A Comparison of Ballistic and Nonballistic Lower-Body Resistance Exercise and the Methods Used to Identify Their Positive Lifting Phases

Lake, Jason P.; Lauder, Mike A.; Smith, Neal; Shorter, Kathleen

doi:10.1123/jab.28.4.431

Cited by 32 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Impulse was obtained from the area under the net GRF-time curve (GRF minus barbell-andbody weight) during the propulsion phase using the trapezoid rule. The propulsion phase was identified from the velocity-time curve and began at the post countermovement transition from negative to positive velocity and ended at peak velocity (9,19). The dependent variables demonstrated high within session testretest reliability with intraclass correlation values between r = 0.902 and 0.970.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Power and Impulse Applied During Push Press Exercise

Lake

Mundy

Comfort

2014

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to quantify the load that maximized peak and mean power, as well as impulse applied to these loads, during the push press and to compare them to equivalent jump squat data. Resistance-trained men performed two push press (n = 17; age: 25.4 ± 7.4 years; height: 183.4 ± 5 cm; body mass: 87 ± 15.6 kg) and jump squat (n = 8 of original 17; age: 28.7 ± 8.1 years; height: 184.3 ± 5.5 cm; mass: 98 ± 5.3 kg) singles with 10-90% of their push press and back squat 1 RM, respectively, in 10% 1 RM increments while standing on a force platform. Push press peak and mean power was maximized with 75.3 ± 16.4 and 64.7 ± 20% 1RM, respectively, and impulses applied to these loads were 243 ± 29 N.s and 231 ± 36 N.s. Increasing and decreasing load, from the load that maximized peak and mean power, by 10% and 20% 1RM reduced peak and mean power by 6-15% (p < 0.05). Push press and jump squat maximum peak power (7%, p = 0.08) and the impulse that was applied to the A C C E P T E DCopyright Ó Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. All rights reserved.load that maximized peak (8%, p = 0.17) and mean (13%, p = 0.91) power were not significantly different, but push press maximum mean power was significantly greater than the jump squat equivalent (~9.5%, p = 0.03). The mechanical demand of the push press is comparable to the jump squat and could provide a time-efficient combination of lower-body power and upper-body and trunk strength training.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Power and Impulse Applied During Push Press Exercise

Lake

Mundy

Comfort

2014

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Peak power was identified as the highest instantaneous value during the propulsion phases of the first pull, second pull and jerk/push-press, whereas mean power was obtained by averaging power over each propulsive phase. The propulsive phases were identified from the velocitytime curve and began from the start of the lift to peak velocity for the first pull and from the post-countermovement transition from negative to positive velocity to peak velocity for the second pull and jerk phases [19][20][21]. Power was calculated as the product of ground reaction force and bar/log velocity.…”

Section: Instrumentationmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Biomechanical Analysis of the Strongman Log Lift and Comparison with Weightlifting's Clean and Jerk

Winwood

Cronin

Brown

et al. 2015

International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study compared the biomechanical characteristics of the log lift and clean and jerk. Six experienced male strongman athletes performed log lifts and clean and jerks at 70% of their 1RM clean and jerk. Significant (P<0.05) between-exercise kinematic differences were observed throughout all the lifting phases, except at lift completion. The log lift demonstrated significantly greater trunk (↑24%) and hip (↑9%) range of motion than the clean and jerk. Significantly greater peak bar velocities were achieved in the clean and jerk in the second pull (↑16%) and the jerk (↑14%). While similarities existed in ground reaction force data between the lifts, mean and peak powers were significantly greater (↑40% to ↑64%) in propulsive phases of the clean and jerk. The log lift may be an effective conditioning stimulus to teach rapid triple extension while generating similar vertical and anterior-propulsive forces as the clean and jerk with the same given load.

show abstract

“…The frequent "one-on-one" SSG-related playing situations involve dynamic actions such as accelerations, decelerations, change of directions, and jumps. These actions are ballistic in nature and previous research has indicated that ballistic movements produce greater muscle and power outputs than non-ballistic ones (Newton et al, 1997;Lake et al, 2012). As a consequence, they may have induced activation of high-threshold motor units, which have been proposed to underline the PAP (Tillin and Bishop, 2009).…”

Section: Lower Bodymentioning

confidence: 99%