Effects of Post-Activation Performance Enhancement on Jump Performance in Elite Volleyball Players

Abstract

Post-activation performance enhancement (PAPE) is a widely described phenomenon, but the majority of studies tend to evaluate the response of various parameters of a conditioning activity (CA) on the same explosive exercise. The aim of this study was to evaluate the PAPE response of the same CA—trap bar deadlift with an accommodating resistance—on jump height in two different jumping tests: squat jump (SJ) and countermovement jump (CMJ). Study participants included twelve elite volleyball players (age 23 ± 2 years; body height, 194.7 ± 5.9 cm; body mass, 89.8 ± 7.9 kg; body fat, 14.7 ± 3.7%) experienced in resistance training (relative 1RM of a trap bar deadlift with accommodating resistance 1.92 ± 0.12 kg/body mass). Each participant performed tests under four conditions: two conditions for both SJ and CMJ—experimental with CA and control without CA. Jumps were performed at the baseline and 90 s after CA. The protocol did not increase jump power significantly in either SJ or CMJ. However, individual analysis showed that more participants responded positively to the CA in SJ (73%) than CMJ (50%), implying that PAPE response may depend on the similarity of the muscle-type contraction between CA and an explosive exercise.

Post-activation effects of accommodating resistance and different rest intervals on vertical jump performance in strength trained males

“…Moreover, certain studies proved that the accommodating resistance was more effective in comparison to free weight resistance [ 21 , 23 , 25 ] in inducing PAPE. Even though a trap bar deadlift was suggested as being an effective training alternative to a squat, [29] there is little evidence of a trap bar deadlift inducing PAPE [ 30 – 34 ]. The results of the studies using only traditional resistance are not consistent - two of them showed no PAPE effect [ 30 , 31 ], whereas one of them enhanced subsequent explosive performance.…”

“…Furthermore, a trap bar deadlift was more effective compared to a back squat [ 32 ]. Additionally, there are two studies [ 33 , 34 ] where the accommodating resistance was used while performing a trap bar deadlift. Both of them [ 33 , 34 ] involve a vertical jump component as an explosive exercise.…”

“…Additionally, there are two studies [ 33 , 34 ] where the accommodating resistance was used while performing a trap bar deadlift. Both of them [ 33 , 34 ] involve a vertical jump component as an explosive exercise. It may be especially important as monitoring vertical jump height is a method for evaluating the effectiveness of the training program [ 35 ].…”

“…It may be especially important as monitoring vertical jump height is a method for evaluating the effectiveness of the training program [ 35 ]. The first one [ 33 ] was not effective in enhancing subsequent countermovement jump (CMJ) performance and the second [ 34 ] was partially effective and showed a higher effect for a squat jump (SJ) than CMJ as a higher percentage of the players responded positively (improvement in absolute values by ≥ 0.8 cm between baseline and post-CA jumps) in SJ (73%) than CMJ (50%). Therefore, more studies are necessary to evaluate the real potential of a trap bar deadlift with accommodating resistance as a CA to reduce the rest interval between CA and a subsequent explosive task.…”

“…Therefore, the main objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of performing a trap bar deadlift with accommodating resistance as a CA on jump performance with rest intervals shorter than 3 min between CA and a subsequent explosive task. An additional purpose of the study was to determine if a trap bar deadlift combined with accommodating resistance could be an effective CA as the current evidence did not support it [ 33 , 34 ]. SJ was implemented in the study as it starts from an isometric position as well as a trap bar deadlift.…”