Effects of Tapering With Light vs. Heavy Loads on Track and Field Throwing Performance

Abstract

The purpose of the study was to investigate the effects of power training with light vs. heavy loads during the tapering phases of a double periodized training year on track and field throwing performance. Thirteen track and field throwers aged 16-26 years followed 8 months of systematic training for performance enhancement aiming at 2 tapering phases during the winter and the spring competition periods. Athletes performed tapering with 2 different resistance training loads (counterbalanced design): 7 athletes used 30% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM) light-load tapering (LT), and 6 athletes used the 85% of 1RM heavy-load tapering (HT), during the winter tapering. The opposite was performed at the spring tapering. Before and after each tapering, throwing performance, 1RM strength, vertical jumping, rate of force development (RFD), vastus lateralis architecture, and rate of perceived exertion were evaluated. Throwing performance increased significantly by 4.8 ± 1.0% and 5.6 ± 0.9% after LT and HT, respectively. Leg press 1RM and squat jump power increased more after HT than LT (5.9 ± 3.2% vs. -3.4 ± 2.5%, and 5.1 ± 2.4% vs. 0.9 ± 1.4%, respectively, p ≤ 0.05). Leg press RFD increased more in HT (38.1 ± 16.5%) compared with LT (-2.9 ± 6.7%), but LT induced less fatigue than HT (4.0 ± 1.5 vs. 6.7 ± 0.9, p ≤ 0.05). Muscle architecture was not altered after either program. These results suggest that performance increases similarly after tapering with LT or HT in track and field throwers, but HT leads to greater increases in strength, whole body power, and RFD.

Short-term Periodization Models: Effects on Strength and Speed-strength Performance

“…In other words, much of what is called periodization is really the study of programming (i.e., sets and reps) rather than an actual concept [172]. Meta-analyses [65,110] and results with weightlifters [109], American Football players [37,52,114], and throwers [115] confirm the necessity of the habitual use of C80 % 1 RM: (1) to improve maximal strength during the off-season [37,52] and in-season [114] in American Football [37,52,114], (2) to reach peak performance in maximal strength and vertical jump power during tapering in track-and-field [115], and (3) to produce hypertrophy [65] and strength improvements [109,110] in advanced athletes. The integration and extent of hypertrophy strength training in in-season conditioning depend on the duration of the contest period, the frequency of the contests, and the proportion of the conditioning program.…”

“…Therefore, it is quite possible to perform a single strengthpower session with the method of maximum explosive strength actions moving high-weight loads (90 % 1 RM) at least 1-2 days before competition because of shorter regeneration times and potentiation effects [129]. Compared with ballistic strength training (30 % 1 RM), this method has been shown to provide statistically superior gains in maximal strength, peak power, impulse size, and explosive strength during tapering in track-and-field throwers [115]. For maximizing speed-strength over the short-term (peaking), elite athletes should accomplish strength-power training twice per week [37].…”

“…A change from this high-intensity wavelike progression to a high-volume circuit strength training, performed over 2 years, elicited deleterious effects on the development of the power output and maximal strength of the upper extremities [113]. Other authors have stressed the importance of training intensity with loads C80 % 1 RM to improve maximal strength [37,52,109,114,115], peak power, impulse size, and explosive strength [115] in elite athletes [37,52,109,114,115]. Based on their metaanalysis, Rhea et al [110] confirmed this recommendation for improving maximal strength for trained athletes.…”

Intramuscular fiber conduction velocity, isometric force and explosive performance

“…The best performance in jump height was used for further analysis. The ICCs for jump height and power were 0.87 (95% CI: Lower = 0.83, Upper = 0.95) and 0.91 (95% CI: Lower = 0.90, Upper = 0.99), respectively, n = 13 (Zaras et al, 2014). …”

“…Subsequently, subjects performed 3 maximal CMJs with 2 min rest between jumps, on a force platform (Applied Measurements Ltd Co. UK, WP800-1000 kg weighting platform, s/n:40245, 80x80 cm, sampling frequency 1 kHz) with free bending of the knees during the downward movement and with arms akimbo, as previously described (Bosco et al, 1983; Zaras et al, 2014). Data from the force platform were recorded and analyzed (Kyowa sensor interface PCD-320A, Kyowa Electronic Instruments CO., LTD, Japan) in order to calculate jump height and power according to the following equations: Jump height (cm) = ((0.5 · flight time) 2 · 2 -1 ) · 9.81 and Power (W) = (body weight + Fmax) · 9.81 · flight time (Bosco et al, 1983; Linthorne 2001; Zaras et al, 2014). Signals were filtered using a secondary low pass Butterworth filter with a cutoff frequency of 20 Hz.…”