ArticlePDF Available

Comparison of Olympic vs. traditional power lifting training programs in football players


Abstract and Figures

Twenty members of an National Collegiate Athletic Association Division III collegiate football team were assigned to either an Olympic lifting (OL) group or power lifting (PL) group. Each group was matched by position and trained 4-days.wk(-1) for 15 weeks. Testing consisted of field tests to evaluate strength (1RM squat and bench press), 40-yard sprint, agility, vertical jump height (VJ), and vertical jump power (VJP). No significant pre- to posttraining differences were observed in 1RM bench press, 40-yard sprint, agility, VJ or in VJP in either group. Significant improvements were seen in 1RM squat in both the OL and PL groups. After log10-transformation, OL were observed to have a significantly greater improvement in Delta VJ than PL. Despite an 18% greater improvement in 1RM squat (p > 0.05), and a twofold greater improvement (p > 0.05) in 40-yard sprint time by OL, no further significant group differences were seen. Results suggest that OL can provide a significant advantage over PL in vertical jump performance changes.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2004, 18(1), 129–135
q2004 National Strength & Conditioning Association
R. H
Department of Health and Exercise Science, The College of New Jersey, Ewing, New Jersey 08628-0718.
.Hoffman, J.R., J. Cooper, M. Wendell, and J. Kang.
Comparison of olympic versus traditional power lifting training
programs in football players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 18(1):129–
135. 2004.—Twenty members of an National Collegiate Athletic
Association Division III collegiate football team were assigned
to either an Olympic lifting (OL) group or power lifting (PL)
group. Each group was matched by position and trained 4-
for 15 weeks. Testing consisted of field tests to eval-
uate strength (1RM squat and bench press), 40-yard sprint, agil-
ity, vertical jump height (VJ), and vertical jump power (VJP).
No significant pre- to posttraining differences were observed in
1RM bench press, 40-yard sprint, agility, VJ or in VJP in either
group. Significant improvements were seen in 1RM squat in
both the OL and PL groups. After log10-transformation, OL
were observed to have a significantly greater improvement in
DVJ than PL. Despite an 18% greater improvement in 1RM
squat (p.0.05), and a twofold greater improvement (p.0.05)
in 40-yard sprint time by OL, no further significant group dif-
ferences were seen. Results suggest that OL can provide a sig-
nificant advantage over PL in vertical jump performance chang-
. athletic performance, football, resistance training,
periodized training
The importance of strength, power, speed and
agility in the success of the football player is
well accepted by both coaches and sport scien-
tists. Several studies have demonstrated the
ability of these performance variables to predict success
in college football players (2, 3, 7). As one might expect,
the primary focus of the off-season conditioning program
for these athletes is on developing their physical capabil-
ities. There have been a number of conditioning programs
published for the training of football players (5, 13, 14,
16, 20). These training programs have traditionally fo-
cused on power lifting exercises that primarily emphasize
maximal force production. These exercises, despite an ini-
tial explosive movement, are generally performed at a
slow velocity of movement. However, many of these train-
ing programs have incorporated a number of Olympic
weightlifting exercises into the off-season resistance
training program. Theoretically, this type of training may
be superior to traditional power lifting training because
the exercises, while using heavy loads, are performed at
a much higher velocity of movement (8, 10). As a result,
power outputs are much greater during this latter form
of training.
It would appear that a high force, high velocity train-
ing program (e.g., Olympic weightlifting) would be advan-
tageous for both strength and power development, while
high force, slow velocity training (e.g., power lifting) pri-
marily focuses on strength enhancement. Although most
resistance training programs for football appear to use a
combination of these 2 styles of training, it is unclear
whether either resistance training style provides a great-
er performance advantage than the other for the football
player. It is likely that training experience may be more
important in dictating training style than any other fac-
tor. Recent research has suggested that most strength
gains among college football players are made in the ath-
lete’s freshman year of college (25). As the window of ad-
aptation for the athlete becomes smaller for maximal
strength development, other components of training (i.e.,
velocity of movement) may need to be emphasized to fur-
ther enhance athletic performance (21). It is likely that a
different stimulus than what would be achieved from a
change in emphasis from a high force, low velocity to high
force and high velocity may provide a new stimulus that
results in further performance improvement. However,
our understanding of the differences between these 2
types of training programs is limited to cross-sectional
studies that have compared Olympic lifters to power lift-
ers (10, 22). No studies are known to have prospectively
compared these 2 styles of training.
The purpose of this study was to compare an Olympic
weightlifting training program to the more traditional
power lifting training program during an off-season con-
ditioning program in college football players. It is the hy-
pothesis of this study that high force, high velocity train-
ing would provide a greater enhancement in speed per-
formance than the traditional high force, low velocity
training program common to many football conditioning
Experimental Approach to the Problem
Members of an National Collegiate Athletic Association
(NCAA) Division III football team who were experienced
resistance trained athletes were assigned to either a tra-
ditional power lifting training program or an Olympic
weightlifting training program. Strength, power, speed,
and agility were measured prior to and following a 15-
week off-season conditioning program. Both groups per-
formed the same 5-week preparatory phase training pro-
gram and then progressed to their specific training pro-
gram. In addition, both groups were required to partici-
pate in a team speed and agility program during the final
5-weeks of the off-season training program. Although this
low force, high velocity training program may affect the
study outcome, such a training paradigm presents a real
scenario that provides a more thorough interpretation of
the results in light of training strength/power athletes
that utilize resistance training as one component of a
large conditioning program.
130 H
1. Olympic weight lifting program.
Phase I (5 weeks)
Days 1 and 3 Days 2 and 4
Bench press 4 38–10RM*
Incline bench press 3 38–
Incline flys 2 38–10RM
Seated shoulder press
Upright rows 3 38–10RM
Lateral raises 3 38–10RM
Triceps pushdowns 3 38–
Triceps extension 3 38–
Squats 4 38–10RM
Dead lift 4 38–10RM
Leg extensions 3 38–
Leg curls 3 38–10RM
Standing calf raises 3 38–
Lat pulldowns 4 38–
RM seated row 4 38–
Biceps curls 4 38–10RM
Phase II (5 weeks)
Day 1 Day 3
Snatch pulls (above knee)
Snatch pulls (floor) 5 35RM
Bench press 4 36–8RM
Dumbell pulls (floor) 5 3
Push press 5 35RM
Snatch pulls (floor) 5 3
Snatch pulls (waist) 5 3
Push jerk 5 35RM
Bench press 4 36–8RM
Front squat 5 36–8RM
Day 2 Day 4
Clean (floor) 5 35RM
Clean pulls (above knee)
Push jerks 5 35RM
Squats 4 36–8RM
Lunges 4 36–8RM
Clean pulls (above knee)
Dumbell push press 5 3
Squats 4 36–8RM
Power shrugs 5 35RM
Overhead squats 4 36–
Phase III (5 weeks)
Day 1 Day 3
Snatch pulls (floor) 5 33RM
Push jerks 5 33RM
Squats 5 34–6RM
Box jumps 3 38
Lunges 3 36–8RM
Clean pulls (above knee)
Squats 5 34–6RM
Jump squats (30% 1RM)
Dumbell push press 4 3
Snatch pulls (waist) 3 3
Day 2 Day 4
Overhead squats 4 36–8RM
Snatch pulls (floor) 5 33RM
Clean pulls (above knee)
Bench press 5 34–6RM
Push press 5 33RM
Clean pulls (waist) 3 3
Front squats 3 35RM
Box jumps with dumbell
Bench press 5 34–6RM
Power shrugs 5 35RM
*RM5Repetition maximum.
Twenty members of an NCAA Division III football team
were assigned to either an Olympic weightlifting (OL: n
510; 19.3 61.2 y; 174.0 65.8 cm; 90.3 613.3 kg) or a
power lifting group (PL: n510; 18.9 61.4 y; 178.8 68.6
cm; 91.3 611.8 kg). Each group was matched for football
position. Thus, each group had 5 linemen (consisting of
offensive linemen, defensive linemen, or linebackers) and
5 backs (consisting of either running backs, defensive
backs, or receivers). Subjects were assigned to the Olym-
pic weightlifting group based upon their competency in
the techniques of this style of lifting (e.g., primarily the
power clean exercise) demonstrated in previous training
programs performed at the college. Both training pro-
grams were performed 4d·wk
for 15 weeks. This train-
ing program was part of the off-season training program
for the football team. The subjects gave their informed
consent as part of their sport requirements consistent
with the institution’s policies of our Institutional Review
Board for use of human subjects in research.
Resistance Training Programs
The resistance training program (RTP) for OL and PL can
be seen in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. The phase I train-
ing program lasted for 5 weeks and was similar for both
groups. At phase II (week 6) each group began their group
specific training program. For the next 2 phases, each
lasting 5 weeks, the subjects performed their group spe-
cific training program. The only similarity between the
training programs was the bench press and squat exer-
cises, which were maintained at similar training volume
and intensities since both of those exercises were part of
the athletes’ testing program. Subjects were provided a
range of repetitions to perform at a recommended inten-
sity of their 1 repetition maximum (1RM) for each exer-
cise. For instance, if a subject was required to perform
between 6 to 8 repetitions for the bench press exercise,
they needed to select a resistance that they could perform
for at least 6 repetitions, but not more than 8. Each work-
out was supervised by one of the investigators.
In addition to the resistance training program, all sub-
jects participated in a 2d·wk
sprint and agility training
program. This program was performed during phase III
of the training program and was required of all members
of the football team, including those participating in the
study groups. An example of the sprint and agility train-
ing program can be seen in Table 3.
Athletic Performance Testing
Prestudy (PRE) strength (1RM squat and bench press),
vertical jump, and vertical jump power measurements oc-
curred within 1 week prior to the off-season training pro-
gram. However, for PRE speed (40-yard sprint) and agil-
ity (T drill) measures, the subjects’ preseason training
camp results were used. Considering the differences in
weather between the start and conclusion of the training
program (January vs. May), and the likely detrained
sprinting condition of the athletes during the start of the
off-season training program, it was thought that use of
the preseason training camp results would provide the
most accurate measure of their PRE sprinting and agility
ability. All post-testing occurred within last week of the
training program. Strength and vertical jump testing was
performed at least 30 minutes following the speed and
agility testing.
One RM bench press and squat exercise tests were
performed to measure upper and lower body strength.
The 1RM tests were conducted as described by Hoffman
(15). Subjects warmed up with a light resistance and then
achieved a 1RM effort within 3 to 5 attempts. No bounc-
ing was permitted, as this would have artificially boosted
strength results. Bench press testing was performed in
the standard supine position: the subject lowered an
2. Power lifting program.*
Phase I (5 weeks)
Days 1 and 3 Days 2 and 4
Bench press 4 38–10RM
Incline bench press 3 38–
Incline flys 3 38–10RM
Seated shoulder press
Upright rows 3 38–10RM
Lateral raises 3 38–10RM
Triceps pushdowns 3 38–
Triceps extension 3 38–
Squats 4 38–10RM
Dead lift 4 38–10RM
Leg extensions 3 38–
Leg curls 3 38–10RM
Standing calf raises 3 38–
Lat pulldowns 4 38–
RM seated row 4 38–
Biceps curls 4 38–10RM
Phase II (5 weeks)
Days 1 and 3 Days 2 and 4
Squats 4 36–8RM
Dead lift 3 36–8RM†
Stiff leg dead lift 3 36–
Leg curl 3 36–8RM
Standing calf raise 3 36–
Lat pulldown 3 36–8RM
Seated row 4 36–8RM
Biceps curls 4 36–8RM
Bench press 4 36–8RM
Incline Dbl BP 4 36–
Incline BP close grip
Incline flys (flat) 3 36–
Seated Dbl SP 4 36–8RM
Upright Row 3 36–8RM
Front Raise 3 36–8RM‡
Lateral Raise 3 36–8RM\
Triceps Extension 4 36–
Triceps Pushdown 4 36–
Phase III (5 weeks)
Day 1 and 3 Days 2 and 4
Squats 5 34–6RM
Dead lift 4 34–6RM†
Romanian dead lift 4 34–
Leg curl 3 34–6RM
Standing calf raise 3 34–
Lat pulldown 5 34–6RM
Seated row 5 34–6RM
Biceps curl 4 34–6RM
Bench press 5 34–6RM
Incline Dbl BP 5 34–
Incline BP close grip
Seated Dbl SP 5 34–6RM
Upright row 4 34–6RM
Triceps extension 4 34–
Triceps pushdown 4 34–
*RM5repetition maximum; BP 5bench press; Dbl 5dumb-
bell; SP 5shoulder press.
† On day one only.
‡ On day two only.
§ On day three only.
\On day four only.
3. Agility and sprint training program.
Training program
Warm-up and flexibility 10 minutes
Sprint technique 20 minutes
Agility drills 20 minutes
Conditioning 10 minutes
Sprint technique drills used
Arm swings
Marching in place
Wall slide
High knees
Partner wall drill
Resisted march partner
Fall away partner
Starts 4 steps
Starts 8 steps
2 Sprints 30 yards
Agility drills
Side-shuffle drill
L drill
Zigzag with cones drill
Reaction drill
Quick feet drill
Combination of 40–100-m sprints and line drills
Olympic weightlifting bar to midchest, then pressed the
weight until his arms were fully extended. The squat ex-
ercise required the player to rest an Olympic weightlift-
ing bar across the trapezius at a self-chosen location. The
squat was performed to the parallel position, which was
achieved when the greater trochanter of the femur was
lowered to the same level as the knee. The subject then
lifted the weight until his knees were extended. Previous
studies have demonstrated good test-retest reliabilities (r
.0.90) for these strength measures (16, 17).
Speed was determined by a timed 40-yard (37-meter)
sprint. Sprint times were determined using hand-held
stopwatches. Timing began on the subject’s movement out
of a 3-point stance. The best of 3 attempts was recorded
as the subject’s best time. Agility was determined by a T-
test that required the subject to sprint in a straight line
from a 3-point stance to a cone 9 meters away. At that
point the subject sideshuffled to the left, without crossing
his feet, to another cone 4.5 meters away. As he touched
the cone, he sideshuffled to the right to a third cone 9
meters away. The subject then side-shuffled back to the
middle cone and backpedaled to the starting position.
Each subject performed 3 maximal attempts, and the
fastest time was recorded.
Vertical jump height was measured by a maximum
vertical jump with a countermovement (CMJ). During the
CMJ, the subject began by standing erect on the floor
with his hands on his hips. On a verbal signal, the subject
then lowered himself to a self-selected depth and imme-
diately performed a maximal vertical jump landing back
on the floor. For all jumps, subject displacement was re-
corded for subsequent calculation of jump height, velocity,
force, and power data.
For the CMJ test, a position transducer (Celesco mod-
el PT 9510, Canoga Park, CA) was attached to the sub-
ject’s waist to measure displacement of the center of
mass. The computer recorded force and displacement
data and a software package (Ballistic Measurement Sys-
tem, Innervations, Muncie, IN) was used to calculate
jump height, force, power, and velocity data. Samples
were collected at 500 Hz for 4 seconds. The system was
calibrated before each testing session. Displacement-time
data was filtered using a Butterworth fourth order digital
filter and a cutoff frequency of 20Hz prior to differentia-
tion by the finite difference technique to calculate veloc-
132 H
4. Athletic performance results.†
Variable Group Pretraining Posttraining
Body mass (kg)
1RM bench press (kg)
1RM squat (kg)
40-yard sprint (s)
T drill (s)
Vertical jump height (cm)
Vertical jump power (w)
90.3 613.3
91.3 611.8
128.7 614.6
120.7 617.0
175.0 621.0
148.0 625.9
4.95 60.17
4.94 60.16
9.36 60.44
9.42 60.38
44.2 62.14
40.8 68.94
4310 6402
4366 6937
91.0 611.9
91.6 612.4
134.4 614.6
132.3 617.3
197.5 631.5*
166.9 633.1*
4.88 60.22
4.90 60.19
9.21 60.54
9.23 60.41
6.8 66.1
0.5 66.8
4665 6874
5076 6905
†RM 5repetition maximum; OL 5Olympic weight lifting
group; PL 5power lifting group.
*p,0.05 between pre and post measures.
1. Comparisons between OL and PL in Dstrength
measures. OL 5Olympic weight lifters; PL 5power lifters.
2. Comparisons between OL and PL in Dsprint
speed and agility measures. OL 5Olympic weight lifters; PL
5power lifters.
3. Comparisons between OL and PL in Dvertical
jump measures. OL 5Olympic weight lifters; PL 5power lift-
ers; * p,0.05.
ity-time data. High test-retest reliabilities (r.0.97) have
been previously reported with this testing apparatus (26).
Anthropometric assessments included height and body
mass. Body mass was measured to the nearest 0.1 kg.
Statistical Analyses
Statistical evaluation of the data was accomplished by an
analysis of variance (2 groups by 2 time points). When
appropriate, Tukey’s posthoc tests were used for pairwise
comparisons. After log10-transformation, Dstrength com-
parisons between groups were analyzed with unpaired
student’s t-tests. Pearson product-moment correlations
were used to examine selected bivariate correlations.
Based upon previous studies that have examined changes
in strength in off-season resistance training programs
(16, 17), a sample size of 20 subjects would provide at
least 80% statistical power at an alevel of 0.05 (2-tailed).
All data are reported as mean 6SD.
Injuries during the sprint and agility program resulted in
2 subjects (1 from each group) to be removed from the
study due to less than 80% compliance to the training
program. In addition, another subject from OL was hurt
during performance of the snatch exercise and was un-
able to continue with this exercise; that subject was re-
moved from the data analysis as well. The remainder of
the subjects had 100% compliance with all training ses-
sions. Comparisons between OL and PL in strength, pow-
er, speed, agility, and anthropometric measures can be
seen in Table 4. No significant pre- to post-training
changes were seen in the 1RM bench press, 40-yard
sprint time, T drill, vertical jump height, vertical jump
power, and body mass in either group. A significant pre-
to posttraining improvement was seen in 1RM squat
strength in both OL and PL. However, no significant
group differences were seen in any of the performance
Comparisons between OL and PL in Dstrength, speed
and agility, and vertical jump measures can be seen in
Figures 1–3, respectively. No significant differences be-
tween the groups were seen following the raw data anal-
ysis; however, after log10 transformation it was observed
that OL had a significantly greater improvement in ver-
tical jump height than PL. No other significant differenc-
es were noted. Interestingly, improvements in 40-yard
sprint times were 175% greater in subjects training with
OL compared to the subjects training with PL (0.07 6
0.14 s compared to 0.04 60.11 s, respectively).
The Pearson product-moment correlations between D
performance scores for each group can be seen in Table
5. Moderate correlations were observed between Dverti-
cal jump power and D40-yard sprint and Dsquat scores.
In addition, moderate correlations were also observed be-
tween Dbench press and Dbody weight and Dvertical
jump scores. These moderate correlations were observed
for OL only. No significant correlations between any of
the Dperformance measures were seen for PL.
A power lifting training program incorporates exercises
that utilize high force and low velocity movements, and
5. Pearson product-moment correlations between Dperformance scores for OL and PL.†
DT test
.56 —
DT test
.55 —
†OL5Olympic lifting group; PL 5power lifting group; BW 5body weight; BP 5bench press; 40 540-yd sprint; VJ 5vertical
jump; VJP 5vertical jump power.
is thought to be most beneficial in developing muscle
strength. In contrast, Olympic weight training uses ex-
ercises that combine high force and high velocity move-
ments and is likely better suited for developing strength,
power, and speed. These potential training differences
have been supported by previous research that have com-
pared power lifters to Olympic lifters and showed similar
strength performance between these athletes, but signif-
icantly higher power output and velocity of movement in
the Olympic lifters (10, 22). As a result of these investi-
gations and empirical evidence gathered by strength and
conditioning professionals, many athletic training pro-
grams have begun to incorporate the Olympic exercises
into the training routines of strength/power athletes.
However, a prospective examination that has compared
these 2 styles of training on strength/power athletes has
not been previously performed. In addition, studies that
have reported on these 2 different styles of training have
primarily used either Olympic or power lifting athletes.
Generally, the training programs of those athletes are
quite specific to the needs of their sport and rarely are
other modes of training (i.e., sprint or agility) utilized.
This study provided a unique opportunity to compare
these two styles of training in athletes whose primary
training goal was to improve athletic performance (e.g.,
strength, power, speed, and agility) for the sport of foot-
ball. In addition, these athletes maintained other facets
of their overall conditioning program (i.e., speed and agil-
ity training). The results of this study indicate that a 10-
week Olympic weightlifting program provides a signifi-
cant advantage for vertical jump improvement in college
football players compared to traditional power lifting.
However, no other significant differences in performance
measures were seen between the groups.
The resistance training programs used in this study
were specific to the mode of training for each group. The
exception being that both groups performed the bench
press and squat exercise using similar sets and repeti-
tions for each phase of training. Although the squat ex-
ercise would be considered a core exercise in either train-
ing program, the bench press would not be considered to
be a core lift for Olympic weightlifting. Since these sub-
jects were football players who were required to test for
upper body strength, it was necessary to provide a similar
training paradigm for both groups in regard to this ex-
ercise. Nevertheless, neither group realized any signifi-
cant strength improvement in the bench press exercise.
This is most likely a result of the subjects’ resistance
training experience. Subjects of both groups had an av-
erage resistance training experience of 3.1 61.2 years,
with no significant difference between the groups in
training experience observed. Previous research on inter-
collegiate athletes (both football and basketball) has dem-
onstrated that the greatest strength gains are generally
made in the athletes’ freshman year of participation (18,
25, 27). However, it does appear that a greater window
of adaptation exists for the lower body than for the upper
body in these subjects, regardless of the training program
Although improvements in both upper and lower body
strength measures were not significantly different be-
tween OL and PL, there did appear to be specific strength
adaptations that were related to the subjects’ specific
training program. Subjects of PL experienced a twofold
greater improvement in upper body strength (p.0.05),
while the subjects in OL experienced an 18% greater im-
provement in lower body strength (p.0.05). These dif-
ferences in strength improvement are likely a result of
the inclusion of specific assistance exercises that were
part of the subjects’ training programs. Previous research
by Hoffman and colleagues (16) has demonstrated the im-
portance of assistance exercises for eliciting strength im-
provements in the training program of college football
players. In this study, subjects of PL incorporated 2 as-
sistance exercises (incline bench press and incline flys) in
addition to the core lift (bench press) for upper body
strength training, while the subjects of OL did not have
any specific upper body assistance exercises in their
training program. Although the subjects of PL had sev-
eral lower body assistance exercises incorporated into
their training program (see Table 2), the multi-joint
structural exercises utilizing the lower body musculature
comprising the training program of OL (see Table 1) may
134 H
have had a greater impact on lower body strength devel-
The high number of pulling exercises (i.e., cleans,
snatches, and pulls) seen in the training program of OL
likely impacted the significantly greater vertical jump im-
provement seen in this group compared to PL. These ex-
ercises are mechanically similar to the vertical jump and
the motor unit firing patterns that are improved during
training of these exercises would likely enhance the firing
pattern of these motor units during the vertical jump as
well (29). In addition, the moderate correlations seen be-
tween Dvertical jump power and D1RM squat and D40-
yard sprint in OL, but not PL, also provide further evi-
dence suggestive of training specific adaptations. Inter-
estingly, no significant improvements for either group
were seen in vertical jump power. For OL this was a bit
surprising considering the improvement in vertical jump
performance. However, it should be noted that although
the subjects in OL may have trained with a lighter load
for many of their exercises, it was still at a high percent-
age of their maximum (.80% 1RM). High velocity train-
ing studies and training programs designed to maximize
power development generally require exercising at a
much lower percentage of the subject’s 1RM (12, 19, 23).
Training programs that involve high velocity move-
ments, such as that seen with Olympic training, are
thought to be superior for eliciting gains in power output
and speed (10–12). This is based primarily on the high
rates of force development and improved contractile
speed associated with high force, high velocity resistance
training (6, 11). This would appear to be of greatest ben-
efit for sports that primarily rely upon explosive dynamic
movements for success. Although differences in 40-yard
sprint times and the T drill between the groups did not
reach statistical significance, there did appear to be a ten-
dency for a greater improvement in 40-yard sprint time
in OL compared to PL. The sprint and agility training
program that was incorporated into the training program
of both groups likely had a significant impact on speed
and agility improvement in both OL and PL. Sprint and
agility training is a form of low force, high velocity train-
ing that has previously been shown to be quite effective
in eliciting high power outputs and peak velocity (10, 22,
24). The combination of high force, low velocity training
and low force, high velocity training by PL appeared to
help those subjects compensate for the lack of explosive
high force, high velocity exercises in their resistance
training program. Other studies have reported that com-
bination training may be more effective than training pro-
grams that focus primarily on either high force or high
power only (1, 12, 30). Training programs of high force
only appear to improve force at the high end of the force-
velocity curve, while the inclusion of high power or high
velocity exercises appears to emphasize greater improve-
ments of force at the high velocity end (9, 28). A combi-
nation of high force and high power training would ap-
pear to result in adaptation occurring at a greater part of
the force-velocity curve and have a greater impact on ath-
letic performance (10). It appears that the inclusion of a
speed and agility training program for the subjects of PL
provided a training stimulus at the high velocity spec-
trum of the force-velocity curve. In addition, by providing
subjects with the ability to practice a specific task, the
ability to transfer strength improvements to that specific
task appears to be supported by previous research (4).
The results of this study suggest that Olympic weight lift-
ing provides a greater advantage in improving vertical
jump performance than traditional power lifting in Divi-
sion III college football players. In addition, several
trends seen in speed and lower body strength improve-
ments suggest that the sprint and agility training pro-
gram may have confounded some of the results of this
study and that further research may be warranted in this
1. A
, K., J.P. O’S
, K.L. O’S
M. C
. The
effect of six weeks of squat, plyometric and squat-plyometric
training on power production. J. Appl. Sport Sci. Res. 6:36–41.
2. B
, K., R.W. L
T. B
. Physical and perfor-
mance characteristics of NCAA division I football players. Res.
Quart. 61:395–401. 1990.
3. B
, W.,
E. R
. Comparisons of size, strength,
speed, and power in NCAA division 1-A football players. J.
Strength Cond. Res. 8:80–85. 1994.
4. B
, E.W.,
A.J. V
. Effects of muscle
strengthening on vertical jump height: A simulation study.
Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 26:1012–1020. 1994.
5. B
, M. Year round periodization for high school foot-
ball. NSCA J. 9:60–61. 1987.
6. D
, J.,
K. H
. Isometric or dynamic train-
ing: Differential effects on mechanical properties of a human
muscle. J. Appl. Physiol. 56:296–301. 1984.
7. F
, A.C.,
W.J. K
. Physical performance charac-
teristics of American collegiate football players. J. Appl. Sport
Sci. Res. 5:126–138. 1991.
8. G
, J. Power production by Olympic weightlifters.
Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 23:54–60. 1980.
9. H
, K. Neuromuscular adaptation during strength
training, aging, detraining and immobilization. Crit. Rev. Phys.
Rehab. Med. 6:161–198. 1994.
10. H
, K., M. A
P.V. K
. Com-
parison of neuromuscular performance capacities between
weightlifters, powerlifters and bodybuilders. Int. Olympic Lift-
er 9:24–26. 1986.
11. H
, K., M. A
P.V. K
. Effect of explosive
type strength training isometric force and relaxation time, elec-
tromyographic and muscle fiber characteristics of leg extensor
muscle. Acta Physiol. Scand. 125:587–592. 1985.
12. H
, G.R., M.H. S
, H.S. O’B
, C.M. P
R.L. J
. Short-term performance effects of high power,
high force, or combined weight-training methods. J. Strength
Cond. Res. 14:14–20. 2000.
13. H
, G.L. Strength training for NCAA division III football,
the Lycoming college way. NSCA J. 15:30–33. 1993.
14. H
, A. Strength and power training for football at the
U.S. Air Force Academy. Strength Cond. 18:20–30. 1996.
15. H
, J.R. Physiological Aspects of Sport Training and Per-
formance. Human Kinetics: Champaign, IL. 2002.
16. H
, J.R., A.C. F
W.J. K
The effects of self-selection for frequency of training in a winter
conditioning program for football. J. Appl. Sport Sci. Res. 4:76–
82. 1990.
17. H
, J.R., A.C. F
, C.M. M
. Strength, speed, and endurance changes during the
course of a Division I basketball season. J. Appl. Sport Sci. Res.
5:144–149. 1991.
18. H
, G.R., J. H
M.A. F
. Changes in fit-
ness during 4 years of intercollegiate basketball. J. Strength
Cond. Res. 7:26–29. 1993.
19. J
, K., P. B
G. F
. The effects
of varying resistance-training loads on intermediate- and high-
velocity-specific adaptations. J. Strength Cond. Res. 15:349–
356. 2001.
20. K
, W.J.,
L.A. G
. Physiology of American
Football. In Garrett Jr. W.E., and D.T. Kirdendall, eds. Exer-
cise and Sport Science. Philadelphia: Lippincott, Williams and
Wilkins: 795–813, 2000.
21. K
, W.J.,
R.U. N
. Training for muscular pow-
er. Phys. Med. Rehab. Clin. 11:341–367. 2000.
22. M
, J.M., T. T
. A comparison of strength and power characteristics
between power lifters, Olympic lifters and sprinters. J.
Strength Cond. Res. 13:58–66. 1999.
23. M
, J.M., R. T
. The effect of heavy- vs. light-load jump squats on the
development of strength, power, and speed. J. Strength Cond.
Res. 16:75–82. 2002.
24. M
, A.,
P.V. K
. Force-, EMG-, and elasticity-velocity
relationships at submaximal, maximal and supramaximal run-
ning speeds in sprinters. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. Occup. Physiol.
55:553–561. 1986.
25. M
, T.A., E.D. W
, K.A. K
, J.J. C
M.J. C
. The effects of training history, player position, and
body composition on exercise performance in collegiate football
players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 16:44–49. 2002.
26. N
, R.U., W.J. K
K. H
. Effects of
ballistic training on preseason preparation of elite volleyball
players. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 31:323–330. 1999.
27. P
, M.,
G.R. H
. Four-year changes in strength,
power, and aerobic fitness in women college basketball players.
Strength Cond. 19:46–49. 1997.
28. S
, M.H. Explosive exercise: Position stand. NSCA J. 15:7–
15. 1993.
29. S
M.H., R. B
M. W
. Relationship be-
tween anaerobic power and Olympic weightlifting performance.
J. Sports Med. 20:99–102. 1980.
30. W
, G.J., R.U. N
, A.J. M
B.J. H
. The optimal training load for the development of dy-
namic athletic performance. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 25:1279–
1286. 1993.
Address correspondence to Dr. Jay R. Hoffman,
... concurrent with weightlifting exercises), rather than a traditional resistance training (TRT) method approach (resistance training alone) [29][30][31]. When comparing the impact of WLT and TRT on power generation capacity the findings are equivocal, with research in favour of both TRT [32] and WLT [33,34]. Plyometric training (PLYO) consists of quick, powerful actions that involve muscle lengthening immediately followed by rapid shortening of the same muscle [25]. ...
... One study used an intervention that included splitstyle weightlifting derivatives (hang split snatch, hang split clean, split jerk) only. The authors of two studies failed to provide information on the training intensity prescription in relation to percentage of one repetition maximum (% 1RM) [33,59]. Training intensity prescribed in the remaining studies ranged from 55 to 95% 1RM. ...
... Training volumes in the studies ranged from one to seven sets of 3-12 repetitions. Prescribed rest periods were 3-5 min across most of the studies (n = 9); however, this information was absent from a number of studies (n = 7) [33,34,36,37,[58][59][60]. ...
Full-text available
Background Weightlifting training (WLT) is commonly used to improve strength, power and speed in athletes. However, to date, WLT studies have either not compared training effects against those of other training methods, or been limited by small sample sizes, which are issues that can be resolved by pooling studies in a meta-analysis. Therefore, the objective of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to evaluate the effects of WLT compared with traditional resistance training (TRT), plyometric training (PLYO) and/or control (CON) on strength, power and speed. Methods The systematic review included peer-reviewed articles that employed a WLT intervention, a comparison group (i.e. TRT, PLYO, CON), and a measure of strength, power and/or speed. Means and standard deviations of outcomes were converted to Hedges’ g effect sizes using an inverse variance random-effects model to generate a weighted mean effect size (ES). Results Sixteen studies were included in the analysis, comprising 427 participants. Data indicated that when compared with TRT, WLT resulted in greater improvements in weightlifting load lifted (4 studies, p = 0.02, g = 1.35; 95% CI 0.20–2.51) and countermovement jump (CMJ) height (9 studies, p = 0.00, g = 0.95; 95% CI 0.04–1.87). There was also a large effect in terms of linear sprint speed (4 studies, p = 0.13, g = 1.04; 95% CI − 0.03 to 2.39) and change of direction speed (CODS) (2 studies, p = 0.36, g = 1.21; 95% CI − 1.41 to 3.83); however, this was not significant. Interpretation of these findings should acknowledge the high heterogeneity across the included studies and potential risk of bias. WLT and PLYO resulted in similar improvements in speed, power and strength as demonstrated by negligible to moderate, non-significant effects in favour of WLT for improvements in linear sprint speed (4 studies, p = 0.35, g = 0.20; 95% CI − 0.23 to 0.63), CODS (3 studies, p = 0.52, g = 0.17; 95% CI − 0.35 to 0.68), CMJ (6 studies, p = 0.09, g = 0.31; 95% CI − 0.05 to 0.67), squat jump performance (5 studies, p = 0.08, g = 0.34; 95% CI − 0.04 to 0.73) and strength (4 studies, p = 0.20, g = 0.69; 95% CI − 0.37 to 1.75). Conclusion Overall, these findings support the notion that if the training goal is to improve strength, power and speed, supplementary weightlifting training may be advantageous for athletic development. Whilst WLT and PLYO may result in similar improvements, WLT can elicit additional benefits above that of TRT, resulting in greater improvements in weightlifting and jumping performance.
... Weightlifting movements and their derivatives have been shown to induce positive strength-power adaptations when compared to other methods of training (Hoffman et al., 2004;Otto III et al., 2012;Teo et al., 2016;Tricoli et al., 2005). However, it is important to note that several of the previous studies programmed only weightlifting movements with a squatting variation as the only non-weightlifting exercise within the training programs instead of implementing them within a well-rounded resistance training program that includes more exercises (Otto III et al., 2012;Teo et al., 2016;Tricoli et al., 2005). ...
Full-text available
The aims of this study were to examine the muscle architectural, rapid force production, and force-velocity curve adaptations following 10 weeks of resistance training with either submaximal weightlifting catching (CATCH) or pulling (PULL) derivatives or pulling derivatives with phase-specific loading (OL). 27 resistance trained men were randomly assigned to the CATCH, PULL, or OL groups and completed pre-and post-intervention ultrasound, countermovement jump (CMJ), and isometric mid-thigh pull (IMTP). Vastus lateralis and biceps femoris muscle thickness, pennation angle, and fascicle length, CMJ force at peak power, velocity at peak power, and peak power, and IMTP peak force and force at 100-, 150-, 200-, and 250 ms were assessed. There were no significant or meaningful differences in muscle architecture measures for any group (p > 0.05). The PULL group displayed small-moderate (g = 0.25-0.81) improvements in all CMJ variables while the CATCH group displayed trivial effects (g = 0.00-0.21). In addition, the OL group displayed trivial and small effects for CMJ force (g =-0.12-0.04) and velocity variables (g = 0.32-0.46), respectively. The OL group displayed moderate (g = 0.48-0.73) improvements in all IMTP variables while to PULL group displayed small-moderate (g = 0.47-0.55) improvements. The CATCH group displayed trivial-small (g =-0.39-0.15) decreases in IMTP performance. The PULL and OL groups displayed visible shifts in their force-velocity curves; however, these changes were not significant (p > 0.05). Performing weightlifting pulling derivatives with either submaximal or phase-specific loading may enhance rapid and peak force production characteristics. Strength and conditioning practitioners should load pulling derivatives based on the goals of each specific phase, but also allow their athletes ample exposure to achieve each goal.
... For instance, Stodden et al. (28) reported improvements in shuttle running performance among D1 players overall and across position groups, whereas Hoffman, Ratamess, and Kang (17) found no improvement in agility across 5 years of training in D3 players. The combined results from others suggests that speed and agility may have limited, or even nonexistent, trainability when compared with strength and impulse production, a hypothesis supported by speed training intervention studies that failed to detect speed or agility improvements despite 6-15 weeks of training (16,24). However, it seems more likely that speed and agility improvements are possible albeit with reduced typical magnitude changes when compared with strength and impulse. ...
Baur, DA, Johnson, JB, Giron-Molina, LG, Caterisano, M, Shaner, C, Caterisano, A, and Gentry, M. Career-best changes in body mass and physical fitness test performance among Division 1 college football players encompassing 28 years at the same institution. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2022-Understanding typical changes induced by collegiate American football strength and conditioning programs is essential for optimizing program design and athletic development. The purpose of the study was to evaluate body mass and physical fitness test performance changes at a Division 1 program with 28 years of coaching stability. Initial and personal record results were collected from 1,102 players who were subdivided into 3 position groups: combination players (COMBO), skill players (SKILL), and line of scrimmage players. Players followed a linear periodized training program with biannual body mass and performance testing. Tested variables included body mass, strength (bench press, back squat, and front squat), impulse (power clean, push jerk, and vertical jump [VJ]), and speed/agility (10-yard dash [10YD], 40-yard dash, and 20-yard shuttle). The fixed effect of time and position group on the dependent variables was assessed using linear mixed models. If appropriate, post hoc tests using the estimated marginal means were used to evaluate the source of any significant effects. Significance was accepted as p < 0.05. Normative values were produced by descriptive statistics (i.e., weighted means). All players and position groups increased/improved across all tested variables (p < 0.05). Improvements were 8.2%, 11.9-18.3%, 13.5-17.5%, and 3.6-6.0% for body mass, strength, impulse, and speed/agility, respectively. Line of scrimmage improvements were absolutely larger across most tested variables and relatively larger for back squat, VJ, and 10YD vs. SKILL and with VJ vs. COMBO/SKILL (p < 0.05). These results reveal typical expectations for 4-5 years performance improvements and that position group differences in trainability may influence game readiness and training needs.
... Weightlifting movements and their derivatives have demonstrated the ability to produce superior strength and power adaptations compared to traditional resistance training (1,4). Weightlifting movements are unique in their ability to exploit both the force and velocity aspects of power with the use of moderate-heavy ballistic movements (6). ...
... When cluster sets are used as part of a resistance training program, strength and conditioning professionals should consider which exercises are best suited for cluster sets and which exercises are not. Although several exercises can be used with cluster sets, it is generally recommended that not every exercise in a training program is performed using cluster sets (35, training modalities such as jumping (116), kettlebell (77), and powerlifting training (45). When weightlifting movements and their derivatives are used in a resistance training program, cluster sets can be used to maintain lifting technique and movement velocity. ...
Altering set configurations during a resistance training program can provide a novel training variation that can be used to modify the external and internal training loads that induce specific training outcomes. To design training programs that better target the defined goal(s) of a specific training phase, strength and conditioning professionals need to better understand how different set configurations impact the training adaptations that result from resistance training. Traditional and cluster set structures are commonly implemented by strength and conditioning. The purpose of this review is to offer examples of the practical implementation of traditional and cluster sets that can be integrated into a periodized resistance training program.
... Furthermore, these modes of training can help enhance the elastic contribution of the muscle-tendon unit (17), increasing stretch-shorten cycle performance, thus enabling more powerful strikes to be delivered (61). These suggestions may partially be based on the findings that ballistic training leads to preferential hypertrophy in type IIx muscle fibers (65) and induces superior performance adaptations to lowerbody power compared with traditional resistance training (18). ...
... Estos resultados comprueban el efecto positivo del EMH en la capacidad de esprint (Hedrick, 2018), y la razón por la que los entrenadores los utilizan en sus programas de fuerza y potencia (Bolger, Lyons, Harrison, & Kenny, 2016;Chaouachi et al., 2014). Estas mejoras podrían explicarse debido a que el EMH desarrolla la producción de energía y produce más potencia de salida comparado a otros métodos, como por ejemplo el RTT, evidenciando que esta producción de potencia es más relevante en los deportes, en comparación a solo producir mayores niveles de fuerza (Hoffman et al., 2004). ...
Full-text available
La capacidad de generar máxima potencia neuromuscular es el factor más importante y determinante en el rendimiento atlético. Debido a esto, el entrenamiento con movimientos de Halterofilia (EMH) y sus derivados es uno de los métodos más usados, ya que la evidencia muestra que genera adaptaciones de fuerza-potencia superiores comparadas con el entrenamiento de fuerza tradicional, de salto y de kettlebells. Objetivo: Identificar los efectos del EMH en la capacidad de salto, esprint y cambio de dirección (COD) en población deportista. Método: Se realizó una búsqueda exhaustiva en diferentes bases de datos, como PUBMED, Sportdiscus (EBSCO), Scopus y Web of Science (WOS) bajo modelo PRISMA. Los trabajos revisados fueron experimentales con y sin grupo de control, entre los años 2000 y 2020. Resultados: El EMH produce mejoras significativas en las capacidades de salto, de esprint y de COD en población deportista. Conclusión: El EMH genera mejoras significativas en el rendimiento de salto, carreras y cambio de dirección bajo distintos protocolos. Existe evidencia que sustenta la aplicación de EMH, recomendando sus derivados centrados en el segundo tirón y aquellos que utilicen el ciclo de estiramiento-acortamiento en sus variantes colgantes. Abstract: The ability to generate maximum power is the most important and determining neuromuscular function in sports performance. Therefore, weightlifting training (WT) and its derivatives is one of the most widely used methods, generating superior strength-power adaptations compared to traditional strength training, jumping and kettlebell training. Objective: To identify the effects of WT on the ability to jump, sprint and change of direction (COD) in athletes. Method: An exhaustive search was carried out in different databases, such as PUBMED, Sportdiscus (EBSCO), Scopus and Web of Science (WOS) under the PRISMA model. The reviewed papers were experimental with and without a control group, between the years 2000 and 2020. Results: The WT produces significant improvements in jump, sprint and in change of direction capacities in the sport population. Conclusion: WT generates significant improvements in jumping, running and change of direction performance under different protocols. There is evidence supporting the use of WT, suggesting its derivatives focused on the second pull and those that use the stretch-shortening cycle in their hanging variants.
Full-text available
يهدف البحث الى التعرف على تأثير استخدام تمرينات القوة غير المتوازنة على جانبي الجسم من خلال (التمرينات الارضية – الرفعات الاوليمبية) على دقة و ضباطة التصويب في كرة اليد و استخدم الباحثون المنهج التجريبي لمجموعتين تجريبيتين باستخدام القياسات القبلية و البعدية على عينة مكونة من 20 لاعب كرة اليد المعتمدين من الاتحادات الرياضية تحت 18 سنة وكانت اهم النتائج تفوق المجموعة التجريبية الأولى (التمرينات غير المتوازنة) المطبق عليها برنامج التمرينات غير المتوازنة المقترح على المجموعة التجريبية الثانية (التمرينات المتوازنة) المطبق عليها برنامج التمرينات المتوازنة المقترح ، حيث أثر برنامج التمرينات غير المتوازنة بصورة إيجابية في تحسين القدرات البدنية والقوة القصوى (1RM) ودقة التصويب والاختبار المهارى قيد البحث عن برنامج التمرينات المتوازنة المقترح. The research aims to identify the effect of the use of unbalanced strength exercises on both sides of the body through (ground exercises - Olympic lifts) on the accuracy and control of Shooting in handball, the researchers used the experimental method of two experimental groups using pre- and post-measurements on a sample consisting of 20 accredited handball players from sports federations under 18 years old , it was the most Important result it the first experimental group (unbalanced exercises) applied to the proposed unbalanced exercise program outperformed the second experimental group (balanced exercises) to which the proposed balanced exercise program applied, as the unbalanced exercise program positively affected the improvement of physical abilities and maximum strength (1RM) Accuracy of shooting and skill testing are in search of the proposed balanced exercise program.
Full-text available
Ensuring internal validity is the key procedure when planning the study design. Numerous systematic reviews have demonstrated that considerations for internal validity do not receive adequate attention in the primary research in sport sciences. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to review methodological procedures in current literature where the effects of resistance training on strength, speed, and endurance performance in athletes were analyzed. A computer-based literature searches of SPORTDiscus, Scopus, Medline, and Web of Science was conducted. The internal validity of individual studies was assessed using the PEDro scale. Peer-reviewed studies were accepted only if they met all the following eligibility criteria: (a) healthy male and female athletes between the ages of 18-65 years; (b) training program based on resistance exercises; (c) training program lasted for at least 4 weeks or 12 training sessions, with at least two sessions per week; (d) the study reported maximum strength, speed, or endurance outcomes; and (e) systematic reviews, cohort studies, case-control studies, cross-sectional studies were excluded. Of the 6,516 articles identified, 133 studies were selected for rating by the PEDro scale. Sixty-eight percent of the included studies used random allocation to groups, but only one reported concealed allocation. Baseline data are presented in almost 69% of the studies. Thirty-eight percent of studies demonstrated adequate follow-up of participants. The plan to follow the intention-to-treat or stating that all participants received training intervention or control conditions as allocated were reported in only 1.5% of studies. The procedure of blinding of assessors was also satisfied in only 1.5% of the studies. The current study highlights the gaps in designing and reporting research in the field of strength and conditioning. Randomization, blinding of assessors, reporting of attrition, and intention-to-treat analysis should be more fully addressed to reduce threats to internal validity in primary research.
Dass für Kinder nicht nur Koordinations- und Ausdauertraining sinnvoll ist, sondern auch ein kindgerechtes Krafttraining, ist inzwischen unbestritten. Die Kniebeuge ist eine gute Übung für den Einstieg.
Full-text available
Explosive leg power is a key ingredient to maximizing vertical jump performance. In training, the athlete must use the most effective program to optimize leg power development. The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of three training programs - squat (S), plyometric (P) and squat-plyometric (SP) - in increasing hip and thigh power production as measured by vertical jump. Forty-eight subjects were divided equally into four groups: S, P, SP or control (C). The subjects trained two days a week for a total of seven weeks, which consisted of a one-week technique learning period followed by a six- week periodized S, P or SP training program. Hip and thigh power were tested before and after training using the vertical jump test, and the alpha level was set at 0.05. Statistical analysis of the data revealed a significant increase in hip and thigh power production, as measured by vertical jump, within all three treatment groups. The SP group achieved a statistically greater improvement (p < 0.0001) than the S or P groups alone. Examination of the mean scores shows that the S group increased 3.30 centimeters in vertical jump, the P group increased 3.81 centimeters and the SP group increased 10.67 centimeters. The results indicate that both S and P training are necessary for improving hip and thigh power production as measured by vertical jumping ability. (C) 1992 National Strength and Conditioning Association
Information concerning frequency of training for resistance trained individuals is relatively unknown. Problems in designing training programs for student athletes are frequently encountered due to differential time constraints placed upon them. The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of self-selection of resistance training frequency on muscular strength. Sixty-one members of an NCAA. Division IAA football team participated in a 10-week winter conditioning program. Each subject was given the option of choosing from a three-day (3d, n=12) four-day (4d, n=15), five-day (5d, n=23) or six-day (6d, n=ll) per week resistance training program. In addition to the strength training, the subjects participated in a football conditioning program twice a week. Testing was conducted before and after the 10-week training program. Field tests common to football off-season conditioning programs were utilized to evaluate strength (1 RM squat and bench press), speed (40-yard sprint), endurance (two-mile run), vertical jump and anthropometric measurements. Posttests revealed significant changes for the 3d group in decreased time for the two-mile run (2mi), decreased sum of skinfolds (SF) and an increased chest girth (CH). The 4d program revealed significant decreases in body weight, 2mi, SF, and increases in 1 RM squat, CH and thigh girths (TH). The 5d group significantly decreased 2mi, and SF, and increased both 1 RM squat and bench press and CH and TH. The 6d group revealed significant decreases in 2mi, and SF, and an increase in 1 RM squat. Of the total variables measured, 4d and 5d frequency groups revealed the greatest amount of improvement. In conclusion, when resistance training frequency is self-selected by athletes (i.e., college football players) it appears that four or five days per week are the optimal choices for developing strength, endurance and muscle mass. (C) 1990 National Strength and Conditioning Association
The ability to maintain strength, speed, endurance and quickness throughout a season is vital to the success of a team. The purpose of this investigation was to examine these factors during the course of college basketball season. Nine members of an NCAA Division I men's basketball team volunteered to be evaluated. Testing was conducted four times over the duration of the season: before a five-week resistance training program (RTP); before preseason practice (PRES); midseason (MS); and within two days after the conclusion of postseason tournaments. There was no RTP during the basketball season. Field tests common to athletic conditioning programs were used to evaluate strength (I RM squat and bench press), speed (27-meter sprint), endurance (2,414- meter run [1.5 miles]), vertical jump and anthropometric measurements. Maximal isometric and dynamic strength also were measured in the subject's dominant leg using an isokinetic dynamometer. Increases (p < 0.05) after the RTP were observed only for the squat and at 1.05 radians per second knee extension and flexion movement of isokinetic testing. At MS a decrease (p < 0.05) was observed in squat and VJ, and slower times (p < 0.05) were observed in 27-meter sprint from the PRES values. Final resting revealed that speed still was slower (p < 0.05) than PRES values, and that peak torque was increased at the 1.05 and 3.14 radians per second knee extension movement. These data suggest that the athlete can maintain most preseason conditioning levels during the course of a college basketball season. (C) 1991 National Strength and Conditioning Association