Content uploaded by Anthony N Turner
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Anthony N Turner on Apr 24, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
REVIEW ARTICLE
Ballistic Exercise as a Pre-Activation Stimulus: A Review
of the Literature and Practical Applications
Sean J. Maloney
•
Anthony N. Turner
•
Iain M. Fletcher
Published online: 19 June 2014
Ó Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014
Abstract Post-activation potentiation (PAP) refers to the
acute enhancement of muscular function as a direct result
of its contractile history. Protocols designed to elicit PAP
have commonly employed heavy resistance exercise
(HRE) as the pre-activation stimulus; however, a growing
body of research suggests that low-load ballistic exercises
(BE) may also provide an effective stimulus. The ability to
elicit PAP without the need for heavy equipment would
make it easier to utilise prior to competition. It is hypoth-
esised that BE can induce PAP given the high recruitment
of type II muscle fibres associated with its performance.
The literature has reported augmentations in power per-
formance typically ranging from 2 to 5 %. The perfor-
mance effects of BE are modulated by loading, recovery
and physical characteristics. Jumps performed with an
additional loading, such as depth jumps or weighted jumps,
appear to be the most effective activities for inducing PAP.
Whilst the impact of recovery duration on subsequent
performance requires further research, durations of
1–6 min have been prescribed successfully in multiple
instances. The effect of strength and sex on the PAP
response to BE is not yet clear. Direct comparisons of BE
and HRE, to date, suggest a tendency for HRE protocols to
be more effective; future research should consider that
these strategies must be optimised in different ways. The
role of acute augmentations in lower limb stiffness is
proposed as an additional mechanism that may further
explain the PAP response following BE. In summary, BE
demonstrates the potential to enhance performance in
power tasks such as jumps and sprints. This review pro-
vides the reader with some practical recommendations for
the application of BE as a pre-activation stimulus.
Key Points
Post-activation potentiation (PAP) acutely enhances
short-duration athletic performances that require
maximal power production.
Ballistic exercise-based PAP-induced improvements
in performance range from 2 to 5 % and are not
dissimilar to those induced by heavy resistance
exercise.
Ballistic exercise protocols that employ either depth
jumps or weighted jumps (including weightlifting
variations) appear to be the most effective.
1 Introduction
Post-activation potentiation (PAP) refers to the acute
enhancement of muscular function as a direct result of its
contractile history, for example, an augmentation of power
output following a pre-conditioning contraction [1, 2].
Heavy resistance exercise (HRE) involves the performance
of a multi-joint free weight exercise at loads typically
exceeding 85 % 1 repetition maximum (1RM). PAP has
commonly been utilised through the medium of complex
training, where HRE is performed prior to a matched,
S. J. Maloney (&) I. M. Fletcher
Department of Sport Science and Physical Activity, Research
Graduate School, University of Bedfordshire, Polhill Avenue,
Bedford MK41 9EA, UK
e-mail: sean.maloney@beds.ac.uk
A. N. Turner
School of Health and Social Sciences, London Sport Institute,
Middlesex University, London, UK
123
Sports Med (2014) 44:1347–1359
DOI 10.1007/s40279-014-0214-6
higher velocity power exercise, for instance, a back squat
followed by a countermovement jump (CMJ), with a view
to augmenting performance in the second activity [2].
However, the practicality of employing HRE prior to per-
formance may be questioned. These pre-activation proto-
cols require heavy loadings, commonly approaching twice
an athlete’s bodyweight (e.g. Kilduff et al. [3]), and cum-
bersome equipment such as squat stands. Moreover, ath-
letes competing in certain sports, such as athletics, will be
required to report to a holding area before their event,
which would typically render the performance of such
activities impossible.
Ballistic exercise (BE) is characterised by the intention
to perform a movement with maximal velocity [4] and by
the acceleration of a mass throughout an entire movement
[5]. BE may provide a viable alternative to HRE if it can be
implemented correctly; such activities also seek to achieve
maximal motor unit recruitment, as described in Sect. 2 of
this review, but may be performed without the necessity for
heavy and cumbersome equipment. This review will criti-
cally evaluate the potential for BE to augment subsequent
performances and highlight their potential application
within sports training and competition.
1.1 Literature Search Methodology
Original journal articles were retrieved from electronic
searches of Science Direct, OVIDSP, Medline (EBSCO)
and PubMed databases in addition to searches of Google
Scholar and relevant bibliographic hand searches with no
limits of language of publication. The search strategy
included the terms post-activation potentiation, PAP, pre-
conditioning, pre-activation, potentiating, dynamic warm-
up, loaded warm-up, weighted jump, and loaded jump. The
month of the last search performed was August 2013.
Articles that investigated the effect of BE on performance
were considered eligible for this review; inclusion criteria
stated that articles must use quantifiable performance
measures as a dependent variable.
2 Theoretical Basis of Ballistic Exercise (BE)
Pre-Activation Strategies
The background and underlying mechanisms of PAP have
been discussed in a number of review articles, including
those by Hodgson et al. [2] and Tillin and Bishop [6].
These articles consider the potential for contribution from
the phosphorylation of myosin regulatory light chains,
increases in fascicle pennation angle and the recruitment of
higher order motor units; readers are directed to these texts
for more detailed consideration of these mechanisms as
here we focus on its practical application.
It is important to note that whilst potentiation of muscle
twitch is greatest immediately following the pre-activation
stimulus [7–10], the same cannot be said for the perfor-
mance benefit. The pre-activation stimulus will ultimately
produce a certain level of fatigue alongside any potential
PAP effect; whether or not the activity has a beneficial
performance effect is governed by an interaction between
these two responses. The role of recovery will be discussed
in Sect. 3.2 of this review.
2.1 Type II Muscle Fibres
It may be hypothesised that the degree of muscular
recruitment achieved by HRE is of key importance in
determining its potential for PAP; research demonstrates
that heavier loadings induce more favourable adaptations
than lighter loadings [11–15]. Henneman’s size principle
[16, 17] suggests that a heavier loading will result in
superior activation of the motor units comprising type II
muscle fibres than a lighter loading. In vitro, these type II
muscle fibres have been shown to carry a greater potential
for PAP [18–20] and this explains why heavier loadings
should theoretically induce a greater PAP response.
2.2 Ballistic Contraction
A ballistic contraction may be defined by the intention to
perform movement with maximal velocity [4]. An
acknowledged pre-requisite of ballistic exercise is that a
mass is accelerated throughout the entire movement [5];
BE must therefore involve either a jumping action where
the body leaves the floor or a throwing action where the
projectile leaves the hand. BE removes the braking phase
associated with traditional resistance exercise and has been
suggested by Newton et al. [5] to increase the relative
duration of positive acceleration and thereby facilitate
greater force output and muscle activation [5]. Whilst these
assertions have been contested by the likes of Frost et al.
[21] and Lake et al. [22], BE still appears to facilitate
greater power outputs than the same exercise performed in
a non-ballistic manner [22].
During ballistic contraction, the threshold of motor unit
recruitment is lower than in slower, ramped contraction [4,
23, 24]. It may be postulated that this reduction in
recruitment threshold is the primary reason why BE may
provide an effective stimulus for PAP; the strong excitatory
drive of ballistic contraction enables the entire motor-
neurone pool to be activated within a few milliseconds
[25]. Whilst the recruitment threshold during ballistic
contraction is lower than in ramped contraction [4, 23, 24],
there does not appear to be a selective recruitment of faster
motor units and the size principle of contraction is largely
preserved [4, 23, 24, 26].
1348 S. J. Maloney et al.
123
2.3 Overview of BE as a Pre-Activation Protocol
A compilation of the published, peer-reviewed research
studies investigating the use of BE pre-activation protocols
is shown in Table 1. The key modulating variables from
these studies will be considered in Sect. 3 of this review.
3 Modulating Factors
3.1 Loading
As discussed, HRE protocols employing heavier loadings
appear to induce more favourable acute adaptations than
lower intensity [11–15]. Loading is also an important
consideration when utilising BE, be this in relation to the
choice of exercise used (i.e. plyometric intensity) or
through a form of external loading such as a weighted jump
or Olympic weightlifting variation.
3.1.1 Plyometric Intensity
Read et al. [27] reported the performance of three maximal
CMJs, recognised as a ‘moderate-intensity’ exercise [28],
as inducing a 2.2 % (P \ 0.05; effect size [ES] 0.16)
improvement in club head speed during a golf swing.
Depth jumps are recognised as a ‘higher-intensity’ exercise
[28] and may be predicted to carry a greater potential for
PAP. For example, Masamoto et al. [29] demonstrated the
performance of depth jumps to elicit a 4.9 kg (3.5 %;
P \0.05; ES 0.16) increase in 1RM back squat, but a
matched volume of tuck jumps (classified as a ‘lower-
intensity’ exercise than depth jumps by Potach and Chu
[28]) did not. Till and Cooke [30] and Tsolakis et al. [31]
have also reported tuck jump protocols to carry no effect on
performance. This is perhaps surprising given that a tuck
jump should infer greater forces on landing due to the
probable increase in height attained. It may therefore be
that it is the intention to pre-activate and minimise the
amortisation phase during a depth jump that provides a
greater stimulus for PAP. Studies such as those conducted
by Till and Cooke [30] and Tsolakis et al. [31] tend to
instruct tuck jumps to be performed with a sole emphasis
on achieving maximal jump height. This could imply a
greater emphasis on the augmentation of limb stiffness, a
concept discussed in Sect. 5 of this review, as a potential
mechanism of PAP, although this would need to be
examined directly before conclusions could be drawn.
Using depth jump protocols, Hilfiker et al. [32] observed
a 2.2 % (P \ 0.05; ES 0.27) increase in average power
production during a CMJ, Terzis et al. [33] a 4.6 %
(P \ 0.01; ES 0.32) improvement in shot throw distance
and Chen et al. [34] an improvement in vertical jump
height of *1 % (estimated from figures as means not
provided; P = 0.008). The greatest improvements have
been observed by Lima et al. [35], presenting peak
improvements of 6 % (P \ 0.01; ES 3.16) in CMJ and
2.7 % (P \ 0.05; ES 0.69) in 50 m sprint performance.
Depth jumps were also used as the culmination of the
plyometric protocol employed by Tobin and Delahunt [
36];
the investigators reported peak improvements in jump
performance of 4.8 % (P \ 0.001; ES 0.39).
Tillin and Bishop [6] propose that the increased eccen-
tric pre-loading component associated with depth jumps, in
comparison with normal CMJ protocols, may facilitate
greater neural excitation, a conjecture supported by the
findings of Masamoto et al. [29]. However, the traditional
view that depth jumps are a higher-intensity exercise than
CMJs (i.e. Potach and Chu [28]) may be contested. The
intensity of plyometric exercise may be determined by
mechanical outputs [37, 38] or muscle activation [39] and
does not necessarily support this assumption [37–39]. For
example, a tuck jump is associated with greater knee
reaction force [38], quadriceps and gastrocnemius activa-
tion [39] and plantar flexion torque, impulse and power
[37] than a depth jump. However, depth jumps may involve
greater hip extension torque and power [37].
Future research should seek to compare different types
of plyometric exercise and look to evaluate the different
kinetic variables that may be subsequently affected. Given
how individual exercises often display completely different
kinetic profiles from one another [37–39], it is possible that
different potentiative mechanisms may explain the per-
formance enhancements observed.
3.1.2 Weighted Jumps
The intensity of BE may be amplified by increasing system
mass through the utilisation of an external loading.
McBride et al. [40] were the first investigators to employ a
weighted jump protocol; the authors had athletes perform
jump squats in a Smith machine with loadings equal to 30,
55 and 80 % of their 1RM back squat but observed that this
did not influence subsequent vertical jump or sprint per-
formance. Using a weighted vest, a far more portable and
easy to employ form of external loading, Faigenbaum et al.
[41] compared dynamic warm-ups performed with loadings
equivalent to 2 and 6 % body mass. Neither protocol
augmented performance in a 10 yard sprint or in vertical
and horizontal jump tests beyond an unloaded warm-up,
although the investigators’ figures suggest a tendency for
improved horizontal jump performance following the 2 %
warm-up. Other investigators have since reported that
higher weight vest loadings may elicit greater performance
increases when worn only for a few specific warm-up
exercises such as jumps and power skips [42, 43].
Ballistic Exercise as a Pre-Activation Stimulus 1349
123
Table 1 Overview of the studies investigating the effect of ballistic pre-activation strategies on performance
References Participant
characteristics
(mean ± SD)
Pre-activation
stimulus
Volume Recovery
before
testing
Performance test Impact on performance Modulating factors
Masamoto
et al. [29]
12 AT males
A: 20.5 ± 1.4 years
H: 1.79 ± 0.11 m
BM: 87.4 ± 11.6 kg
CMJ: 0.60 ± 0.14 m
DJ 2 reps 9 1
set
30 s 1RM BS 3.5 % (4.9 kg) increase from pre-test
(P \0.05; ES 0.16; 90 % CI 0.9–8.9 kg)
NR
Tuck jump 3 reps 9 1
set
30 s 1RM BS No effect
Burkett et al.
[54]
29 AT males
A: 20.0 ± 1.7 years
H: 1.90 ± 0.09 m
BM: 95.9 ± 13.0 kg
DB loaded box jump
w/ 10 % BW
(0.64 m box)
5 reps 9 1
set
2 min CMJ height 3.3 % (2.28 cm) increase over control
(P \0.01; ES 0.38; 90 % CI 0.9–3.7 cm)
NR
CMJ @ 75 %
intensity
5 reps 9 1
set
2 min CMJ height No effect
McBride
et al. [40]
15 AT males
A: 20.8 ± 1.0 years
H: 1.84 ± 0.07 m
M: 100.1 ± 15.5 kg
1RM BS/BM: 1.84
BS w/ 90 % 1RM 3 reps 9 1
set
4 min 40 m sprint 0.87 % (0.05 s) faster than control
(P
= 0.018; ES 0.16; 90 % CI 0.02–0.08 s)
No effect of strength
Smith machine CMJ
w/ 30 % of 1RM
BS
3 reps 9 1
set
4 min 40 m sprint No effect
Faigenbaum
et al. [41]
18 AT females
A: 15.3 ± 1.2 years
H: 1.66 ± 0.09 m
BM: 61.6 ± 10.4 kg
WV loaded DWU w/
2%BW
NR 2 min CMJ height No effect NR
LJ distance *7 % increase over control (estimated from
figures; P value NR)
MB throw No effect
10 yard sprint No effect
WV loaded DWU w/
6%BW
NR 2 min CMJ height No effect
LJ distance No effect
Medicine ball throw No effect
10 yard sprint No effect
Hilfiker et al.
[32]
13 AT males
A: 22 years (range
20–28)
BM: 69.5 kg (range
54.5–85)
Modified DJ from
0.6 m
5 reps 9 1
set
1 min CMJ height No effect NR
CMJ power 2.2% (1.21 W kg
-1
) increase over control
(P \0.05; ES 0.27; 90 % CI
0.2–2.2 W kg
-1
)
SJ height No effect
SJ power No effect
Thompsen
et al. [42]
16 AT female
A: 19.7 ± 1.4 years
H: 1.66 ± 0.11 m
BM: 67.0 ± 10.7 kg
DWU w/ 10 % BW
WV for last 4
exercises
NR 2 min CMJ height No effect NR
LJ distance 2.5 % (4.6 cm) increase over control
(P B 0.05; ES 0.24; 90 % CI 0.8–8.4 cm)
1350 S. J. Maloney et al.
123
Table 1 continued
References Participant
characteristics
(mean ± SD)
Pre-activation
stimulus
Volume Recovery
before
testing
Performance test Impact on performance Modulating factors
Tahayori
[43]
10 PA males, 8 PA
females
A: 21.7 ± 1.2 years
H: 1.67 ± 0.08 m
BM: 64.4 ± 16.3 kg
WV loaded CMJ w/
15 % BW
3 reps 9 5
sets
(0.5 min
recovery)
2 min CMJ height 2.1 % (1.48 cm) increase over control
(P B 0.05; SD NR; 90 % CI 0.3–2.7 cm)
in males
No effect in females
Effect of gender
Terzis et al.
[33]
8 PA males
A: 22.0 ± 1.0 years
H: 1.77 ± 0.05 m
BM: 77.0 ± 6.0 kg
8 PA females
A: 23.0 ± 3.0 years
H: 1.70 ± 0.06 m
BM: 66.0 ± 7.0 kg
DJ from 0.4 m 5 reps 9 1
set
20 s Underhand front
shot distance
4.6 % (0.38 m) increase from pre-test
(P \0.01; ES 0.32; 90 % CI 0.2–0.6 m)
[1.5 % (0.11 m) increase in females (ns; ES
0.14); 7.4 % (0.64 m) increase in males
(P \0.01; ES 0.69; 90 % CI 0.3–1.0 m)]
Effect of gender
Effect of strength
(r = 0.50; P \ 0.05)
Effect of fibre type
(r = 0.76; P \ 0.01)
Till and
Cooke [30]
12 AT males
A: 18.3 ± 0.72 years
H: 1.76 ± 0.05 m
BM: 72.1 ± 8.0 kg
Deadlift w/ 5RM 5 reps 9 1
set
4–6 min 20 m sprint No effect No effect of strength
7–9 min CMJ height No effect
Tuck jump 5 reps 9 1
set
4–6 min 20 m sprint No effect
7–9 min CMJ height No effect
Isometric MVC (3 s) 3 reps 9 1
set
4–6 min 20 m sprint No effect
7–9 min CMJ height No effect
Chattong
et al. [44]
20 AT males
A: 22.45 ± 1.73 years
H: 1.77 ± 0.07 m
BM: 76.98 ± 8.56 kg
Box jump (box @
knee height)
5 reps 9 1
set
2 min CMJ height No effect NR
WV loaded box jump
w/ 5 % BW (box
@ knee height)
No effect
WV loaded box jump
w/ 10 % BW (box
@ knee height)
No effect
WV loaded box jump
w/ 15 % BW (box
@ knee height)
No effect
WV loaded box jump
w/ 20 % BW (box
@ knee height)
No effect
Ballistic Exercise as a Pre-Activation Stimulus 1351
123
Table 1 continued
References Participant
characteristics
(mean ± SD)
Pre-activation
stimulus
Volume Recovery
before
testing
Performance test Impact on performance Modulating factors
McCann and
Flanagan
[47]
8 AT males
A: 20.86 ± 1.77 years
H: 1.95 ± 0.05 m
BM: 89.42 ± 8.40 kg
8 AT females
A: 19.14 ± 0.38 years
H: 1.77 ± 0.07 m
BM: 72.27 ± 9.41 kg
Hang clean w/ 5RM 5 reps 9 1
set
4 min CMJ height No effect No effect of gender
Hang clean w/ 5RM 5 reps 9 1
set
5 min No effect
BS w/ 5RM 5 reps 9 1
set
4 min No effect
BS w/ 5RM 5 reps 9 1
set
5 min No effect
Andrews
et al. [46]
19 AT females
A: 20.5 ± 1.5 years
H: 1.72 ± 0.06 m
BM: 70.2 ± 8.3 kg
Hang clean w/ 60 %
1RM
3 reps 9 3
sets
3 min
after set
1
CMJ height No effect NR
3 min
after set
2
No effect
3 min
after set
3
No effect
BS w/ 75 % 1RM 3 reps 9 3
sets
3 min
after set
1
CMJ height No effect
3 min
after set
2
No effect
3 min
after set
3
No effect
Lima et al.
[35]
10 AT males
A: 20.6 ± 2.6 years
H: 1.76 ± 0.06 m
BM: 73.7 ± 9.2 kg
DJ from 0.75 m 5 reps 9 2
sets
5 min CMJ height No effect NR
50 m sprint No effect
10 min CMJ height No effect
50 m sprint 2.4 % (0.16 s) faster than control (P \ 0.05;
ES 0.66; 90 % CI 0.03–0.3 s)
15 min CMJ height 5.5 % (2.4 cm) increase over control
(P \0.01; ES 3.16; 90 % CI 1.0–3.8 cm)
50 m sprint 2.7 % (0.17 s) faster than control (P \ 0.05;
ES 0.69; 90 % CI 0.03–0.3 s)
1352 S. J. Maloney et al.
123
Table 1 continued
References Participant
characteristics
(mean ± SD)
Pre-activation
stimulus
Volume Recovery
before
testing
Performance test Impact on performance Modulating factors
Tsolakis
et al. [31]
13 AT males
A: 21.8 ± 3.7 years
H: 1.79 ± 0.05 m
BM: 76.1 ± 7.8 kg
1RM leg press:
219 ± 44 kg
10 AT females
A: 22.7 ± 4.8 years
H: 1.69 ± 0.07 m
BM: 60.9 ± 4.6 kg
1RM leg press:
118 ± 29 kg
Isometric leg press at
90° knee flexion
(3 s)
3 reps 9 1
set
8 min CMJ power No effect overall
[7.5 % decrease in males (P \ 0.01; ES
0.53)]
Effect of gender, negative
effect of strength for
males (r =-0.55;
P \0.05)
12 min No effect overall
[8.7 % decrease in males (P \ 0.01; ES
0.65)]
Tuck jump 5 reps 9 3
sets
(1 min
recovery)
8 min CMJ power No effect No effect of gender
12 min No effect
Chiu and
Salem [45]
13 AT males
A: 27.31 ± 4.21 years
H: 1.79 ± 0.11 m
BM:
96.09 ± 17.61 kg
1RM snatch:
123.46 ± 19.99 kg
Snatch pull
(1 set = 2 reps each
@ 70, 80, 90,
100 % of 1RM
snatch)
8 reps 9 2
sets
3 min
after set
1
CMJ height 5.8 % increase from pre-test (P = 0.001; ES
1.62; mean figures NR)
NR
3 min
after set
2
5.9 % increase from pre-test (P \0.001; ES
1.75; mean figures NR)
West et al.
[58]
20 AT males
A: 26.5 ± 4.1 years
H: 1.85 ± 0.09 m
BM: 97.3 ± 12.5 kg
1RM bench press:
144 ± 19 kg
Bench press w/ 87 %
1RM
3 reps 9 3
sets
(recovery
NR)
8 min Ballistic bench
throw power w/
30 % of 1RM
bench press
4.3 % (38 W) increase from pre-test
(P \0.001; ES 0.35; 90 % CI 21–55 W)
Effect of strength
(r = 0.68; P = 0.001)
Ballistic bench throw
w/ 30 % of 1RM
bench press
3 reps 9 3
sets
(recovery
NR)
8 min Ballistic bench
throw power w/
30 % of 1RM
bench press
3.6 % (32 W) increase from pre-test
(P \0.001; ES 0.28; 90 % CI 18–46 W)
Effect of strength
(r = 0.63; P = 0.003)
Chen et al.
[34]
10 AT males
A: 20.9 ±
1.6 years
H: 1.78 ± 0.07 m
BM: 73.6 ± 10.7 kg
DJ from 0.6 m 5 reps 9 1
set
2 min CMJ height Increase from pre-test when combined w/ 2
set condition (P = 0.008; mean figures
NR)
NR
6 min No effect
12 min No effect
DJ from 0.6 m 5 reps 9 2
sets
(1 min
recovery)
2 min CMJ height Increase from pre-test when combined w/ 2
set condition (P = 0.008; mean figures
NR)
6 min No effect
12 min No effect
Ballistic Exercise as a Pre-Activation Stimulus 1353
123
Thompsen et al. [42] demonstrated a 2.5 % (P B 0.05; ES
0.24) improvement in horizontal, but not vertical, jump
performance with a 10 % body mass loading and Tahayori
[43] a 2.1 % (P B 0.05; standard deviations not reported)
improvement in vertical jump performance in males, but
not females. Most recently, Chattong et al. [44] observed
that loadings of 5–20 % had no impact on subsequent jump
performance.
3.1.3 Olympic Weightlifting
Three studies have used Olympic weightlifting variations as
a pre-activation stimulus [45–47]. Whilst Chiu and Salem
[45] observed a 5.9 % (P B 0.01; ES 1.75) improvement in
jump height following the performance of heavy snatch
pulls, such improvements were not echoed in the work of
McCann and Flanagan [47] and Andrews et al. [46], who
utilised power clean and hang clean exercises, respectively.
Pull variations of Olympic weightlifting movements, such
as those used by Chiu and Salem [45], are exercises that use
the double knee bend and triple extension component of the
full Olympic lifts but do not require the athlete to descend
underneath and catch the bar [48]. Pull variations may be
performed with higher loadings than the full Olympic lifts
and facilitate the production of greater peak forces [49, 50];
it may therefore be hypothesised that they carry a greater
potential for PAP. However, whether pull variations are
indeed a more effective pre-activation stimulus than the full
Olympic lifts would need to be established through direct
comparison. As with HRE, Olympic weightlifting requires
heavy weights and specialised equipment (i.e. a weightlift-
ing platform). This means that they are also unlikely to be
practical for use prior to competition by the majority of
athletes. It would be interesting to investigate whether ket-
tlebell exercises that mimic the ballistic triple extension of
ankle, knee and hip associated with Olympic weightlifting
movements may also be used as a pre-activation stimulus.
For example, the two-handed kettlebell swing has been
demonstrated to elicit impulses and power outputs compa-
rable to those of weighted squat jumps [51] and may
therefore provide an effective stimulus for PAP. Nonethe-
less, Olympic weightlifting movements may be suitably
employed to elicit PAP during training.
3.1.4 Summary
In summary, it appears that increasing the loading of BE
heightens the potential PAP response. However, as this
may be associated with a concomitant increase in fatigue,
which may mask the potential for performance enhance-
ment, the trade-off between loading and the recovery time
necessary to observe a beneficial performance effect must
be considered.
Table 1 continued
References Participant
characteristics
(mean ± SD)
Pre-activation
stimulus
Volume Recovery
before
testing
Performance test Impact on performance Modulating factors
Read et al.
[27]
16 PA males
A: 20.1 ± 3.2 years
H: 1.76 ± 0.07 m
BM: 72.8 ± 7.8
Handicap: 5.8 ± 2.2
strokes
CMJ 3 reps 9 1
set
1 min Golf clubhead speed 2.2 % (2.25 mph) increase over control
(P \0.05; ES 0.16; 90 % CI 0.4–4.1 mph)
NR
Tobin and
Delahunt
[36]
20 AT males
A: 22.4 ± 3.4 years
H: 1.84 ± 0.07 m
BM: 101.2 ± 11.9 kg
Ankle hops
Hurdle hops (hurdles
@ 0.7 m)
DJ from 0.5 m
10 reps 9 2
sets
5 reps 9 3
sets
5 reps 9 1
set
1 min CMJ height 4.8 % (2.09 cm) increase from pre-test
(P \0.001; ES 0.39; 90 % CI 1.2–3.0 cm)
NR
3 min 3.9 % (1.72 cm) increase from pre-test
(P \0.001; ES 0.31; 90 % CI 1.0–2.5 cm)
5 min 3.5 % (1.53 cm) increase from pre-test
(P \0.001; ES 0.27; 90 % CI 0.9–2.2 cm)
A age, AT athletically trained, BM body mass, BS back squat, BW body weight, CI confidence interval, CMJ countermovement jump,
DB dumbbell, DJ depth jump, DWU dynamic warm-up, ES
effect size, H height, kg kilograms, LJ long jump, m metres, mph miles per hour, MVC maximum voluntary contraction, NR not reported, ns not significant, PA physically active, reps
repetitions, SD standard deviation, SJ squat jump, W watts, w/ with, WV weighted vest, Wkg
-1
watts per kg of BM, 1RM 1 repetition maximum
1354 S. J. Maloney et al.
123
3.2 Recovery
In studies that have directly examined the effect of
recovery duration following HRE, a level of consensus has
been reached. Performances are initially impaired by HRE,
PAP is then realised, peaks and then decreases in an
inverted U fashion [3, 11, 52, 53]. However, the same level
of agreement cannot be reached in regards to BE with the
reporting of equivocal results. The findings of Lima et al.
[35] suggest that drop jumps may exhibit a similar recovery
profile to HRE; they observed a tendency for vertical jump
height and sprint performance to be impaired following
5 min of recovery before realising potentiation in jump
performance after 15 min and in sprint performance after
10 and 15 min. Conversely, Chen et al. [34] demonstrated a
negative association between recovery and PAP; vertical
jump height 2 min after a drop jump protocol was greater
than at 6 (P = 0.004) and 12 min (P = 0.002), jump
height at 6 min was also greater than at 12 min
(P = 0.018); mean figures were not reported. The impact
of recovery duration has also been evaluated by Tsolakis
et al. [31] and Tobin and Delahunt [36]. Tsolakis et al. [31]
reported no effect of upper- (ballistic push up) or lower-
body (tuck jump) BE over a 12 min recovery period. Tobin
and Delahunt [36] observed similar augmentations in ver-
tical jump height at 1, 3 and 5 min following a protocol
incorporating different types of vertical jumps.
It would appear that the recovery duration necessary to
observe a PAP response may be lower than would be
required following HRE given substantial reductions in
system mass loading [11]. For example, several investi-
gators have successfully employed durations of B60 s [27,
29, 32, 33, 36], 2 min [34, 42, 43, 54] and 3 min [36, 45].
Further research is certainly required to determine an
optimal recovery period following a BE and should also
attempt to investigate how this may be impacted by the
intensity and volume of the protocol.
3.3 Physical Characteristics
The impact of individual differences in determining the
PAP response has been widely investigated, although pri-
marily in relation to HRE. It appears that athletes’ strength
levels are the most important consideration. Chiu et al. [55]
reported that athletically trained males and females expe-
rienced a potentiation effect following HRE. However, the
jump squat performance of recreationally trained males and
females decreased following HRE. Chiu et al. [55] cite
greater muscle activation in the athletic-trained population
as the reason for this difference in response. Similar find-
ings were noted by Gourgoulis et al. [56]. Moderate to
strong correlations between strength and PAP responses
following HRE have been reported in strength-trained
athletes (r
= 0.49–0.81; P B 0.05 [3, 52, 53, 57]). Terzis
et al. [33] and West et al. [58] also report correlations of a
similar magnitude following BE (r = 0.50, P \ 0.05 and
r = 0.626; P = 0.003, respectively). However, when cat-
egorising their athletes into ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ subgroups,
McBride et al. [40] (1RM squat/body mass: 2.02 ± 0.15
vs. 1.68 ± 0.14 kg) and Till and Cooke [30] (5RM dead-
lift/body mass: 72.5 ± 8.22 vs. 62.5 ± 8.80 kg) reported
no effect of strength levels.
Given the role of type II muscle fibres in the PAP
response [18–20], and the strong relationship established
between strength and percentage of type II fibres [59], the
apparent positive potentiation effect that HRE has for
stronger athletes may be explained through fibre type
percentage [6]. Indeed, Terzis et al. [33] saw stronger
correlations for PAP and type II fibre percentage (r = 0.76,
P \ 0.01) than for strength. Furthermore, Jo et al. [60]
have proposed that stronger individuals require less
recovery to be able to benefit from PAP. Jo et al. [60]
demonstrated the recovery duration (5, 10, 15 and 20 min
durations were examined) eliciting the greatest improve-
ments in a Wingate cycle test to be significantly correlated
with 1RM back squat (r =-0.77, P \ 0.05). It may be
that higher strength does not directly influence recovery per
se, but rather, indicates a higher training age and level of
training tolerance.
Sex is another important consideration in regards to the
modulation of PAP, although any such discrepancy may
also be partially attributable to factors of strength or muscle
fibre type. Rixon et al. [61] have demonstrated PAP to
occur to significantly greater degrees in untrained or
recreationally trained males than in matched-level females
following HRE. Comyns et al. [62] report a similar ten-
dency between resistance-trained male and female athletes.
The findings of Tahayori [43
] and Terzis et al. [33] suggest
that similar inter-sex discrepancies may be prevalent fol-
lowing BE whilst those of McCann and Flanagan [47]do
not.
Further investigation into the impact of subject charac-
teristics on responses to BE is required before any defini-
tive conclusions can be drawn. Given the apparent potential
for limb stiffness to modulate PAP, a particular consider-
ation of inter-subject differences in various components of
limb stiffness is certainly warranted. The role of limb
stiffness will be discussed later on in this review.
4 BE vs. Heavy Resistance Exercise (HRE) Protocols
HRE and plyometric protocols have been compared by
McBride et al. [40] and Till and Cooke [30]. McBride et al.
[40] observed an improvement in 40 m sprint time
(0.87 %; P = 0.018; ES 0.16) as a consequence of HRE,
Ballistic Exercise as a Pre-Activation Stimulus 1355
123
but not BE. Till and Cooke [30] demonstrated that neither
heavy deadlifts nor tuck jumps impacted sprinting and
vertical jumping performance. Both sets of investigators
suggested that their ballistic activities were not sufficient to
elicit a PAP response in terms of volume and intensity,
respectively, and proposed that their HRE protocols
resulted in more motor unit recruitment. Again, the
importance of physical characteristics can be noted, as well
as the need to standardise this within research studies.
HRE and Olympic weightlifting protocols have been
compared by McCann and Flanagan [47] and Andrews
et al. [46]. Neither set of investigators detected PAP fol-
lowing variations of the clean exercise, although they did
note differences between the two protocols. McCann and
Flanagan [47] compared power cleans and heavy squats
and reported an average improvement in jump height of
5.7 % (2.72 ± 1.21 cm; P \ 0.001; mean figures not
reported) when subjects’ preferred protocol was consid-
ered; for 5 of 14 subjects this was found to be the power
clean. Andrews et al. [46] saw that jump performance over
three sets was maintained following their hang clean pro-
tocol, but had decreased by set three following heavy
squats. They conclude that Olympic weightlifting move-
ments may therefore be better suited to complex training
programmes than HRE.
As this review has highlighted, BE and HRE protocols
must be optimised in different ways; for example, different
intensities, volumes and recovery periods may be required.
Future research should employ independently optimised
BE and HRE protocols if seeking to directly compare these
directly.
5 Limb Stiffness
Stiffness describes the resistance of an object to deforma-
tion [63] and changes in the centre of mass in response to
force [64]. It is possible that acute augmentations in limb
stiffness may serve as an additional mechanism in the
explanation of PAP working alongside those that have been
previously outlined. For example, HRE protocols have
been shown to elicit acute increases in lower limb stiffness
as determined by spring-mass models [13, 14]. During
single leg drop jumps performed on a sledge apparatus
Comyns et al. [13] detected a 10.9 % (P \ 0.05; ES 0.39)
increase in leg-spring stiffness, which translated to a
reduction in ground contact time of 7.8 % (P \ 0.05; ES
0.38), an indication of improved stretch-shortening cycle
capabilities. Moir et al. [14] reported a 16 % (P = 0.013;
ES 0.52) increase in vertical stiffness during a vertical
jump. In spite of these findings, any potential contribution
for limb stiffness in the explanation of the PAP response
has not been considered by previous review articles.
At the musculotendinous unit level, increases in stiffness
would be expected to increase force development in the
active component—as the muscle can function in a more
quasi-isometric fashion—and increase the potential for
elastic recoil from the passive component [64]. Increases in
leg stiffness would therefore be expected to improve
measures of reactive strength and the relative force con-
tribution of the stretch-shortening cycle (i.e. contribution of
passive tension to overall force production) during pow-
erful movements given the viscoelastic properties of the
musculotendinous unit [64, 65].
In spite of the increase in leg stiffness observed by
Comyns et al. [13], the average flight time achieved during
a single leg drop jump was reduced by 3.4 % (P \ 0.01;
ES 0.58). Moir et al. [14] reported no effect of their HRE
protocol on vertical jump height despite the observed
increase in vertical stiffness. These findings highlight that
acute increases in leg-spring stiffness may not directly
correspond to an enhancement of performance. Arampatzis
et al. [65] proposed that an inverted U relationship exists
between leg-spring stiffness and mechanical power output
during the propulsive phase of vertical drop jumping.
Increases in leg-spring stiffness will enhance power output
up until an athlete’s optimal value is reached; further
increases beyond this point will begin to impair power
production. This decrease in power production is thought to
be a likely consequence of an increase in muscle shortening
velocity reducing the efficiency of force development [64].
Whilst this could explain why an augmentation in leg
stiffness by Comyns et al. [13] and Moir et al. [14] did not
transfer to an improvement in jump performance, it should
be noted that both sets of investigators utilised relatively
short recovery durations (4 and 2 min, respectively).
Research suggests that longer recovery durations may be
required following HRE in order to facilitate a benefit to
performance [3, 11, 53].
Studies utilising BE protocols are yet to examine the
impact on leg stiffness; however, as the muscle tendon unit
will be required to stiffen to function effectively during
these tasks [64], it may be possible that similar augmen-
tations may be observed. This avenue could be explored by
future research in order to be better understood.
6 Practical Application
6.1 Training
The application of PAP has been largely popularised
through the application of complex training. The principle
is that PAP will allow an athlete to train at power outputs
exceeding their normal capabilities and therefore increase
the potential training adaptations. The effectiveness of
1356 S. J. Maloney et al.
123
complex training against other training modalities is yet to
be properly determined; however, it would appear that a
familiarisation period is necessary before the ergogenic
potential of complex training may be realised [66, 67], and
this should be reflected in the design of future studies.
Although research has reached a general consensus that
HRE can potentiate power-based activities, the potential
for enhancing resistance exercise performance is an avenue
largely unexplored by the research. The findings of Ma-
samoto et al. [29] would suggest that this ‘reversal’ of
complex pairs shows promise.
Table 2 shows an example of how a power-based
training session could be theoretically structured to benefit
from the PAP effect stimulated by BE. The suggested
prescriptions are guided by the literature, but should be
determined on an individual basis. As the recovery duration
necessary to observe a PAP response following BE appears
to be less than that following HRE, this type of session is a
more time-efficient way of harnessing PAP than traditional
complex training programmes. This type of protocol should
therefore serve as a viable strategy for athletes and sports
professionals to incorporate within their overall training
programme. Also, because this programme is completed in
a circuit format, it is interesting to ponder whether this
protocol would be superior to traditional PAP protocols
given the constant stimulatory rotation. Such suggestions
warrant specific investigation if their validity is to be
determined.
6.2 Competition
The performance enhancement effects of a traditional
dynamic warm-up are well established (see Bishop [68]
for a review); however, the application of protocols
designed to elicit PAP may augment performances beyond
those that may be achieved by warm-up alone [69].
Whilst the potential benefit of PAP to enhance short-
duration, explosive activity (e.g. jumps and sprints) is
clear, the impact this could have on intermittent activities
(e.g. team sports) is much less so. Acute increases in
motor potential may prove beneficial in almost all sports,
but the challenge, an almost impossible one at that, would
be in maintaining a potentiated state for the duration of
performance despite an inevitable accumulation of fati-
gue. It may be possible, and importantly worthwhile in
some instances, to create a potentiated state for an athlete
within which they can start their performance. This may
give the athlete an initial advantage in competition and
could indeed prove to be the difference between winning
and losing.
7 Conclusion
PAP acutely enhances short-duration athletic performances
that require maximal power production and may therefore
benefit performance in sports where maximal power pro-
duction is a key performance determinant. BE-based PAP-
induced improvements in performance range from 2 to 5 %
and are not dissimilar to those induced by HRE-based
PAP-induced improvements in performance. BE protocols
that employ either depth jumps or weighted jumps
(including weightlifting variations) appear to be the most
effective. Whilst the potential benefits of PAP to the
individual athlete/s should be considered by the coach
before seeking to apply this phenomenon, the performance
of exercises such as depth jumps appear an easy-to-employ
protocol with minimal logistical demand and minimal risk
of performance detriment.
Acknowledgments No sources of funding were used to prepare this
manuscript. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that
are directly relevant to the content of this review.
References
1. Sale D. Postactivation potentiation: role in human performance.
Br J Sports Med. 2004;38(4):386–7.
2. Hodgson M, Docherty D, Robbins D. Post-activation potentia-
tion: underlying physiology and implications for motor perfor-
mance. Sports Med. 2005;35(7):585–95.
3. Kilduff LP, Owen N, Bevan H, et al. Influence of recovery time
on post-activation potentiation in professional rugby players.
J Sport Sci. 2008;26(8):795–802.
4. Desmedt JE, Godaux E. Ballistic contractions in man: charac-
teristic recruitment pattern of single motor units of the tibialis
anterior muscle. J Physiol. 1977;264(3):673–93.
5. Newton RU, Kraemer WJ, Ha
¨
kkinen K, et al. Kinematics,
kinetics, and muscle activation during explosive upper body
movements. J Appl Biomech. 1996;12(1):31–43.
6. Tillin NA, Bishop D. Factors modulating post-activation poten-
tiation and its effect on performance of subsequent explosive
activities. Sports Med. 2009;39(2):147–66.
7. Requena B, Ereline J, Gapeyeva H, et al. Post-tetanic potentiation
in knee extensors after high-frequency submaximal percutaneous
electrical stimulation. J Sport Rehabil. 2005;14(3):248–57.
8. Baudry S, Duchateau J. Post-activation potentiation in a human
muscle: effect on the rate of torque development of tetanic and
Table 2 An example of how a power-based training session could
theoretically be structured. Exercises are repeated in a circuit format
for 3–8 circuits
Exercise type Example exercise Suggested prescription
Lower body ballistic
exercise
Depth jump 3–5 repetitions
1–6 min post-set recovery
Lower body
performance task
10 m sprint 1–3 repetitions
5–8 min post-set recovery
Ballistic Exercise as a Pre-Activation Stimulus 1357
123
voluntary isometric contractions. J Appl Physiol. 2007;102(4):
1394–401.
9. Baudry S, Duchateau J. Post-activation potentiation in a human
muscle: effect on the load-velocity relation of tetanic and voluntary
shortening contractions. J Appl Physiol. 2007;103(4):1318–25.
10. Requena B, Gapeyeva H, Garcia I, et al. Twitch potentiation after
voluntary versus electrically induced isometric contractions in
human knee extensor muscles. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2008;
104(3):463–72.
11. Gilbert G, Lees A. Changes in the force development charac-
teristics of muscle following repeated maximum force and power
exercise. Ergonomics. 2005;48(11):1576–84.
12. Rahimi R. The acute effects of heavy versus light-load squats on
sprint performance. J Phys Educ Sport. 2007;5(2):163–9.
13. Comyns TM, Harrison AJ, Hennessy L, et al. Identifying the
optimal resistive load for complex training in male rugby players.
Sport Biomech. 2007;6(1):59–70.
14. Moir GL, Mergy D, Witmer CA, et al. The acute effects of
manipulating volume and load of back squats on countermove-
ment vertical jump performance. J Strength Cond Res.
2011;25(6):1486–91.
15. Lowery RP, Duncan NM, Loenneke JP, et al. Effects of poten-
tiating stimuli under varying rest periods on vertical jump per-
formance and power. J Strength Cond Res. 2012;26(12):3320–5.
16. Henneman E, Somje G, Carpenter DO. Excitability and inhibi-
tibility of motoneurons of different sizes. J Appl Physiol.
1965;28(3):599–620.
17. Wakeling JM. Patterns of motor recruitment can be determined
using surface EMG. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2009;19(2):
199–207.
18. Vandervoort AA, McComas AA. A comparison of the contractile
properties of the human gastrocnemius and soleus muscles. Eur J
Appl Physiol. 1983;51(3):435–40.
19. Hamada T, Sale DG, MacDougall JD, et al. Post-activation
potentiation, fiber type, and twitch contraction time in human
knee extensor muscles. J Appl Physiol. 2000;88(6):2131–7.
20. Hamada T, Sale DG, MacDougall JD, et al. Interaction of fibre
type, potentiation and fatigue in human knee extensor muscles.
Acta Physiol Scand. 2003;178(2):165–73.
21. Frost DM, Cronin JB, Newton RU. Have we underestimated the
kinematic and kinetic benefits of non-ballistic motion? Sport
Biomech. 2008;7(3):372–85.
22. Lake J, Lauder M, Smith N, et al. A comparison of ballistic and
nonballistic lower-body resistance exercise and the methods used
to identify their positive lifting phases. J Appl Biomech.
2012;28(4):431–7.
23. van Cutsem M, Duchateau J, Hainaut K. Changes in single motor
unit behaviour contribute to the increase in contraction speed
after dynamic training in humans. J Physiol. 1998;513(1):
295–305.
24. Ivanova T, Garland SJ, Miller KJ. Motor unit recruitment and
discharge behavior in movements and isometric contractions.
Muscle Nerve. 1997;20(7):867–74.
25. Duchateau J, Hainaut K. Mechanisms of muscle and motor unit
adaptation to explosive power training. Strength and power in
sport. Oxford: Blackwell Science; 2003. pp. 315–30.
26. Masakado Y, Akaboshi K, Nagata M, et al. Motor unit firing
behavior in slow and fast contractions of the first dorsal inter-
osseous muscle of healthy men. Electroencephalogr Clin Neu-
rophysiol. 1995;97(6):290–5.
27. Read P, Miller SC, Turner AN. The effects of post activation
potentiation on golf club head speed. J Strength Cond Res.
2013;27(6):1579–82.
28. Potach DH, Chu DA. Plyometric Training. In: Baechle TR, Earle
RW, editors. Essentials of strength training and conditioning. 3rd
ed. Champaign: Human Kinetics; 2008. p. 413–56.
29. Masamoto N, Larson R, Gates T, et al. Acute effects of plyo-
metric exercise on maximum squat performance in male athletes.
J Strength Cond Res. 2003;17(1):68–71.
30. Till KA, Cooke C. The effects of post-activation potentiation on
sprint and jump performance of male academy soccer players.
J Strength Cond Res. 2009;23(7):1960–7.
31. Tsolakis C, Bogdanis GC, Nikolaou A, et al. Influence of type of
muscle contraction and gender on post-activation potentiation of
upper and lower limb explosive performance in elite fencers.
J Sports Sci Med. 2011;10(3):577–83.
32. Hilfiker R, Hu
¨
bner K, Lorenz T, et al. Effects of drop jumps
added to the warm-up of elite sport athletes with a high capacity
for explosive force development. J Strength Cond Res.
2007;21(2):550–5.
33. Terzis G, Spengos K, Karampatsos G, et al. Acute effect of drop
jumping on throwing performance. J Strength Cond Res.
2009;23(9):2592–7.
34. Chen ZR, Wang YH, Peng HT, et al. The acute effect of drop
jump protocols with different volumes and recovery time on
countermovement jump performance. J Strength Cond Res.
2013;27(1):154–8.
35. Lima JCB, Marin DP, Barquilha G, et al. Acute effects of drop
jump potentiation protocol on sprint and countermovement ver-
tical jump performance. Hum Mov. 2011;12(4):324–30.
36. Tobin DP, Delahunt E. The acute effect of a plyometric stimulus
on jump performance in professional rugby players. J Strength
Cond Res. 2014;28(2):367–72.
37. Sugisaki N, Okada J, Kanehisa H. Intensity-level assessment of
lower body plyometric exercises based on mechanical output of
lower limb joints. J Sport Sci. 2013;31(8):894–906.
38. Jensen RL, Ebben WP. Quantifying plyometric intensity via rate
of force development, knee joint, and ground reaction forces.
J Strength Cond Res. 2007;21(3):763–7.
39. Ebben WP, Simenz C, Jensen RL. Evaluation of plyometric
intensity using electromyography. J Strength Cond Res.
2008;22(3):861–8.
40. McBride JM, Nimphius S, Erickson TM. The acute effects of
heavy-load squats and loaded countermovement jumps on sprint
performance. J Strength Cond Res. 2005;19(5):893–7.
41. Faigenbaum AD, McFarland JE, Schwerdtman JA, et al.
Dynamic warm-up protocols, with and without a weighted vest,
and fitness performance in high school female athletes. J Athl
Train. 2006;41(4):357–63.
42. Thompsen AG, Kackley T, Palumbo MA, et al. Acute effects of
different warm-up protocols with and without a weighted vest on
jumping performance in athletic women. J Strength Cond Res.
2007;21(1):52–6.
43. Tahayori B. Effects of exercising with a weighted vest on the
output of lower limb joints in countermovement jumping
[Master of Science]. United States: Louisiana State University;
2009.
44. Chattong C, Brown LE, Coburn JW, et al. Effect of a dynamic
loaded warm up on vertical jump performance. J Strength Cond
Res. 2010;24(7):1751–4.
45. Chiu LZ, Salem GJ. Potentiation of vertical jump performance
during a snatch pull exercise session. J Appl Biomech.
2012;28(6):627–35.
46. Andrews TR, Mackey T, Inkrott TA, et al. Effect of hang cleans
or squats paired with countermovement vertical jumps on vertical
displacement. J Strength Cond Res. 2011;25(9):2448–52.
47. McCann MR, Flanagan SP. The effects of exercise selection and
rest interval on post-activation potentiation of vertical jump
performance. J Strength Cond Res. 2010;24(5):1285–91.
48. DeWeese BH, Serrano AJ, Scruggs SK, et al. The clean pull and
snatch pull: proper technique for weightlifting movement deriv-
atives. Strength Cond. 2012;34(6):82–6.
1358 S. J. Maloney et al.
123
49. Comfort P, Fletcher C, McMahon JJ. Determination of optimal
loading during the power clean, in collegiate athletes. J Strength
Cond Res. 2012;26(11):2970–4.
50. Comfort P, Udall R, Jones PA. The effect of loading on kinematic
and kinetic variables during the midthigh clean pull. J Strength
Cond Res. 2012;26(5):1208–14.
51. Lake JP, Lauder MA. Mechanical demands of kettlebell swing
exercise. J Strength Cond Res. 2012;26(12):3209–16.
52. Bevan HR, Owen NJ, Cunningham DJ, et al. Complex training in
professional rugby players: influence of recovery time on upper-
body power output. J Strength Cond Res. 2009;23(6):1780–5.
53. Kilduff LP, Bevan HR, Kingsley MIC, et al. Post-activation
potentiation in professional rugby players: optimal recovery.
J Strength Cond Res. 2007;21(4):1134–8.
54. Burkett LN, Phillips WT, Ziuraitis J. The best warm-up for the
vertical jump in college-age athletic men. J Strength Cond Res.
2005;19(3):673–6.
55. Chiu LZ, Fry AC, Weiss LW, et al. Post-activation potentiation
response in athletic and recreationally trained individuals.
J Strength Cond Res. 2003;17(4):671–7.
56. Gourgoulis V, Aggeloussis N, Kasimatis P, et al. Effect of a
submaximal half-squats warm-up program on vertical jumping
ability. J Strength Cond Res. 2003;17(2):342–4.
57. Ruben RM, Molinari MA, Bibbee CA, et al. The acute effects of
an ascending squat protocol on performance during horizontal
plyometric jumps. J Strength Cond Res. 2010;24(2):358–69.
58. West DJ, Cunningham DJ, Crewther BT, et al. Influence of bal-
listic bench press on upper body power output in professional
rugby players. J Strength Cond Res. 2012;27(8):2282–7.
59. Aagaard P, Andersen JL. Correlation between contractile strength
and myosin heavy chain isoform composition in human skeletal
muscle. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1998;30(8):1217–22.
60. Jo E, Judelson DA, Brown LE, et al. Influence of recovery
duration after a potentiating stimulus on muscular power in
recreationally trained individuals. J Strength Cond Res.
2010;24(2):343–7.
61. Rixon KP, Lamont HS, Bemben MG. Influence of type of muscle
contraction, gender, and lifting experience on post-activation
potentiation performance. J Strength Cond Res. 2007;21(2):500–5.
62. Comyns TM, Harrison AJ, Hennessy LK, et al. The optimal
complex training rest interval for athletes from anaerobic sports.
J Strength Cond Res. 2006;20(3):471–6.
63. Brughelli M, Cronin J. Influence of running velocity on vertical,
leg and joint stiffness: modelling and recommendations for future
research. Sports Med. 2008;38(8):647–67.
64. Pearson SJ, McMahon J. Lower limb mechanical properties:
determining factors and implications for performance. Sports
Med. 2012;42(11):929–40.
65. Arampatzis A, Schade F, Walsh M, et al. Influence of leg stiffness
and its effect on myodynamic jumping performance. J Electro-
myogr Kinesiol. 2001;11(5):355–64.
66. Comyns TM, Harrison AJ, Hennessy LK. Effect of squatting on
sprinting performance and repeated exposure to complex training
in male rugby players. J Strength Cond Res. 2010;24(3):610–8.
67. Tsimachidis C, Patikas D, Galazoulas C, et al. The post-activa-
tion potentiation effect on sprint performance after combined
resistance/sprint training in junior basketball players. J Sport Sci.
2013;31(10):1117–24.
68. Bishop D. Warm up II: performance changes following active
warm up and how to structure the warm up. Sports Med.
2003;33(7):483–98.
69. Fletcher IM. An investigation into the effect of a pre-performance
strategy on jump performance. J Strength Cond Res. 2013;
27(1):107–15.
Ballistic Exercise as a Pre-Activation Stimulus 1359
123
