Postactivation potentiation following different modes of exercise.

Cardiff School of Sport, University of Wales Institute, Cardiff, United Kingdom.
The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (Impact Factor: 1.86). 07/2010; 24(7):1911-6. DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181dc47f8
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The performance characteristics of skeletal muscle are transient in nature and have been shown to be significantly affected by its contractile history, where the phenomenon of acute enhancement is termed postactivation potentiation (PAP). Acute enhancement of dynamic activity has been observed when preceded by resistance exercises; however little information exists for plyometric activity as a conditioning stimulus. In addition, no study has examined PAP effects on more than one subsequent performance trial. The purpose of the present study was to determine whether countermovement jump (CMJ) performance could be enhanced if preceded by heavy-resistance exercise or by dynamic plyometric activity over 3 trials. Thirteen anaerobically trained male subjects (mean +/- SD: age, 22 +/- 3 years; height, 182.4 +/- 4.3 cm; body mass, 82.7 +/- 9.2 kg) performed in a counterbalanced order 3 half squats using a 3 repetition maximum loading (SQUAT), a set of 24 contacts of lower body plyometric exercises (PLYO), or a control of no activity (REST) 5 minutes before each CMJ. Three sets of each treatment and CMJ were performed in total and maximal displacement (dmax), peak power (Ppeak), and peak vertical force (Fpeak) were recorded, whereas rate of force development and relative force (F/body mass) were calculated for every trial. No significant differences were revealed for any of the other variables, but greater displacement was found for SQUAT compared to REST or PLYO, whereas no differences were revealed for any of the conditions for the repeated trials. Although heavy resistance-induced PAP seems to enhance jump height compared to REST or PLYO in repeated CMJ performance, it has no additional benefit on repeated trials.

Download full-text


Available from: Theodoros Bampouras, Jan 30, 2014
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract The purpose of this meta-analytic review was to examine the extent and quality of research on the post-activation potentiation acute effect of rest interval manipulation on jumping performance. This manuscript adopted the recommendations from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Statement. Criteria eligibility included crossover, randomised, non-randomised and counterbalanced studies that observed the voluntary muscle action-induced post-activation potentiation on jumping performance. Fourteen studies selected by two independent raters were included in the analysis. The rest intervals involved ranges including 0-3, 4-7, 8-12 and ≥16 min. The results demonstrated medium effect sizes for rest intervals 0-3 and 8-12 min (-0.25, Confidence Interval (CI): -0.51 to 0.01 for 0-3 min; 0.24, CI: -0.02 to 0.49 for 8-12 min) and a small effect for other ranges (0.15, CI: -0.08 to 0.38 for 4-7 min; 0.07, CI: -0.21 to 0.24 for ≥16 min). There was no evidence of heterogeneity for sub-groups (I (2 )= 0%; P < 0.001) and no indication of publication bias (Egger's test, P = 0.179). While a rest interval of 0-3 min induced a detrimental effect on jump performance, the range including 8-12 min had a beneficial impact on jump height. Findings suggest that the rest interval manipulation seems to affect post-activation potentiation magnitude and jump height.
    Journal of Sports Sciences 11/2012; 31(5). DOI:10.1080/02640414.2012.738924 · 2.10 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study examined the effects of two different warm-up protocols on lower limb power and flexibility in high level athletes. Twenty international level fencers (10 males and 10 females) performed two warm-up protocols that included 5-min light jogging and either short (15s) or long (45s) static stretching exercises for each of the main leg muscle groups (quadriceps, hamstrings and triceps surae), followed by either 3 sets of 3 (short stretching treatment), or 3 sets of 5 tuck jumps (long stretching treatment), in a randomized crossover design with one week between treatments. Hip joint flexion was measured with a Lafayette goniometer before and after the 5-min warm-up, after stretching and 8 min after the tuck jumps, while counter movement jump (CMJ) performance was evaluated by an Ergojump contact platform, before and after the stretching treatment, as well as immediately after and 8 minutes after the tuck jumps. Three way ANOVA (condition, time, gender) revealed significant time (p < 0.001) and gender (p < 0.001) main effects for hip joint flexion, with no interaction between factors. Flexibility increased by 6. 8 ± 1.1% (p < 0.01) after warm-up and by another 5.8 ± 1.6% (p < 0.01) after stretching, while it remained increased 8 min after the tuck jumps. Women had greater ROM compared with men at all time points (125 ± 8° vs. 94 ± 4° p<0.01 at baseline), but the pattern of change in hip flexibility was not different between genders. CMJ performance was greater in men compared with women at all time points (38.2 ± 1.9 cm vs. 29.8 ± 1.2 cm p < 0.01 at baseline), but the percentage of change CMJ performance was not different between genders. CMJ performance remained unchanged throughout the short stretching protocol, while it decreased by 5.5 ± 0.9% (p < 0.01) after stretching in the long stretching protocol However, 8 min after the tuck jumps, CMJ performance was not different from the baseline value (p = 0.075). In conclusion, lower limb power may be decreased after long periods of stretching, but performance of explosive exercises may reverse this phenomenon.
    Journal of sports science & medicine 01/2012; 11(4):669-75. · 0.90 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the postactivation potentiation (PAP) effect of isometric and plyometric contractions on explosive performance of the upper and the lower limbs in male and female elite athletes. Thirteen male and ten female international level fencers performed four protocols of either isometric (3 sets of 3 sec) or plyometric (3 sets of 5 repetitions) bench and leg press, in a within subject randomized design. Before and immediately after the PAP treatment and following 4, 8, 12 min, explosive performance was measured by performing a countermovement jump (CMJ) or a bench press throw. Statistical analysis revealed significant time effect for peak leg power during the CMJ (p < 0.001) only for men, with values after the isometric PAP treatment being lower than baseline at the 8 and 12 min time points (by 7.5% (CI95% = 3.9-11.2%) and 8.7% (CI95% = 6.0-11.5%, respectively), while after the plyometric PAP treatment peak leg power remained unchanged. A significant negative correlation was found between leg strength (as expressed by 1-RM leg press performance) and the change in peak leg power between baseline and after 12 min of recovery only in male fencers (r = -0.55, p < 0.05), suggesting that stronger individuals may show a greater decrease in peak leg power. Based on the above results we conclude that lower body power performance in international level fencers may be negatively affected after isometric contractions and thus they should be advised against using isometric exercises to induce PAP with the protocol prescribed in the present study. Furthermore, gender and strength level must be considered in the practical application of PAP. Key pointsSignificantly lower values for peak power of the legs were noted in men at 8 and 12 min of recovery in response to the PAP protocol used in this studyThere is some evidence to suggest that stronger individuals may have a greater and longer lasting fatigue that may actually result in a decrease rather than increase of performance after a PAP protocolFencers should be advised to avoid the use of isometric exercises in warm-up routines to augment explosive performance.
    Journal of sports science & medicine 01/2011; 10(3):577-83. · 0.90 Impact Factor