Effects of Isometric and Dynamic Postactivation Potentiation Protocols on Maximal Sprint Performance

Abstract

This study examined the effects of 3 types of postactivation potentiation (PAP) protocols (single-joint isometric, multijoint isometric, and multijoint dynamic) on subsequent 10-m, 20-m and 30-m sprint performance in 12 well-trained male track athletes (mean ± SD age = 22.4 ± 3.2 years). The subjects performed 4 protocols in a randomized order on different days as follows: control (4 minutes of passive rest), maximum voluntary isometric knee extension (3 repetitions of 3-second isometric knee extension), maximum voluntary isometric back squat (3 repetitions of 3-second isometric squat), and dynamic back squat (3 repetitions of back squats at 90% 1 repetition maximum). After each protocol, a 4-minute recovery period was incorporated before a 30-m maximal sprint assessment. Maximal sprint times at 10 m, 20 m, and 30 m were measured using timing gates to reflect sprint performance. One-way repeated measures analyses of variance revealed no differences in sprint performance among the 4 protocols at 10-m, 20-m, or 30-m intervals. There were, however, large individual variations in the response to the PAP protocols with some athletes benefiting from the PAP effect and others not. In summary, this study showed no enhancement of short-distance sprint performance after PAP protocols with a 4-minute recovery period, regardless of isometric or dynamics, single-joint or multijoint. Coaches considering the use of PAP protocols to improve sprinting performance of their athletes should exploit the effectiveness of different PAP protocols on an individual basis.

Limited Post-activation Potentiation Effects Provided by the Walking Lunge on Sprint Acceleration: A Preliminary Analysis

“…When recovery periods were individualized in professional rugby players, Bevan et al [19] found 0-5 m and 0-10 m sprint times were potentiated by 3 back squats performed with 91% of 1RM. In opposition to these findings, 30-m sprint times did not improve 4 min after performing a 3RM back squat in well-trained male and female track and field athletes [20]. A 3RM back squat also did not lead to improvements in 0-5 m [10], 0-10 m [10,18], or 0-30 m sprint times [18] in strength-trained collegiate American football or rugby players.…”

“…For example, only Bevan et al [19] illustrated that 10-m sprint performance can be potentiated by a strength exercise. Numerous other studies have illustrated that speed over distances less than 20 m were not potentiated by a strength-based conditioning activity [10,15,16,18,20,21]. Yetter and Moir [16] stated that an exercise such as a back squat may not provide a movement-specific stimulation to the muscles required for sprint acceleration due to the different mechanical demands of acceleration versus maximal velocity sprinting.…”

Effect of Bulgarian Split Squat Exercise on 20 Meters Sprint Performance

“…In addition, Till and Cook (2009) state in their study that there is no significant difference in sprint and vertical jump of potential practices after activity. Lim & Kong (2013), report in the study performed in 4 different days that there is no improvement in short-range sprint performance after PAP protocols and four-minute-rest period with single-articulated or multi-articulated irrespective of isometric or dynamics. Vanderka et al (2016), show in their study that there is no significant difference in the sprint time for athletes and footballers after jump squat, and the sprint time is negatively affected.…”

Title: Effect of Postactivation Potentiation on Short Sprint Performance: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…All of the studies evaluated males aged 16 to 25 years. The studies presented data of athletes from sports of collective modality (5-7, 9, 13, 22, 28-34), athleticism (21,35), and resistance trained subjects (8,9).…”

“…However, some controversial results are observed, with some studies indicating no significant improvements on sprint performance (5)(6)(7)(8)(9). Many factors such as muscle fiber type (10), training experience (11), gender (12) and muscle strength level (13) can influence the individual responsiveness to PAP.…”