Post-Activation Performance Enhancement: Save Time With Active Intra-Complex Recovery Intervals

Abstract

This study aimed to determine whether the intra-complex active recovery within the strength-power potentiating complex will impact the upper-body post-activation performance enhancement effect and how the magnitude of this effect will change across the upper-body complex training session. Thirteen resistance-trained males [the age, body mass, height, experience in resistance training, and one-repetition maximum (1RM) in bench press were 27 ± 4 years; 92.3 ± 15.4 kg; 182 ± 6 cm; 6.4 ± 2.4 years, and 118 ± 29 kg, respectively) participated in this study. Each participant completed a baseline bench press throw performance assessment at 30% 1RM. Next, five strength-power potentiating complexes consisting of a bench press at 80% 1RM were tested until the average barbell velocity decreased by 10% as a conditioning activity, and 6 min later, a re-test of bench press throw was carried out. During one experimental session during the rest interval inside the complex, they performed swiss ball leg curls, while between the complexes, a plank exercise (PAP-A) was performed. During the second experimental session, participants performed no exercises within the strength-power potentiating complexes and between them (PAP). Under control conditions, participants ran the same protocol (as the PAP condition) without the conditioning activity (CTRL). Friedman’s test showed significant differences in peak (test = 90.634; p < 0.0001; Kendall’s W = 0.410) and average (test = 74.172; p < 0.0001; Kendall’s W = 0.336) barbell velocities during bench press throw. Pairwise comparisons indicated that the peak and average barbell velocities significantly increased in the fourth set [p = 0.022, effect size (ES) = 0.76 and p = 0.013, ES = 0.69, respectively], and the average barbell velocity was also increased in the second set (p = 0.018, ES = 0.77) in comparison to the baseline value during the PAP-A condition. Moreover, the peak barbell velocity was increased in the second (p = 0.008, ES = 0.72) and third (p = 0.019, ES = 0.76) sets compared to the baseline value during the PAP condition. This study showed that body-weight lower-body exercise as an intra-complex active recovery did not impair the upper-body post-activation performance enhancement effect across the complex training session.

Do Activities Performed within the Intra-Contrast Rest Interval Affect Neuromuscular Performance during Complex-Contrast Training Protocols?

“…Along the same lines, Urbański et al (2023) demonstrated that the completion of an active ICRI (i.e., bench press exercise at 75% of 1RM) did not significantly impact lower-body PAPE responses (i.e., in contrast pairs consisting of a back squat and a hip thrust paired with a CMJ and a broad jump, respectively) in comparison with a condition in which participants rested seated. Thus, to some extent, previous literature ( Trybulski et al, 2022 ; Urbański et al, 2023 ) supports the current findings in the sense that matching neuromuscular performances were found when completing a task during the ICRI or when simply allowing a passive recovery between exercises. However, direct comparisons should be made with caution since: 1) Trybulski et al (2022) investigated upper-body contrast pairs (as opposed to lower-body in the present investigation); and 2) both mentioned studies ( Trybulski et al, 2022 ; Urbański et al, 2023 ) prescribed ICRIs considerably longer than those used here (i.e., ~6 min vs. 2 min 30 s), which may limit their application in time-constrained scenarios (e.g., team-sport settings).…”

“…However, evidence is scarce regarding the effects of including another CA or a mobility exercise during ICRIs. Trybulski et al (2022) evaluated the acute effects of incorporating a low-intensity exercise (i.e., a Swiss ball leg curl) within an upper-body strength-power potentiating complex (i.e., bench press + BPT) when compared to a passive ICRI. Those authors found similar PAPE responses in both conditions and concluded that performing body-weighted auxiliary exercises during the ICRI could be a viable option to optimize the CCT prescription from a time-efficiency perspective ( Trybulski et al, 2022 ).…”

“… Trybulski et al (2022) evaluated the acute effects of incorporating a low-intensity exercise (i.e., a Swiss ball leg curl) within an upper-body strength-power potentiating complex (i.e., bench press + BPT) when compared to a passive ICRI. Those authors found similar PAPE responses in both conditions and concluded that performing body-weighted auxiliary exercises during the ICRI could be a viable option to optimize the CCT prescription from a time-efficiency perspective ( Trybulski et al, 2022 ). Along the same lines, Urbański et al (2023) demonstrated that the completion of an active ICRI (i.e., bench press exercise at 75% of 1RM) did not significantly impact lower-body PAPE responses (i.e., in contrast pairs consisting of a back squat and a hip thrust paired with a CMJ and a broad jump, respectively) in comparison with a condition in which participants rested seated.…”

“…Those authors theorized that this would not interfere with subsequent performance and would allow making training more time-efficient. However, this hypothesis is yet to be fully explored as most CCT protocols utilize passive ICRIs (i.e., no exercises are performed) ( Bauer et al, 2019 ; Cormier et al, 2020 ; Freitas et al, 2017 ) and only two studies ( Trybulski et al, 2022 ; Urbański et al, 2023 ) investigated the acute effects of completing different exercises during the ICRI. Moreover, no previous research has analyzed whether including mobility exercises during the recovery period has any beneficial or detrimental effect on subsequent performance.…”

Effects of Eccentric Speed during Front Squat Conditioning Activity on Post-activation Performance Enhancement of Hip and Thigh Muscles

“…One of the effective ways to increase an upward and rightward force-velocity relationship is the use of a loaded conditioning activity (CA) before a power exercise to evoke acute post-activation performance enhancement (PAPE) ( Blazevich and Babault, 2019 ; Blecharz et al, 2022 ; Cormier et al, 2022 ; Trybulski et al, 2022 ; Wolska et al, 2023 ) or increased competition performance ( Bogdanis et al, 2014 ; Chua et al, 2021 ). Some general mechanisms such as changes in muscle temperature, cellular water content, muscle activation, alterations in the motor pattern, and post-activation potentiation effect have been identified as PAPE causes ( Blazevich and Babault, 2019 ; Xenofondos et al, 2023 ).…”