vastus medialis, biceps femoris, and longissimus. Results indicate that peak force and peak power are similar between the squat and box squat. However, during the 70% of 1RM trials, the squat resulted in a significantly lower peak force in comparison to the box squat (squat = 3,269 ± 573 N, box squat = 3,364 ± 575 N). In addition, during the 80% of 1RM trials, the squat resulted in significantly lower peak power in comparison to the box squat (squat = 2,050 ± 486 W, box squat = 2,197 ± 544 W). Muscle activity was generally higher during the squat in comparison to the box squat. In conclusion, minimal differences were observed in kinetic variables and muscle activity between the squat and box squat. Removing the stretch-shortening cycle during the squat (using a box) appears to have limited negative consequences on performance.     

Kinematic and kinetic analysis of maximal velocity deadlifts performed with and without the inclusion of chain resistance

The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the deadlift could be effectively incorporated with explosive resistance training (ERT) and to investigate whether the inclusion of chains enhanced the suitability of the deadlift for ERT. Twenty-three resistance trained athletes performed the deadlift with 30, 50, and 70% 1-repetition maximum (1RM) loads at submaximal velocity, maximal velocity (MAX), and MAX with the inclusion of 2 chain loads equal to 20 or 40% of the subjects' 1RM. All trials were performed on force platforms with markers attached to the barbell to calculate velocity and acceleration using a motion capture system. Significant increases in force, velocity, power, rate of force development, and length of the acceleration phase (p < 0.05) were obtained when repetition velocity increased from submaximal to maximal. During MAX repetitions with a constant resistance, the mean length of the acceleration phase ranged from 73.2 (±7.2%) to 84.9 (±12.2%) of the overall movement. Compared to using a constant resistance, the inclusion of chains enabled greater force to be maintained to the end of the concentric action and significantly increased peak force and impulse (p < 0.05), while concurrently decreasing velocity, power, and rate of force development (p < 0.05). The effects of chains were influenced by the magnitude of the chain and barbell resistance, with greater increases and decreases in mechanical variables obtained when heavier chain and barbell loads were used. The results of the investigation suggest that the deadlift can be incorporated effectively in ERT programs. Coaches and athletes should be aware that the inclusion of heavy chains may have both positive and negative effects on kinematics and kinetics of an exercise.     

Assessing lower-body peak power in elite rugby-union players

Resistance training at the load that maximizes peak power (Pmax) may produce greater increases in peak power than other loads. Pmax for lower-body lifts can occur with no loading but whether Pmax can be increased further with negative loading is unclear. The purpose of this investigation was therefore to determine lower-body Pmax (jump squat) using a spectrum of loads. Box squat 1 repetition maximum (1RM) was measured in 18 elite rugby-union players. Pmax was then determined using loads of -28 to 60%1RM. Elastic bands were used to unload body weight for negative loads. Jump squat Pmax occurred with no loading (body weight: 8,880 ± 2,186 W) in all but 2 subjects. There was a discontinuity in the power-load relationship for the jump squat, possibly because of the increased countermovement in the body weight jump. The self-selected depth (dip) before the propulsive phase of the jump was greater by 24 ± 11 to 40 ± 16% (moderate to large effect size) than all positive loads. These findings highlight methodological issues that need to be taken into consideration when comparing power outputs of loaded and unloaded jumps.     

The influence of body mass on calculation of power during lower-body resistance exercises

The objective of this investigation was to examine the influence of body mass in the calculation of power and the subsequent effect on the load-power relationship in the jump squat, squat, and power clean. Twelve Division I male athletes were evaluated on their performance across various intensities in all the 3 lifts. Power output was calculated using 3 separate techniques: (a) including the contribution of body mass in force output (IBM), (b) including the contribution of the mass of body less the mass of the shanks and feet in force output (IBMS), and (c) excluding the contribution of body mass in force output (EBM). Peak power, peak power relative to body mass, and peak force calculated using EBM were significantly (p < or = 0.05) lower than outputs calculated with IBM and IBMS. The load that maximized power output was unchanged between the 3 techniques in the jump squat (0% 1 repetition maximum [1RM]) and power clean (80% 1RM) but was shifted from 56% (IBM and IBMS) to 71% 1RM (EBM) in the squat. Across all 3 movements, the shape of the load-power curve was affected when derived via the EBM method as a result of the underrepresentation of power output at light loads. This was due to the majority of the load being neglected when the mass of the body was removed from the system mass used in the calculation of force. This study indicates that not only is the actual power output significantly lower when body mass is excluded from the force output of a lower body movement, but the load-power relationship is altered as well. Therefore, it is imperative that the mass of the individual being tested is incorporated into the calculation of force used to determine power output during lower-body movements.     

Effect of load positioning on the kinematics and kinetics of weighted vertical jumps

One of the most popular exercises for developing lower-body muscular power is the weighted vertical jump. The present study sought to examine the effect of altering the position of the external load on the kinematics and kinetics of the movement. Twenty-nine resistance-trained rugby union athletes performed maximal effort jumps with 0, 20, 40, and 60% of their squat 1 repetition maximum (1RM) with the load positioned (a) on the posterior aspect of the shoulder using a straight barbell and (b) at arms' length using a hexagonal barbell. Kinematic and kinetic variables were calculated through integration of the vertical ground reaction force data using a forward dynamics approach. Performance of the hexagonal barbell jump resulted in significantly (p < 0.05) greater values for jump height, peak force, peak power, and peak rate of force development compared with the straight barbell jump. Significantly (p < 0.05) greater peak power was produced during the unloaded jump compared with all trials where the external load was positioned on the shoulder. In contrast, significantly (p < 0.05) greater peak power was produced when using the hexagonal barbell combined with a load of 20% 1RM compared with all other conditions investigated. The results suggest that weighted vertical jumps should be performed with the external load positioned at arms' length rather than on the shoulder when attempting to improve lower-body muscular performance.     

Reliability of the one-repetition-maximum power clean test in adolescent athletes

Although the power clean test is routinely used to assess strength and power performance in adult athletes, the reliability of this measure in younger populations has not been examined. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine the reliability of the 1-repetition maximum (1RM) power clean in adolescent athletes. Thirty-six male athletes (age 15.9 ± 1.1 years, body mass 79.1 ± 20.3 kg, height 175.1 ±7.4 cm) who had >1 year of training experience in weightlifting exercises performed a 1RM power clean on 2 nonconsecutive days in the afternoon following standardized procedures. All test procedures were supervised by a senior level weightlifting coach and consisted of a systematic progression in test load until the maximum resistance that could be lifted for 1 repetition using proper exercise technique was determined. Data were analyzed using an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC[2,k]), Pearson correlation coefficient (r), repeated measures analysis of variance, Bland-Altman plot, and typical error analyses. Analysis of the data revealed that the test measures were highly reliable demonstrating a test-retest ICC of 0.98 (95% confidence interval = 0.96-0.99). Testing also demonstrated a strong relationship between 1RM measures in trials 1 and 2 (r = 0.98, p < 0.0001) with no significant difference in power clean performance between trials (70.6 ± 19.8 vs. 69.8 ± 19.8 kg). Bland-Altman plots confirmed no systematic shift in 1RM between trials 1 and 2. The typical error to be expected between 1RM power clean trials is 2.9 kg, and a change of at least 8.0 kg is indicated to determine a real change in lifting performance between tests in young lifters. No injuries occurred during the study period, and the testing protocol was well tolerated by all the subjects. These findings indicate that 1RM power clean testing has a high degree of reproducibility in trained male adolescent athletes when standardized testing procedures are followed and qualified instruction is present.     

Kettlebell swing training improves maximal and explosive strength

The aim of this study was to establish the effect that kettlebell swing (KB) training had on measures of maximum (half squat-HS-1 repetition maximum [1RM]) and explosive (vertical jump height-VJH) strength. To put these effects into context, they were compared with the effects of jump squat power training (JS-known to improve 1RM and VJH). Twenty-one healthy men (age = 18-27 years, body mass = 72.58 ± 12.87 kg) who could perform a proficient HS were tested for their HS 1RM and VJH pre- and post-training. Subjects were randomly assigned to either a KB or JS training group after HS 1RM testing and trained twice a week. The KB group performed 12-minute bouts of KB exercise (12 rounds of 30-second exercise, 30-second rest with 12 kg if <70 kg or 16 kg if >70 kg). The JS group performed at least 4 sets of 3 JS with the load that maximized peak power-Training volume was altered to accommodate different training loads and ranged from 4 sets of 3 with the heaviest load (60% 1RM) to 8 sets of 6 with the lightest load (0% 1RM). Maximum strength improved by 9.8% (HS 1RM: 165-181% body mass, p < 0.001) after the training intervention, and post hoc analysis revealed that there was no significant difference between the effect of KB and JS training (p = 0.56). Explosive strength improved by 19.8% (VJH: 20.6-24.3 cm) after the training intervention, and post hoc analysis revealed that the type of training did not significantly affect this either (p = 0.38). The results of this study clearly demonstrate that 6 weeks of biweekly KB training provides a stimulus that is sufficient to increase both maximum and explosive strength offering a useful alternative to strength and conditioning professionals seeking variety for their athletes.     

Validation of power measurement techniques in dynamic lower body resistance exercises

The objective of this study was to investigate the validity of power measurement techniques utilizing various kinematic and kinetic devices during the jump squat (JS), squat (S) and power clean (PC). Ten Division I male athletes were assessed for power output across various intensities: 0, 12, 27, 42, 56, 71, and 85% of one repetition maximum strength (1RM) in the JS and S and 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, and 90% of 1RM in the PC. During the execution of each lift, six different data collection systems were utilized; (1) one linear position transducer (1-LPT); (2) one linear position transducer with the system mass representing the force (1-LPT+MASS); (3) two linear position transducers (2-LPT); (4) the force plate (FP); (5) one linear position transducer and a force plate (1-LPT+FP); (6) two linear position transducers and a force place (2-LPT+FP). Kinetic and kinematic variables calculated using the six methodologies were compared. Vertical power, force, and velocity differed significantly between 2-LPT+FP and 1-LPT, 1-LPT+MASS, 2-LPT, and FP methodologies across various intensities throughout the JS, S, and PC. These differences affected the load-power relationship and resulted in the transfer of the optimal load to a number of different intensities. This examination clearly indicates that data collection and analysis procedures influence the power output calculated as well as the load-power relationship of dynamic lower body movements.     

Optimal load maximizes the mean mechanical power output during upper extremity exercise in highly trained soccer players

The purpose of this study was to determine the optimal load for the maximal power output during the acceleration phase of a power movement in bench press (BP) exercises of highly trained soccer players at the beginning of a competition period. Fifteen professional male soccer players with an average age of 26.1 ± 3.9 years, an average height of 183.3 ± 6.7 cm, an average body mass of 78.8 ± 7.2 kg, and an average 1 repetition maximum (1RM) of 83.3 ± 11.2 kg were employed as subjects in this study. Maximal mean power output during a BP at 0, 10, 30, 50, 70, and 90% of their 1RM was measured to determine whether an optimal load exists that allows for the attainment of maximal power output. Three-dimensional upper extremity kinematic data were collected. Two force plates embedded in the floor and positioned below the bench were used to measure contact forces between the bench and ground during the lift. A repeated-measures analysis of variance was performed to determine power output differences at different percentages of the 1RM. The results of this study indicated that loads of 50% of the 1RM resulted in greater mean power output during the complete positive power movement. Loads at 30 and 50% of the 1RM resulted in greater mean power output computed from the acceleration phase of the lift than did all loads and were not statistically different from each other. However, individual soccer players did not reach the maximum power output with the same relative load. In conclusion, when soccer players develop muscular power toward the end of when the most important competitions are scheduled, dynamic effort strength training with the range of load from 30 to 50% of 1RM BP should be used. During the competition period, a load of 50% of a 1RM should be used in a BP to maintain muscular power over a wide load range.     

Lower-body work capacity and one-repetition maximum squat prediction in college football players

The purpose of this study was to assess lower-body muscular strength and work capacity after off-season resistance training and the efficacy of predicting maximal squat strength (1 repetition maximum [1RM]) from repetitions to fatigue. National Collegiate Athletic Association Division-II football players (n = 58) were divided into low-strength (LS, 1RM < 365 lb, n = 32) and high-strength (HS, 1RM ≥ 365 lb, n = 26) groups before training based on median 1RM squat performance. Maximal repetitions to failure (RTFs) were performed with a relative load of 70% of 1RM before training and 60, 70, 80, and 90% of 1RM after 12 weeks of a linear periodization resistance training program. As a team, 1RM squat (32 ± 27 lb), 70% RTF (4.5 ± 4.5 reps), and work capacity at 70% 1RM load (1,482 ± 1,181 lb reps) increased significantly after training. Likewise, training resulted in significant increases in 1RM, RTF at 70% 1RM, and work capacity (load × reps) in both LS (8 ± 33 lb, 3.9 ± 4.7 reps, 1,736 ± 1,521 lb reps, respectively) and HS (27 ± 21 lb, 4.9 ± 4.4 reps, 2,387 ± 1,767 lb reps, respectively), with no significant difference between groups. There was no relationship between the change in work capacity and the change in muscular strength for either the LS (r = 0.02) or HS (r = 0.06) group. Predicted 1RMs were best when RTFs were performed using 80% 1RM (5-17 RTFs), with an error of ±5% in 95% of the subjects. In conclusion, the changes in muscular strength associated with an off-season training program appear to have a positive influence on squat work capacity at 70% of 1RM and allow favorable prediction of 1RM using submaximal loads.     

Peak force and rate of force development during isometric and dynamic mid-thigh clean pulls performed at various intensities

Eight male collegiate weightlifters (age: 21.2 +/- 0.9 years; height: 177.6 +/- 2.3 cm; and body mass: 85.1 +/- 3.3 kg) participated in this study to compare isometric to dynamic force-time dependent variables. Subjects performed the isometric and dynamic mid-thigh clean pulls at 30-120% of their one repetition maximum (1RM) power clean (118.4 +/- 5.5 kg) on a 61 x 121.9-cm AMTI forceplate. Variables such as peak force (PF) and peak rate of force development (PRFD) were calculated and were compared between isometric and dynamic conditions. The relationships between force-time dependent variables and vertical jump performances also were examined. The data indicate that the isometric PF had no significant correlations with the dynamic PF against light loads. On the one hand, there was a general trend toward stronger relationships between the isometric and dynamic PF as the external load increased for dynamic muscle actions. On the other hand, the isometric and dynamic PRFD had no significant correlations regardless of the external load used for dynamic testing. In addition, the isometric PF and dynamic PRFD were shown to be strongly correlated with vertical jump performances, whereas the isometric PRFD and dynamic PF had no significant correlations with vertical jump performances. In conclusion, it appears that the isometric and dynamic measures of force-time curve characteristics represent relatively specific qualities, especially when dynamic testing involves small external loads. Additionally, the results suggest that athletes who possess greater isometric maximum strength and dynamic explosive strength tend to be able to jump higher.     

Less is more: standard warm-up causes fatigue and less warm-up permits greater cycling power output

The traditional warm-up (WU) used by athletes to prepare for a sprint track cycling event involves a general WU followed by a series of brief sprints lasting ≥ 50 min in total. A WU of this duration and intensity could cause significant fatigue and impair subsequent performance. The purpose of this research was to compare a traditional WU with an experimental WU and examine the consequences of traditional and experimental WU on the 30-s Wingate test and electrically elicited twitch contractions. The traditional WU began with 20 min of cycling with a gradual intensity increase from 60% to 95% of maximal heart rate; then four sprints were performed at 8-min intervals. The experimental WU was shorter with less high-intensity exercise: intensity increased from 60% to 70% of maximal heart rate over 15 min; then just one sprint was performed. The Wingate test was conducted with a 1-min lead-in at 80% of optimal cadence followed by a Wingate test at optimal cadence. Peak active twitch torque was significantly lower after the traditional than experimental WU (86.5 ± 3.3% vs. 94.6 ± 2.4%, P < 0.05) when expressed as percentage of pre-WU amplitude. Wingate test performance was significantly better (P < 0.01) after experimental WU (peak power output = 1,390 ± 80 W, work = 29.1 ± 1.2 kJ) than traditional WU (peak power output = 1,303 ± 89 W, work = 27.7 ± 1.2 kJ). The traditional track cyclist's WU results in significant fatigue, which corresponds with impaired peak power output. A shorter and lower-intensity WU permits a better 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.