McBride, J.M., S. Nimphius, and T.M. Erickson. The acute effects of heavy-load squats and loaded countermovement jumps on sprint performance. J. Strength Cond. Res. 19(4):893-897. 2005.-The purpose of this investigation was to determine whether performing high force or explosive force movements prior to sprinting would improve running speed. Fifteen NCAA Division III football players performed a heavy-load squat (HS), loaded countermovement jump (LCMJ), or control (C) warm-up condition in a counterbalanced randomized order over the course of 3 weeks. The HS protocol consisted of 1 set of 3 repetitions at 90% of the subject's 1 repetition maximum (1RM). The LCMJ protocol was 1 set of 3 repetitions at 30% of the subject's 1RM. At 4 minutes post-warm-up, subjects completed a timed 40-m dash with time measured at 10, 30, and 40 m. The results of the study indicated that when preceded by a set of HS, subjects ran 0.87% faster (p Յ 0.05) in the 40-m dash (5.35 Ϯ 0.32 vs. 5.30 Ϯ 0.34 seconds) in comparison to C. No significant differences were observed in the 10-m or 30-m split times between the 3 conditions. The data from this study suggest that an acute bout of low-volume heavy lifting with the lower body may improve 40-m sprint times, but that loaded countermovement jumps appear to have no significant effect.

The purpose of this investigation was to determine whether performing high force or explosive force movements prior to sprinting would improve running speed. Fifteen NCAA Division III football players performed a heavy-load squat (HS), loaded countermovement jump (LCMJ), or control (C) warm-up condition in a counterbalanced randomized order over the course of 3 weeks. The HS protocol consisted of 1 set of 3 repetitions at 90% of the subject's 1 repetition maximum (1RM). The LCMJ protocol was 1 set of 3 repetitions at 30% of the subject's 1RM. At 4 minutes post-warm-up, subjects completed a timed 40-m dash with time measured at 10, 30, and 40 m. The results of the study indicated that when preceded by a set of HS, subjects ran 0.87% faster (p < or = 0.05) in the 40-m dash (5.35 +/- 0.32 vs. 5.30 +/- 0.34 seconds) in comparison to C. No significant differences were observed in the 10-m or 30-m split times between the 3 conditions. The data from this study suggest that an acute bout of low-volume heavy lifting with the lower body may improve 40-m sprint times, but that loaded countermovement jumps appear to have no significant effect.

The purpose of this study was to compare force- and power-time curve variables during jumping between Division I strength-matched male and female basketball athletes. Males (n = 8) and females (n = 8) were strength matched by testing a one-repetition maximum (1RM) back squat. 1RM back squat values were normalised to body mass in order to demonstrate that strength differences were a function of body mass alone. Subjects performed three countermovement jumps (CMJ) at maximal effort. Absolute and relative force- and power-time curve variables from the CMJs were analysed between males and females. Average force- and power-time curves were generated for all subjects. Jump height was significantly greater (p ≤ .05) in males than females. Absolute force was higher in males during the concentric phase, but not significantly different (p ≥ .05) when normalised to body mass. Significance was found in absolute concentric impulse between sexes, but not when analysed relative to body mass. Rate of force development, rate of power development, relative peak force, and work were not significantly different between sexes. Males had significantly greater impulse during the eccentric phase as well as peak power (PP) during the concentric phase of the CMJ than did females in both absolute and relative terms. It is concluded that sex differences are not a determining factor in measured force during a CMJ when normalised to body mass between strength-matched subjects. However, eccentric phase impulse and concentric phase PP appear to be influenced by sex differences independent of matching strength levels.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the direction and magnitude of kinematic changes in bar path and kinetic variable changes in the power clean (PC) after 4 weeks of PC training. Eighteen healthy adult men who had a minimum of 1 year of previous experience in the PC participated as subjects in this study. The subjects were pretested for their 1 repetition maximum (1RM) and provided with visual and verbal cues during PC training sessions, which took place 3 times per week for 4 weeks. Variables measured during data collection include pre- and post-peak force, peak power, and several bar-path kinematic variables through videography at 50, 70, and 90% of the subjects' pre-1RM. Peak force was improved at 50% of 1RM from 936 +/- 338 N to 1,299 +/- 384 N, at 70% from 1,216 +/- 315 N to 1,395 +/- 331 N, and at 90% from 1,255 +/- 329 N to 1,426 +/- 321 N. Peak power was increased at 50% of 1RM from 3,430 +/- 1,280 W to 4,230 +/- 1,326 W. All variables with respect to bar-path kinematics were improved significantly. These results indicate that both kinematic and kinetic variables improve through training and feedback. It is possible that persons beginning the PC exercise or coaches who provide instruction on the PC to beginning lifters should focus on proper bar path during the movement. This may result in force and power output to develop as technique improves. However, further investigation is required to establish the link between bar-path changes and kinetic variable performance improvements.

No abstract