Search

The article cites a study which examined the effect of an abbreviated resistance and plyometric training program on force- and power-time curve variables during jumping. The study results indicate that short-term strength and plyometric training may preferentially influence eccentric performance variables during jumping in comparison with longer term training enhancements to the concentric phase performance.

The purpose of this investigation was to compare external work and net energy expenditure during a bout of repetitive stretch-shortening cycles between competitive and recreational long-distance runners. Participants were divided into either competitive or recreational runners based on their maximal oxygen consumption and self-reported 1600 m times. The stretch-shortening cycle involved a repetitive hopping protocol on a force plate while measuring oxygen consumption and lactate accumulation for a total of 10 min. External work and net energy expenditure were calculated for 3 min after steady state was achieved and the ratio between these variables was utilised as an index of mechanical efficiency. Lower extremity stiffness was calculated during this interval as well. Net energy expenditure was significantly lower in competitive runners (152.6 ± 33.3 kJ) in comparison to recreational runners (200.6 ± 41.4 kJ) (P = 0.02) given similar amounts of external work performed in both groups (competitive runners = 65.6 ± 20.1 kJ, recreational runners = 68.8 ± 12.1 kJ) (P = 0.67). Index of mechanical efficiency was significantly different between competitive runners (43.2 ± 9.0%) and recreational runners (34.8 ± 5.3%) (P = 0.03). No significant differences were found in lower extremity stiffness (P = 0.64). Competitive distance runners can perform similar levels of external work with lower net energy expenditure and thus a higher index of mechanical efficiency during repetitive stretch-shortening cycles in comparison to recreational runners with similar values of lower extremity stiffness. This ability could possibly be due differences in muscle–tendon length changes, muscle pre-activation, cross-bridge potentiation and short-latency reflex responses as a result of training which should be considered for future investigation. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The purpose of this investigation was to examine how load would affect peak power (PP) of the bar, body and system (bar + body) during the deadlift. Eight healthy males (age = 22.00 ± 2.38 years; height = 1.80 ± 0.05 m; body mass = 88.97 ± 14.88 kg; deadlift one repetition maximum [1RM] = 203.44 ± 21.59 kg, 1RM/BM = 2.32 ± 0.31) with a minimum of 2 years’ resistance training experience and a deadlift 1RM over 1.5 times their bodyweight participated in the investigation. During the first session, anthropometric data were recorded and a 1RM deadlift was obtained from the participants. During the second session, participants performed two repetitions at intensities of 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80 and 90% of their 1RM in a randomized order. Three-dimensional videography with a force plate was used for data collection and analysis. Peak force (PF), peak velocity (PV), an d PP were calculated for the bar, body, and system (bar + body) during the deadlift. PP occurred at 50%, 30%, and 70% of 1RM for the bar, body, and system, respectively. The optimal loading for the deadlift exercise may vary depending on the desired stimulus and whether the bar, body, or system variables are of most interest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]