Techniques and considerations for determining isoinertial upper‐body power

Falvo, Michael J.; Schilling, Brian K.; Weiss, Lawrence W.

doi:10.1080/14763140608522879

Cited by 10 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The preload stimulus of 65% of 1RM with a 3 min intra-complex rest interval and the preload stimulus of 87% of 1RM with an 8 min rest interval were shown to generate power output increases as constituents of complex training protocols; hence, they influenced the selection of this study’s variables ( Baker, 2003 ; Bevan et al, 2009 ). Three bench press throws at 30% 1RM can induce power output maximization; hence, they were deemed adequate for this study ( Falvo et al, 2006 ; Thomas et al, 2007 ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Acute Effect of Upper-Body Complex Training on Power Output of Martial Art Athletes as Measured by the Bench Press Throw Exercise

Liossis¹,

Forsyth²,

Liossis³

et al. 2013

Journal of Human Kinetics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to examine the acute effect of upper body complex training on power output, as well as to determine the requisite preload intensity and intra-complex recovery interval needed to induce power output increases. Nine amateur-level combat/martial art athletes completed four distinct experimental protocols, which consisted of 5 bench press repetitions at either: 65% of one-repetition maximum (1RM) with a 4 min rest interval; 65% of 1RM with an 8 min rest; 85% of 1RM with a 4 min rest; or 85% of 1RM with an 8 min rest interval, performed on different days. Before (pre-conditioning) and after (post-conditioning) each experimental protocol, three bench press throws at 30% of 1RM were performed. Significant differences in power output pre-post conditioning were observed across all experimental protocols (F=26.489, partial eta2=0.768, p=0.001). Mean power output significantly increased when the preload stimulus of 65% 1RM was matched with 4 min of rest (p=0.001), and when the 85% 1RM preload stimulus was matched with 8 min of rest (p=0.001). Moreover, a statistically significant difference in power output was observed between the four conditioning protocols (F= 21.101, partial eta2=0.913, p=0.001). It was concluded that, in complex training, matching a heavy preload stimulus with a longer rest interval, and a lighter preload stimulus with a shorter rest interval is important for athletes wishing to increase their power production before training or competition.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Acute Effect of Upper-Body Complex Training on Power Output of Martial Art Athletes as Measured by the Bench Press Throw Exercise

Liossis¹,

Forsyth²,

Liossis³

et al. 2013

Journal of Human Kinetics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is an important but apparently overlooked aspect of measurement methodology that could have important implications for strength and conditioning practitioners. The accurate measurement of resistance exercise mechanical power output is critical for monitoring both resistance training intensity (1,2,12,15,16,23) and the effects of resistance training (4,10,11), and to varying extents relies on bar end kinematics (2,3,6,7,9,14,17). Therefore, a side dominance effect could significantly influence measures of resistance exercise mechanical power output that are obtained from bar end kinematics.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does Side Dominance Affect the Symmetry of Barbell End Kinematics during Lower-Body Resistance Exercise?

Lake

Lauder²,

Smith³

2011

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to examine whether ground kinetic asymmetries significantly affected measures of bar end power output during bilateral lower-body resistance exercise. Vertical ground reaction forces (GRFs) from both feet and power outputs from both ends of the bar were recorded using force platforms and high-speed cameras simultaneously during the back squat performance of 10 experienced male volunteers with 30, 60, and 90% of their 1 repetition maximum. Side dominance was determined according to perceived left- and right-side handedness, dominant left- and right-side GRFs, and barbell power output side dominance. The dominant and nondominant side average concentric phase GRFs and barbell end power outputs were compared at each loading condition using 2-way analysis of variance. Pearson product-moment correlations were also performed to assess the relationship between average GRF and bar end differences. The results showed that although differences between the dominant and nondominant side GRFs reached 21% in some cases, there were no significant differences between the left- and right-side bar end power outputs, which did not exceed 3.4%. There were no consistent correlations between the dominant and nondominant side average GRFs and average bar end power differences. In addition to this, progressive loading did not significantly affect differences between the dominant and nondominant side GRFs or bar end power output differences. It was concluded that although apparently healthy individuals demonstrate considerable side dominance at the foot-floor interface, these tend not to be reflected in the symmetry of bar end power output.

show abstract

“…Izvođenje serijskih protokola vertikalnih skokova radi analize anaerobne sposobnosti po pravilu se izvodi naizmeničnim skokovima tipa CMJ koje se razlikuju po broju skokova ili trajanju testa (npr. Ispitanik izvodi maksimalno snažan vertikalan skok praćen zamahom ruku (visok sport-specifičan pokret) čime se procenjuje sposobnost smenjivanja izotoničnih kontrakcija opružača donjih i gornjih ekstremiteta [14]. Klasičan skok iz stojećeg stava (vertical jump -VJ) izvodi se iz pozicije stojećeg stava sa opruženim nogama u zglobu kolena i sa slobodnim rukama, opuštenim pored tela.…”

Section: Različiti Tipovi Test Skokovaunclassified

Vertical jump as a tool in assessment of muscular power and anaerobic performance

Ostojić

Stojanović²,

Ahmetović³

2010

Med pregl

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Muscular strength and anaerobic power could be assessed by single and multiple vertical jump testing procedures. Anaerobic capacity measured by vertical jump testing is highly correlative with athletic performance, as compared to other anaerobic testing procedures. The most frequently used protocol with contact mat or force platform consists of single jump (i.e., squat jump, drop jump, countermovement jump) and serial jump testing with different duration. Measured variables include jump height and duration along with absolute and relative peak muscular power. Several investigators have clearly shown superior jump performance variables in elite athletes as compared to non-elite subjects. Differences obtained could be due to genetic factors and acute or prolonged effects of training regimen. with

show abstract

Techniques and considerations for determining isoinertial upper‐body power

Cited by 10 publications

References 48 publications

The Acute Effect of Upper-Body Complex Training on Power Output of Martial Art Athletes as Measured by the Bench Press Throw Exercise

The Acute Effect of Upper-Body Complex Training on Power Output of Martial Art Athletes as Measured by the Bench Press Throw Exercise

Does Side Dominance Affect the Symmetry of Barbell End Kinematics during Lower-Body Resistance Exercise?

Vertical jump as a tool in assessment of muscular power and anaerobic performance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About