Changes in deadlift six repetition maximum, countermovement jump performance, barbell velocity, and perceived exertion over the duration of a microcycle

Stuart N. Guppy, Tsuyoshi Nagatani, Wayne C. K. Poon, K. Kendall, Jason P. Lake, G. Gregory Haff
{"title":"Changes in deadlift six repetition maximum, countermovement jump performance, barbell velocity, and perceived exertion over the duration of a microcycle","authors":"Stuart N. Guppy, Tsuyoshi Nagatani, Wayne C. K. Poon, K. Kendall, Jason P. Lake, G. Gregory Haff","doi":"10.1177/17479541231172569","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The primary aim of this study was to investigate the stability of the six-repetition maximum (6RM) deadlift over the length of a five-day microcycle and whether the fatigue induced by maximal effort testing detrimentally impacted preparedness. Twelve participants performed four testing sessions, comprising a one-repetition maximum test and three 6RM tests separated by 48 hours. Countermovement jumps were performed before each testing session, and barbell velocity was measured during each warm-up set to assess changes in preparedness. The 6RM deadlift was not statistically different between any of the testing sessions ( p  =  .056; ηp2  =  0.251). Similarly, there were no significant differences in jump height or other CMJ variables between sessions ( p > .05). There were small to moderate differences in mean barbell velocity between the first and second 6RM test ( g  =  0.24–0.88), while there were only small differences in mean velocity (MV) between the second and third 6RM test at some of the warm-up loads (40% 6RM: g  =  0.20; 80% 6RM: g  =  −0.47). Taken collectively, these data indicate that 6RM deadlift strength is stable over five days and does not appear to induce sufficient fatigue to impact vertical jump performance or rating of perceived exertion despite some changes in barbell velocity.","PeriodicalId":182483,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17479541231172569","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The primary aim of this study was to investigate the stability of the six-repetition maximum (6RM) deadlift over the length of a five-day microcycle and whether the fatigue induced by maximal effort testing detrimentally impacted preparedness. Twelve participants performed four testing sessions, comprising a one-repetition maximum test and three 6RM tests separated by 48 hours. Countermovement jumps were performed before each testing session, and barbell velocity was measured during each warm-up set to assess changes in preparedness. The 6RM deadlift was not statistically different between any of the testing sessions ( p  =  .056; ηp2  =  0.251). Similarly, there were no significant differences in jump height or other CMJ variables between sessions ( p > .05). There were small to moderate differences in mean barbell velocity between the first and second 6RM test ( g  =  0.24–0.88), while there were only small differences in mean velocity (MV) between the second and third 6RM test at some of the warm-up loads (40% 6RM: g  =  0.20; 80% 6RM: g  =  −0.47). Taken collectively, these data indicate that 6RM deadlift strength is stable over five days and does not appear to induce sufficient fatigue to impact vertical jump performance or rating of perceived exertion despite some changes in barbell velocity.
硬举六次最大重复次数的变化,反向跳跃表现,杠铃速度,以及在一个微循环持续时间内感知到的用力
本研究的主要目的是调查6次最大硬举(6RM)在5天微周期内的稳定性,以及最大努力测试引起的疲劳是否会对准备产生不利影响。12名参与者进行了四次测试,包括一次重复最大测试和三次间隔48小时的6RM测试。在每次测试前进行反向跳跃,并在每次热身期间测量杠铃速度,以评估准备的变化。6RM硬举在任何测试阶段之间没有统计学差异(p = 0.056;ηp2 = 0.251)。同样,两组之间的跳跃高度或其他CMJ变量也没有显著差异(p < 0.05)。在一些热身负荷下,第一次和第二次6RM测试的平均杠铃速度有小到中等的差异(g = 0.24-0.88),而第二次和第三次6RM测试的平均速度(MV)只有很小的差异(40% 6RM: g = 0.20;80% 6RM: g =−0.47)。总的来说,这些数据表明,6RM硬举强度在5天内是稳定的,尽管杠铃速度发生了一些变化,但似乎不会引起足够的疲劳来影响垂直跳跃性能或感知运动的评级。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信