Peak Power Output in the Bench Pull Is Maximized After Four Weeks of Specific Power Training

Jolley, Russell I.; Goodwin, Jon E.; Cleather, Daniel J.

doi:10.1519/jsc.0000000000001182

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 43 publications

(44 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The PBP exercise is therefore characterised by a descending strength curve where maximum strength is produced at the start of the lift [13]. However, when multiple repetitions are performed within a PBP training set, the pulling phase may also be preceded by a downward movement (i.e., the "eccentric-concentric PBP variant") [18]. It is plausible that this eccentric overload may improve the muscles' ability to produce force earlier in the PBP motion by reducing muscle slack (i.e., the delay between muscular contraction and recoil of the series elastic elements) [19].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lifting More Than Two Loads Compromises the Magnitude of the Load–Velocity Relationship Variables: Evidence in Two Variants of the Prone Bench Pull Exercise

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to compare and associate the magnitude of the load–velocity relationship variables between the multiple-point and two-point methods and between the concentric-only and eccentric–concentric prone bench pull (PBP) variants. Twenty-three resistance-trained males completed a preliminary session to determine the concentric-only PBP one-repetition maximum (1 RM) and two experimental sessions that only differed in the PBP variant evaluated. In each experimental session they performed three repetitions against the 14 kg load (L1), two repetitions against the 85% 1 RM load (L4), three repetitions against an equidistant intermediate light load (L2), two repetitions against an equidistant intermediate heavy load (L3), and 1–5 1 RM attempts. The load–velocity relationship variables (i.e., load–axis intercept, velocity–axis intercept, and area under the load–velocity relationship line) were obtained from the multiple-point (L1-L2-L3-L4) and two-point (L1-L4) methods. All load–velocity relationship variables presented greater magnitudes when obtained by the two-point method compared with the multiple-point method (p < 0.001, ESrange = 0.17–0.43), while the load–velocity relationship variables were comparable between both PBP variants (p ≥ 0.148). In addition, the load–velocity relationship variables were highly correlated between both methods (rrange = 0.972–0.995) and PBP variants (rrange = 0.798–0.909). When assessing the load–velocity relationship variables, practitioners should prescribe only two loads, as this maximises the magnitudes of the variables and decreases fatigue.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lifting More Than Two Loads Compromises the Magnitude of the Load–Velocity Relationship Variables: Evidence in Two Variants of the Prone Bench Pull Exercise

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Assessing full body impulsive ability using a range of medicine ball loads for the backward overhead medicine ball throw

Beckham

Martin

Layne

et al. 2020

Sports Biomechanics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Potentiating Response to Accentuated Eccentric Loading in Professional Football Players

Godwin

Fearnett

Newman

2021

Sports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to assess the acute effect of Accentuated Eccentric Loading (AEL) on countermovement jump (CMJ) height, peak power output (PPO) and peak velocity in male professional footballers using loads of 20% or 40% of body mass (AEL20 or AEL40, respectively). Twenty-three male professional football players (age 24 ± 4.5 years, range 18–34 years; body mass 80.21 ± 8.4 kg; height 178.26 ± 7.62 cm) took part in a randomised, cross-over design to test the potentiating responses of two AEL conditions (AEL20 and AEL40) versus a body weight control group (CON). Mean loads for the two conditions were 15.84 ± 1.70 kg (AEL20) and 31.67 ± 3.40 kg (AEL40). There was no significant difference between the three conditions for jump height (p = 0.507, η2G = 0.022). There were significant differences in peak power between the groups (p = 0.001, η2G = 0.154). Post hoc analysis with Bonferroni adjustment showed significantly higher peak power for both AEL conditions compared to the control group, but no significant differences between AEL conditions (CON vs. AEL20, p = 0.029, 95% CI −1016.735, −41.815, Cohen’s d = −0.56; CON vs. AEL40, p = 0.001, 95% CI −1244.995, −270.075, Cohen’s d = −0.81; AEL20 vs. AEL40, p = 0.75, 95% CI −715.720, 259.201, Cohen’s d = −0.24). There was no significant difference between the three conditions for peak velocity (p = 0.269, η2G = 0.046). AEL using either 20% or 40% of body mass may be used to increase peak power in the countermovement jump in well-trained professional football players.

show abstract

Peak Power Output in the Bench Pull Is Maximized After Four Weeks of Specific Power Training

Cited by 3 publications

References 43 publications

Lifting More Than Two Loads Compromises the Magnitude of the Load–Velocity Relationship Variables: Evidence in Two Variants of the Prone Bench Pull Exercise

Lifting More Than Two Loads Compromises the Magnitude of the Load–Velocity Relationship Variables: Evidence in Two Variants of the Prone Bench Pull Exercise

Assessing full body impulsive ability using a range of medicine ball loads for the backward overhead medicine ball throw

The Potentiating Response to Accentuated Eccentric Loading in Professional Football Players

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About