High-performing masters athletes use more-controlled pacing strategies than their lower-ranked counterparts during a competitive marathon, independent of age and gender.

THIS ARTICLE EXAMINES THE APPLICATION OF A VARIETY OF MODALITIES TO ELICIT A POSTACTIVATION POTENTIATION (PAP) RESPONSE IN SPRINTING. WE PRESENT THE EXISTING LITERATURE ON THE ACUTE EFFECTS OF BACK SQUATS, POWER CLEANS, PLYOMETRICS, AND SLED PULLING ON SPRINT DISTANCES RANGING FROM 5 TO 50 M. WE ALSO DISCUSS AND PROVIDE AN EXAMPLE OF HOW COACHES CAN ASSESS THE INDIVIDUAL EFFECTS OF PAP PROTOCOLS ON THEIR ATHLETES TO IDENTIFY WHETHER A PROTOCOL ELICITS AN ACUTE IMPROVEMENT OR IMPAIRMENT IN PERFORMANCE. FINALLY, WE PROVIDE PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS ON HOW COACHES CAN INCORPORATE THESE METHODS INTO A SPRINT TRAINING SESSION.

The aim of this study was to assess the concurrent validity of the Optojump™ system (Microgate, Bolzano, Italy) versus a force platform in the estimation of temporal and reactive strength measures. In two separate investigations, twenty physically active males performed double-leg and single-leg drop jumps from a box height of 0.3 m and a 10 s vertical bilateral hopping test. Contact time, flight time and total time (the sum of contact and flight time) were concurrently assessed during single and double-leg drop jumps and during hopping. Jump height, the reactive strength index and the reactive strength ratio were also calculated from contact time and flight time. Despite intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for all variables being close to 1 (ICC > 0.975), a significant overestimation was found in contact time (0.005 ± 0.002 s) and underestimations in flight time (0.005 ± 0.003 s), the reactive strength index (0.04 ± 0.02 m·s-1) and the reactive strength ratio (0.07 ± 0.04). Overestimations in contact time and underestimations in flight time were attributed to the physical design of the Optojump™ system as the transmitter and receiver units were positioned 0.003 m above the floor level. The Optojump™ demonstrated excellent overall temporal validity with no differences found between systems for total time. Coaches are advised to be consistent with the instrumentation used to assess athletes, however, in the case of comparison between reactive strength values collected with the Optojump™ and values collected with a force platform, regression equations are provided.

The method of assessing reactive strength (RSI vs RSR) may be influenced by the performance strategies adopted, that is, whether athletes achieve their best reactive strength scores via low CTs, high JHs, or a combination. Coaches are advised to limit the variability in performance strategies by implementing upper and/or lower CT thresholds to accurately compare performances between individuals.