DIFFERENCES IN POST-ACTIVATION POTENTIATION AND POST-ACTIVATION PERFORMANCE ENHANCEMENT BETWEEN FLYWHEEL AND BARBELL SQUAT PROTOCOLS

IF 0.2 Q4 SPORT SCIENCES
Darjan Spudić, Julija Dakskobler, Igor Štirn
{"title":"DIFFERENCES IN POST-ACTIVATION POTENTIATION AND POST-ACTIVATION PERFORMANCE ENHANCEMENT BETWEEN FLYWHEEL AND BARBELL SQUAT PROTOCOLS","authors":"Darjan Spudić, Julija Dakskobler, Igor Štirn","doi":"10.52165/kinsi.29.1.5-29","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study aimed to compare the post-activation potentiation (PAP) and post-activation potentiation performance enhancement (PAPE) response following the flywheel (FW) and barbell resistance protocols on subsequent evoked knee extensor muscle characteristics and countermovement jump (CMJ) height. The study used a randomized crossover design including nineteen physical education students (24.9 [2.6] years, 171.1 [6.9] cm, 66.9 [8.6] kg). The participants were divided into experienced (EX) and unexperienced (unEX) groups. They visited the laboratory eight times and in randomized order performed the following tests: I) optimal FW load determination, II) optimal barbell load determination, III) control visit to determine twitch characteristics, IV) control visit to determine CMJ characteristics, V and VI) evoked contractions of the quadriceps femoris muscle after FW squat and barbell protocols, VII and VIII) CMJ testing after FW squat and barbell squat protocols. A mixed model ANOVA (factors load condition [control, FW, barbell], time [1-10 min] and experience) revealed changes in jump height, twitch amplitude, contraction time and half-relaxation time as a factor of time. Only minor differences in variables analyzed were found between EX and unEX participants and between load conditions. The prevalent observation is that the two loading conditions (FW vs. barbell) induced no different PAP/E responses. Presumably, because the intensity and tempo of the two resistance exercise protocols were matched by the peak power load selection, coupled eccentric-concentric contractions, and while only a single set of squats was performed.","PeriodicalId":43206,"journal":{"name":"Kinesiologia Slovenica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Kinesiologia Slovenica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52165/kinsi.29.1.5-29","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study aimed to compare the post-activation potentiation (PAP) and post-activation potentiation performance enhancement (PAPE) response following the flywheel (FW) and barbell resistance protocols on subsequent evoked knee extensor muscle characteristics and countermovement jump (CMJ) height. The study used a randomized crossover design including nineteen physical education students (24.9 [2.6] years, 171.1 [6.9] cm, 66.9 [8.6] kg). The participants were divided into experienced (EX) and unexperienced (unEX) groups. They visited the laboratory eight times and in randomized order performed the following tests: I) optimal FW load determination, II) optimal barbell load determination, III) control visit to determine twitch characteristics, IV) control visit to determine CMJ characteristics, V and VI) evoked contractions of the quadriceps femoris muscle after FW squat and barbell protocols, VII and VIII) CMJ testing after FW squat and barbell squat protocols. A mixed model ANOVA (factors load condition [control, FW, barbell], time [1-10 min] and experience) revealed changes in jump height, twitch amplitude, contraction time and half-relaxation time as a factor of time. Only minor differences in variables analyzed were found between EX and unEX participants and between load conditions. The prevalent observation is that the two loading conditions (FW vs. barbell) induced no different PAP/E responses. Presumably, because the intensity and tempo of the two resistance exercise protocols were matched by the peak power load selection, coupled eccentric-concentric contractions, and while only a single set of squats was performed.
飞轮和杠铃深蹲方案激活后增强和激活后性能增强的差异
本研究旨在比较飞轮(FW)和杠铃阻力方案对随后诱发的膝伸肌特征和反跳(CMJ)高度的激活后增强(PAP)和激活后增强性能(PAPE)反应。该研究采用随机交叉设计,包括19名体育学生(24.9[2.6]岁,171.1[6.9]cm,66.9[8.6]kg)。参与者被分为经验丰富(EX)和未经验丰富(unEX)两组。他们访问了实验室八次,并按随机顺序进行了以下测试:I)最佳FW负荷测定,II)最佳杠铃负荷测定,III)确定抽搐特征的对照访视,IV)确定CMJ特征的对照访问,V和VI)FW深蹲和杠铃方案后引起的股四头肌收缩,VII和VIII)FW深蹲和杠铃深蹲方案后的CMJ测试。混合模型方差分析(因子负荷条件[对照、FW、杠铃]、时间[1-10分钟]和经验)揭示了跳跃高度、抽搐幅度、收缩时间和半放松时间作为时间因子的变化。在EX和unEX参与者之间以及负载条件之间,分析的变量只有微小的差异。普遍的观察结果是,两种负载条件(FW与杠铃)没有诱导不同的PAP/E反应。据推测,因为两种阻力运动方案的强度和节奏与峰值功率负荷选择相匹配,加上偏心同心收缩,而只进行了一组深蹲。
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
Kinesiologia Slovenica
Kinesiologia Slovenica SPORT SCIENCES-
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