The Effects of an Assisted Jump

Training Stimulus on Explosive

Performance.

Paul Croucher (BSpExSc)

Centre for Sport and Exercise Science

Wintec (Hamilton, New Zealand)

A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the Master of Sport and
Exercise Science

Waikato Institute of Technology

November 20th 2008

1
Acknowledgements
Where to start, to my wife, father in law, and sons, without their understanding,

support, and patience I would not have been able to study, let alone complete this

project, I thank you.

To my supervisor, Dr Nicholas Gill, thank you for your patience also over the past

two years, you have steered me through many rough patches and kept my going

when I was ready to throw in the towel. Your experience, knowledge, and guidance

have been vital to the success of this project. Thanks heaps Gilly.

To Christos Argos, thank you for your support and ideas throughout this project, also

for your assistance when Gilly was ‘AWOL’.

To the fantastic team at WINTEC lead by Denise Harnett, thank you for moving any

and all obstacles that presented themselves over the past few years. Without the

support of you and your team this project would have been buried long ago. I also

wish to thank and acknowledge the financial support given to myself to make it

possible to complete this thesis.

Thank you to Jim Patchett for the loan of the harnesses and karabiners, without it

this project wouldn’t have got off the ground.

To my fellow postgraduate students, in particular Frans Van Der Mere and Caleb

Dobbs, thank you for listening to my rants and raves when things were looking bleak.

Your regular ‘insults and heckling’ picked me up when I needed it.

To Peter Maulder and Anthony Blazevich, thank you for your assistance and

expertise in the biomechanics field (even if you didn’t know you were helping).

Without your help I would be still figuring out the calculations for velocity.

2
To Professor Will Hopkins, thank you for your statistical genius and being able to

explain things so simply albeit complicated.

Blair Crewther, without your ideas, comments, and assistance during the writing-up

of this thesis, I wouldn’t have got as far as I did. For this I am greatly appreciative

and grateful, thank you.

Finally, to the most important people, I want to thank my awesome subjects. Without

you I would not have been able to finish. You guys went through a lot of pain and

discomfort but still turned up day after day for more.

Without the support and encouragement of people like these, projects such as this

would not be possible. I thank all and any who had any part to play in this project,

big or small, that have not been specifically mentioned. If I were to mention you all I

would be here for another two years.

3
Declaration

I certify that the content of this thesis has not already been submitted for any other

qualification or award and is not currently being submitted for any other qualification

or award. I also certify that the experimental work, results, analyses, and

conclusions reported in this thesis are entirely of my own effort except were

otherwise acknowledged.

Paul Croucher

4
Abstract

Complex training protocols are an effective means to improve explosive

performance. However, due to many variations in resistance and plyometric training

the effectiveness of different combinations are unknown. Therefore, the purpose of

this study was to compare ‘traditional’ complex training with a ‘novel’ complex

training protocol based on over-speed principles. Seventeen healthy male subjects

(20.8 ± 3.6 yrs, 176.2 ± 9.6 cm, and 80.6 ± 13.9 kg) participated in this study. Seven

weeks of training was divided into two phases. The first phase of baseline strength

training (three weeks) was followed by an intervention (four weeks) consisting of

either a strength and vertical jump (SVJ, n=8) phase or a strength and assisted

vertical jump (SAJ, n=9) phase. Assessments were conducted prior (PRE1), during

(PRE2), and after the training phase (POST1) and included; vertical jump (VJ), 20 m

sprint (20m), and squat strength (1RM). All subjects completed the same strength

training protocol twice a week. During the four week intervention, jumps were

completed 90sec after a lifting set (six sets of six jumps each session). The mean

(±CI) vertical jump height improved by 1.6 cm or 3.9%; ±6.6% (SVJ, small effect) and

3.3 cm or 6.8%; 3.5% (SAJ, small effect). The 20 m sprint time improved by 0.03

sec or 0.9%; ±1.8% (SVJ, small effect) and 0.04 sec or 1.3%; ±1.2% (SAJ, small

effect). The predicted 1RM squat strength of both groups also improved with

increases of 12 kg or 8.9%; ±5.6% (SVJ, small effect) and 15 kg or 10%; ±5.6%

(SAJ, moderate effect) found. However there were unclear effects between the two

groups in all the performance tests. The strength and assisted jump stimulus was as

effective as the traditional strength and vertical jump stimulus to improve strength,

power and speed performance.

5
Contents
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................. 8
List of Tables .............................................................................................................................. 9
Background Literature ............................................................................................................. 10
Mechanisms for Strength and Power Adaptation ................................................................... 10
Neural Mechanisms ........................................................................................................ 11
Intra-Muscular Mechanisms ................................................................................... 11
Motor unit recruitment ........................................................................................... 11
Motor unit firing frequency..................................................................................... 13
Synchronization ....................................................................................................... 15

Inter-Muscular Mechanisms........................................................................................... 16
Antagonist and Agonist Interactions ....................................................................... 16

Morphological Mechanisms ........................................................................................... 18

Hypertrophy ............................................................................................................ 18
Hyperplasia .............................................................................................................. 19
Muscle Geometry .................................................................................................... 20
Fibre Type Conversion ............................................................................................. 22
Summary......................................................................................................................... 23

Training Protocols that Contribute to Lower Body Explosiveness .......................................... 24

Single Focus Training Protocols ............................................................................................... 24
Slow Movement Velocity Training Protocols ................................................................. 24
Plyometric Training Protocols ................................................................................. 29
Dynamic Training Protocols..................................................................................... 34
Over-Speed Training Protocols................................................................................ 37
Mixed Methods Training Protocols ......................................................................... 40
Summary......................................................................................................................... 44

Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 46
Methods ................................................................................................................................... 49
Design ............................................................................................................................. 49

Subjects .......................................................................................................................... 50

6
 Training Protocols........................................................................................................... 51
Strength Training Protocol ...................................................................................... 51

Interventions .................................................................................................................. 54
Plyometric Group Training ...................................................................................... 54
Assisted Group Training .......................................................................................... 55

Testing Procedures ......................................................................................................... 56

Vertical Jump Test ................................................................................................... 56
Sprint Test Procedures ............................................................................................ 57
3RM Squat Test ....................................................................................................... 57

Data Analysis .................................................................................................................. 58

Statistical Analysis .......................................................................................................... 59

Results 62
Training Protocols........................................................................................................... 62

Vertical Jump .................................................................................................................. 62

Kinetic Variables ............................................................................................................. 64

Sprint Performance ........................................................................................................ 70

1RM Squat Strength ....................................................................................................... 71

Relationships between Variables ................................................................................... 73

Summary......................................................................................................................... 73

Discussion................................................................................................................................. 75
Summary......................................................................................................................... 75

Limitations................................................................................................................................ 81

Practical Applications ............................................................................................................... 82

Future Directions ..................................................................................................................... 82

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 83

References ............................................................................................................................... 84
Appendices............................................................................................................................. 102

7
List of Figures
Figure 1:Research design in chronological order outlining testing, baseline and intervention
phases. ....................................................................................................................... 49
Figure 2: Mean (±SD) vertical jump performance of recreationally trained subjects before
(pre-2) and after (post) four weeks of either a strength and vertical jump (SVJ) or a
strength and assisted vertical jump (SAJ) training intervention................................ 64
Figure 3: Percentage change (%) in jump height following four weeks of either a strength and
vertical jump (SVJ) or strength and assisted vertical jump (SAJ) training protocol
intervention in recreationally trained subjects with fitted trend lines. ..................... 64
Figure 4: Percentage change (%) in peak force following four weeks of either a strength and
vertical jump (SVJ) or strength and assisted vertical jump (SAJ) training protocol
intervention in recreationally trained subjects with fitted regression lines. ............. 68
Figure 5: Percentage change (%) in mean force following four weeks of either a strength and
vertical jump (SVJ) or strength and assisted vertical jump (SAJ) training protocol
intervention in recreationally trained subjects with fitted trend lines. ..................... 68
Figure 6: Percentage change (%) in relative maximum force (Rel) following four weeks of
either a strength and vertical jump (SVJ) or strength and assisted vertical jump (SAJ)
training protocol intervention in recreationally trained subjects with fitted trend
lines. ........................................................................................................................... 69
Figure 7: Percentage change (%) in peak power following four weeks of either a strength and
vertical jump (SVJ) or strength and assisted vertical jump (SAJ) training protocol
intervention in recreationally trained subjects with fitted regression lines. ............. 69
Figure 8: Percentage change (%) in maximum rate of force development (mRFD) following
four weeks of either a strength and vertical jump (SVJ) or strength and assisted
vertical jump (SAJ) training protocol intervention in recreationally trained subjects
with fitted regression lines......................................................................................... 70
Figure 9: Mean (± SD) 10 and 20m sprint times of recreationally trained subjects before (pre-
1) and after (post) four weeks of either a strength and vertical jump (SVJ) or a
strength and assisted vertical jump (SAJ) training intervention................................ 71
Figure 10: Mean (±SD) predicted 1RM squat strength of recreationally trained subjects
before (pre-1) and after (post) four weeks of either a strength and vertical jump
(SVJ) or a strength and assisted vertical jump (SAJ) training intervention. ............... 72
Figure 11: Percentage change (%) in maximum predicted 1RM squat strength following four
weeks of either a strength and vertical jump (SVJ) or strength and assisted vertical
jump (SAJ) training protocol intervention in recreationally trained subjects with
fitted trend lines......................................................................................................... 74

8
List of Tables
Table 1: Maximal strength training protocols and their influence on lower body
explosiveness. ............................................................................................................ 26
Table 2: Plyometric training protocols and their influence on lower body explosiveness. ...... 32
Table 3: Dynamic training protocols and their influence on lower body explosiveness. ......... 36
Table 4: Over-speed training protocols and their influence on lower body explosiveness. ..... 39
Table 5: Mixed method training protocols and their influence on lower body explosiveness. 42
Table 6: Characteristics of subjects (means ± SD).................................................................... 50
Table 7: Training exercises, intensities and rest for the two protocols over each of the seven
week periods. ............................................................................................................. 54
Table 8: Baseline (pre – 2) performance (mean ± SD) (pre-2) and differences between the
strength and vertical jump (SVJ) or strength and assisted vertical jump (SAJ), of peak
(Max), mean, and relative peak force and power, peak, average, and take off
velocity, and maximal rate of force development (mRFD). ....................................... 65
Table 9: Changes within the mean, difference between the groups, confidence limits, and
qualitative outcomes between the strength and vertical jump (SVJ) and strength
and assisted vertical jump (SAJ) training groups in various kinetic variables. .......... 66
Table 10: Summarised results of subjects following four weeks of either a strength and
vertical jump (SVJ) or strength and assisted vertical jump (SAJ) training protocol
intervention in recreationally trained subjects. ......................................................... 74

9
Background Literature

Mechanisms for Strength and Power

Adaptation

The generation of high forces against heavy resistances and the ability to produce

those forces quickly is important for many sports. The use of resistance training to

improve one’s ability to exert forces quickly has become an integral part of many

athletes preparation for their performance during their sporting season (Young,

2006). It is well known that physical training can stimulate adaptation in the

neurological and muscular components of the neuromuscular system (Folland &

Williams, 2007), which can bring about increases in force and power production. It is

generally known that the nervous system can increase force in two main ways 1) by

increasing the number of active motor units or 2) by increasing the rate of which the

active motor units fire (Christie & Kamen, 2006). It is also well established that, of

these components, the neural adaptations are the first to adapt to a new stimulus,

after which gradual changes in the muscular components predominate (Moritani &

DeVries, 1979). The underlying mechanisms that are responsible for increases in

strength and power can be organized into three broad groups, intra-muscular, inter-

muscular, and morphological (Young, 2006). The following sections will discuss

each broad mechanism for strength and power adaptation.

10
Neural Mechanisms

The responses of skeletal muscle tissue to resistance training are said to be a major

adaptation. However it is not only the size or structure of the muscle that dictates

voluntary muscular performance but also the degree to which the muscle can be

activated (Sale, 1988). It is commonly known that the nervous system responds

favorably to increased physical activity and training by altering the properties of this

system, commonly referred to as neural adaptations (Gardiner, Dai, & Heckman,

2006). Neural adaptations are thought to play a major role in the early stages of

resistance training (Gabriel, Kamen, & Frost, 2006). This is mainly due to large

observed increases in muscular strength without similar increases in muscle

hypertrophy (Komi, Viitisalo, Rauramaa, & Vihko, 1978). The term neural adaptation

is a rather broad term and could refer to changes in electromyographic (EMG)

activity, reflex potentiation, altered co-contractions of antagonists and synergists

(Behm, 1995). Possible mechanisms to explain these adaptations will be discussed

further under two headings, intra- and inter- muscular mechanisms.

Intra-Muscular Mechanisms

Motor unit recruitment

One neural mechanism that could account for increases in force and power during

the early stages of a resistance training programme is the number of motor units

recruited. Theoretically, if a person is unable to recruit all of their motor units then

increases in forces etc, following training may be attributed to the additional motor

units being recruited (Kamen, 2005). Researchers have discovered that the level of

motor unit recruitment during voluntary contractions is around 80 - 95%, assessed

11
using the interpolation twitch technique (Belanger & McComas, 1981; Pensini,

Martin, & Maffiuletti, 2002). In addition motor units are recruited from smaller to

larger units depending on the load or resistance acting on a muscle. This idea has

been referred to as the “size principle” by Henneman and colleagues (1965).

It is commonly believed that resistance training can improve motor unit activation.

However researchers investigating this idea have found contradictory results. Some

reported increases in both maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) and motor unit

activation (Del Balso & Cafarelli, 2007; Higbie, Cureton, Warren III, & Prior, 1996;

Pensini et al., 2002), while others have found increases in MVC with no differences

in motor unit activation after training (Rich & Cafarelli, 2000; Van Cutsem,

Duchateau, & Hainaut, 1998). For example the improved motor unit activation

reported by Del Balso and Cafarelli (2007) was disproportionate to the increases in

MVC, 2.8 ± 0.1% and 20.0 ± 13.9% respectively after four weeks of isometric

training. Rich and Cafarelli (2000) also found no change in motor unit activation with

a 36% increase in MVC.

The activation of motor units during activity seems to be task dependant, as

discovered by Aagaard and colleagues, (2000). These authors found decreased

motor unit activation during maximal eccentric contractions and slow concentric

contractions. Babault, Pousson, Ballay, and Van Hoecke (2001) concurred on this

issue, finding the relationship between voluntary activation levels and sub-maximal

torques was linearly fitted (P < 0.01). In particular these authors found that a

reduced neural drive is associated with slower (20°/s) maximal concentric and both

maximal and sub-maximal eccentric contractions and that voluntary activation is

12
dependent on both tension levels and the type of muscular actions in the human

knee-extensor muscle group.

It is well recognised that younger and older adults differ in terms of their physical

performance, e.g. strength, speed, power etc. Interestingly, there is little difference

in motor unit activation between the two populations (Connelly, Rice, Roos, &

Vandervoot, 1999). In fact, older trained men (82 year average) were found to

activate 99.1% and younger trained men (20.8 year average) activated 99.3% of

their motor units. Furthermore, the maximal voluntary contractions (MVC) in these

older subjects were 26% lower than their younger counterparts. Knight and Kamen

(2008) investigated the relationships between factors of muscular strength

generation, muscle activation and firing rates, and found significant correlations

between activation and firing rates. Moreover these researchers found a weak

correlation between strength and muscle activation.

These data show that although resistance training can improve force output, the

changes in motor unit activation can only account for a small fraction of the increase

in maximal force. Concurrent increases in force and EMG amplitude may also be

caused by changes in motor unit firing patterns. Thus suggesting other neural

mechanisms are, in part, responsible for increases in force following resistance

exercise.

Motor unit firing frequency

Many investigations have focused on firing rates during acute sessions with varying

types of contractions (e.g. Milner-Brown, Stein, & Yemm, 1973; Grimby & Hannerz,

1977; Connerlly et al., 1999; Adam & De Luca, 2005). Other investigations have

13
focused on the adaptive properties of motor units to change their firing rate patterns

over time from resistance training (Van Cutsem, Duchateau, & Hainault, 1998; Rich

& Cafarelli, 2000; Kamen & Knight, 2004; Pucci, Griffin, Cafarelli, 2005).

Of the four training studies found, researchers of two studies found positive benefits

towards improved motor unit firing rates (Van Cutsem et al., 1998; Kamen & Knight,

2004). These authors found improvements in motor unit firing rates with improved

MVC. Although Pucci and colleagues (2005) did not find significant differences

before and after training, they did note a trend towards improved firing rates at the

end of training. Rich and Cafarelli (2000) found contrasting results and found slight

decreases in firing rates on the completion of their training.

Interestingly the two studies that found no significant improvements (Pucci et al.,

2005; Rich and Cafarelli, 2000) used isometric muscle contractions. Conversely Van

Cutsem and colleagues (1998) and Kamen and Knight (2004), used dynamic

contractions and found significant improvements in motor unit firing rates. Moreover,

older subjects increased their motor unit firing rates by 49% compared to 15% in

younger subjects, with 36% and 29% increases in MVC, respectively (Kamen &

Knight, 2004). These data suggests that in order to improve maximal motor unit

firing rates dynamic (eccentric and/or concentric) resistance exercise should be

prescribed and not isometric.

A phenomenon associated with motor unit firing rates called “doublets”, where a

motor unit discharges two action potentials close together (Christie & Kamen, 2006).

14
Doublets are particularly prevalent at the onset of muscular contraction (Van Cutsem

et al., 1998) and during lower contractual efforts, i.e. <50% MVC (Christie & Kamen,

2006); and that trained subjects have a greater proportion of doublets occurring

compared to untrained subjects. For example, Van Cutsem and colleagues (1998)

found the incidence of doublet firing changed from 5.2 to 32.7% after 12-weeks of

dynamic resistance training with a 30.2% improvement of MVC. There were also

concurrent significant improvements in time to peak tension (15.9% decrease) and

the rate of tension development (82.3% increase). No significant improvements

were found in the control subjects. The firing of doublets at the onset of contraction

may serve to enhance the initial generation of force by taking advantage of the

catch-like property (tension enhancement produced when an initial brief high-

frequency burst of pulses (2-4 pulses) is used at the onset of a subsequent

subtetanic constant-frequency trains to activate the muscle) of skeletal muscle

(Burke, 1970), which could increase the rate of force development.

This data suggests that doublet activity could potentially aid in the development of

force and power. However, the increases in doublet discharge were also

accompanied by changes in other neural mechanisms e.g. motor unit firing

frequency that could explain some of these improvements. Due to a dearth in the

literature regarding the benefits of resistance training on doublet activity, further

research is warranted.

Synchronization
Another possible mechanism for improving output forces is motor-unit

synchronization. This is expressed as a change in the timing of motor-unit

activation: that is, an increase in the simultaneous activation of motor units

15
(Semmler, Steege, Kornatz, & Enoka, 2000). Among the first to establish a link

between resistance training and increased motor unit synchronization was Milner-

Brown, Stien, and Lee (1975). They reported a greater degree of motor unit

synchronization in strength trained subjects when compared to a control group

thereby leading to the idea that motor unit synchronization may be enhanced by

resistance training and moreover play a role in increasing force output.

Motor unit synchronization has been observed during various types of contractions

(Semmler, Kornatz, Dinenno, Shi Zhou, & Enoka, 2002; Datta & Stephens, 1990)

and in younger and older persons (Semmler et al., 2000). The data presented by

these authors have shown greater motor unit synchronization during lengthening

(eccentric) contractions (Semmler et al., 2002) and within motor units with lower

recruitment thresholds, < 0.5 N or > 1 N (Datta & Stephens, 1990). Synchronization

of motor units has been demonstrated not to be different in the aged and young

(Semmler et al., 2000). These authors found similar synchronization between young

and older men with a significant difference of MVC, 50.3 and 33.3 N respectively.

Strength training has shown to improve motor unit synchronisation (Milner-Brown et

al., 1975; Semmler & Nordstrom, 1998). For example Milner–Brown and colleagues

(1975) have demonstrated that a 6-week resistance training programme can lead to

significantly enhanced motor unit synchronization.

Inter-Muscular Mechanisms

Antagonist and Agonist Interactions

Muscular contraction of an agonist results in movement of a joint in the desired

direction whereas muscles opposing the intended contraction are deemed

16
antagonists (Gabriel et al., 2006). Co-contraction occurs when both the agonist and

antagonist muscles contract during an intended contraction. This co-contraction

increases joint stability and stiffness (Kellis, 1998) and acts as a “brake” during fast

ballistic type contractions (Marsden, Obeso, & Rothwell, 1983). The “braking”

mechanism allows the antagonist to oppose the agonist therefore reducing the force

potential of the agonist (Gabriel et al., 2006). In addition, any inhibition of the

antagonist activation during fast explosive muscular contractions would theoretically

increase the agonists force potential.

Co-contractions of agonists and antagonists have been investigated at different

joints (Yildiz, Aydin, Sekir et al., 2006), different muscle contractions (Bassa,

Kotzamanidis, Siatras, Mameletzi, & Skoufas, 2002), different speeds (Bassa,

Patikas, & Kotzamanidis, 2005), different joint angles (Kubo, Tsunoda, Kanehisa, &

Fukunaga, 2004), different ages (Hakkinen, Alen, Kallinen et al., 1998), and during

differing levels of fatigue (Croce, Miller, & Horvat, 2008). These researchers have

found that antagonist co-contraction appears to be dependent on many factors

including: the speed and type of contraction, length of muscle, the age of the muscle,

and the level of fatigue present. For example, Bassa and colleagues (2005) found

the activity of the antagonist co-contractors were significantly lower during concentric

knee flexion than concentric knee extension. In addition there were significant

increases in co-contraction activity during faster concentric muscular contractions

during knee flexion and extension at different velocities, 45, 90, and 180 deg/s.

Interestingly no differences were found between young (10.94 ± 0.6 years) and adult

(18.1 ± 0.1 years).

17
Morphological Mechanisms

Hypertrophy
For the cellular re-organisation of skeletal muscle, exercise is one of the most

powerful stimuli for inducing changes; in particular skeletal muscle responds to

resistance exercise by means of muscular hypertrophy (Cameron-Smith, 2002). It is

acknowledged that morphological adaptation can account for increases in strength

and power with resistance training lasting 12 weeks or more (Staron, Karapondo,

Kraemer, et al, 1994). However more recent findings of Seynnes, Boer, and Narici

(2007) and Blazevich, Gill, Bronks, and Newton (2003) have found significant growth

of muscle fibres in as little as three and five weeks respectively. For example

Seynnes and colleagues (2007) found significant increases in the quadriceps femoris

muscle of 3.5 and 5.2% (at central and distal locations respectively) in as little as 20

days of high intensity leg extension and also after 35 days (6.5 and 7.4%

respectively). These new findings suggest that muscle hypertrophy may contribute

to strength and power output much sooner than previously thought. The intriguing

findings of these studies may have been due to enhanced techniques/equipment

available nowadays e.g., high definition sonagraphs and magnetic resonance

imagery, compared with much earlier techniques, making it easier to map smaller

changes more precisely. Hypertrophic changes within muscle is now thought to be a

gradual/progressive process beginning in the early phases of the training period

rather than a increase in CSA after a given time during the training period (Seynnes

et al., 2007).

Hypertrophy of the muscle fibres following maximal strength or power training are

reported to be greater in fast twitch fibres, 19.5% (type IIA) and 26% (type IIB), more

18
so than the slow twitch, 12.5% (type I) fibres (Campos, Luecke, Wendeln, et al.,

2002). The greater increases of fibre size of the fast twitch fibres are thought to be

from greater relative involvement during high explosive or maximal effort exercise

compared to the type I fibres (Adams et al, 1993). Moreover fast twitch fibres are

recruited predominately (type IIb, IIab, IIa to type I) during explosive resistance

exercise (Harris & Dudley, 2000) and therefore undergo more stress and damage

requiring more remodeling and subsequently a greater capacity to adapt compared

to slow twitch (type I) fibres.

Hyperplasia
Hyperplasia is a term used to describe the increases in muscle CSA by way of

increasing the number of individual muscle fibres as opposed to hypertrophy that

increases the size of the individual fibres (Folland & Williams, 2007). Hyperplasia

has been documented in animals, and significant increases of ~19% in the number

of muscle fibres have been reported (Gonyea, Ericson, and Bonde-Petersen, 1977).

However, due to the many ethical and methodological issues trying to assess the

amount of fibres in vivo, evidence of human muscle fibre hyperplasia are limited to

cadaver studies (Folland & Williams, 2007). Researchers do acknowledge the

process of hyperplasia occurring within human muscle fibres albeit at a much slower

rate than hypertrophy and thus accounts for minor improvements in either strength or

power (Appell, 1990; Sjostrom, Lexell, Eriksson, & Taylor, 1991).

There are two possible mechanisms for the process of hyperplasia to eventuate.

Firstly, during the remodeling phase, myoblasts fuse to each other (outside of the

damaged fibre) instead of fusing with the damaged fibres (Grobler, Collins, &

Lambert, 2004). The joining of these myoblasts together outside of the muscle fibre,

signal protein synthesis around the fused myonuclei, thus forming new muscle fibres.

Secondly, Patterson & Goldspink (1976) and Goldspink (1970) have found
19
hyperplasia to be caused by the branching and splitting/tearing within the sarcomere

due to excess tension developed during muscular contraction. Once one Z disc has

ruptured the next Z disc in line has greater stress placed upon it which could cause a

sort of domino effect of additional splitting of neighboring z disks. Indeed, the

rupturing of many Z discs in a sequential manner has shown to cause longitudinal

tearing of the muscle fibre. For example, Patterson & Goldspink (1976) found the

splitting of muscle fibres occurred at a critical size, approximately 1.1 – 1.2 µm for

white fibres and 1.2 – 1.4 µm for red fibres of fish muscle. Patterson & Goldspink

(1976) also observed that when a fibre splits the two daughter parts, when

combined, ware larger in size than the initial parent leading to their conclusion that

additional muscle filaments were added to the daughter regions while the splitting of

the fibre is occurring. The addition of filaments could then increase the ability of the

muscle to improve strength and power output.

Muscle Geometry
Muscle pennation angle is a term used to describe the angle of which the individual

muscle fibres are arranged within the muscle, specifically the angle of the fibre to the

tendon or aponeurosis (Kawakami, Ichinose, Kubo, et al., 2000). The angle of

pennation and the length of the muscle fascicle (architectural arrangement) within a

muscle has shown to affect the amount of force the muscle can produce (Blazevich,

Cannavan, Coleman, & Horne, 2007).

The optimum pennation angle of a muscle fibre for maximal force generation has

been thought to be 45o. Although few muscle have fibres arranged at this angle,

increasing the angle of pennation has been thought to increase force output even in

the absence of muscle fibre hypertrophy (Folland & Williams, 2007). Indeed,

20
increases in pennation angle are associated with an increase force output

demonstrated by Blazevich and colleagues (2007). These authors found after 10

weeks of either eccentric or concentric knee extension, the angle of pennation

increase significantly by an average of ~ 17.9 % accompanied by an average

increase of peak torque of ~20.5%.

The length of a muscle fibre has also been reported to have a dramatic effect on

force and power generation. This is due to longer muscle fibres are capable of

generating forces over longer ranges and are capable of faster contraction speeds

(Blazevich et al., 2007). According to Maxwell’s model (Maxwell, Faulkner, & Hyatt,

1974), changes in one or more architectural factors of a fibre (length, CSA, or angle

of pennation) would cause a change in other factor/s. For example, an increase in

muscle fibre length would decrease the angle of pennation and vice versa. However

this is not always the case, e.g. Balzevich et al., (2007) and Seynnes et al., (2007)

found increases in fibre length, angle and size after resistance training.

The extent to which architectural adaptation occurs depends heavily on the type of

exercise and how the exercise is performed (Balzevich et al., 2007). For example,

Abe, Kumagai & Brechue (2000) investigated muscle architecture within elite

sprinters and distance runners. The authors found sprinters had longer and larger

muscle fibres and smaller pennation angle than distance runners. In addition

Blazevich and colleagues (2003) investigated different types of resistance exercise

along with sprint training on muscle architecture. It was found that subjects that

participated in explosive type exercise (squat jumps) decrease their fascicle angle

and increased fascicle length whereas those subjects performing strength based

exercise (squats and forward hack squats) had increases in pennation angle and

decreased fascicle length.

21
Fibre Type Conversion
Muscle fibres are classified according to their functional capabilities and enzymatic

profiles. Fibres are referred to as either ‘slow twitch’ or ‘fast twitch’ based on their

contractile properties. Muscle fibres can also be classified according to their myosin

ATPase isoform (Pette & Staron, 2000) and/or by myosin heavy chain (MHC)

isoform (Schiaffino, Gorza, Sartore et al., 1989). Moreover, MHC types correlate

strongly with myosin ATPase isoforms. Slow forms of myosin ATPase (type I) are

associated with slow contraction and relaxation times and are more resistant to

fatigue. Alternately, fast forms of myosin ATPase (type IIA, IIB and type IIX) are

associated with fast contraction and relaxation times and high fatigability (Schiaffino

et al., 1989).

Another possible mechanism for increased strength and power output following

chronic resistance training is the conversion of one fibre type to another.

Researchers have found resistance training can alter the proportion of fibres within

the type II subtypes (Campos, Luecke, Wendeln et al., 2002; Staron, Malicky,

Leonardi et al., 1990) Resistance training has shown to increase the percentage of

type IIa fibres (32.5% pre training vs 39.3% post training) and to decrease the

percentage of type IIb fibres (16.2% pre-training vs 2.7% post-training) (Staron et al.,

1990). Similar findings have also been demonstrated during different lengths of

training ranging between two and 20 weeks (Staron, Karapondo, Kraemer et al.,

1994; Staron et al, 1990). In agreement with the findings on fibre type,

measurements of MHC show the proportion of MHC IIX (equivalent to type IIX fibres)

to fall 5–11% with a similar rise in MHC IIA (equivalent to type IIa fibres) after 12–14

weeks of training (Williamson, Gallagher, Carroll et al., 2001; Andersen, Andersen,

Magnusson et al., 2005). However, no convincing evidence has been found for

conversion between type I and type II fibres (Andersen & Aagaard, 2000).

22
Summary
It is clear that numerous adaptive mechanisms can aid in increased force and / or

power production including many neural (inter-muscular and intra-muscular) and

morphological (hypertrophy, hyperplasia, muscle fibre pennation and length).

However the exact mechanism or mechanisms for the observed increases in force or

power is as of yet still undetermined and the aforementioned factors are at the

forefront of possible likelihoods. What is clear though is changes appear to be

dependent on the specific nature of the training stimulus. No single mechanism can

account for the total improvements measured within the literature and thus

combinations of both morphological and neural mechanisms may be aiding

improvement at the same time. Further research into the precise mechanisms of

increased strength and power output is warranted.

23
Training Protocols that Contribute to
Lower Body Explosiveness

Lower body explosiveness is an important component for the successful completion

of many sporting events and the vertical jump is possibly the best exercise to

represent this (Potteiger, Lockwood, Haub, et al., 1999). Several training schemes

have been developed over the years with a focus on improving the ability of the

neuromuscular systems responsible for power production (Smilios et al., 2006).

Different training protocols have been found to elicit different adaptations within the

human body which account for the observed changes in performance (Hass,

Feigenbaum, & Franklin, 2001). Some of the more recognised training protocols for

improving explosive performance include; maximum strength training (80-100% of

1RM), higher velocity training (0-70% of 1RM [Cormie, McCaulley, Triplett, &

McBride, 2007; Siegel, Gilders, Staron, & Hagerman, 2000]), plyometrics, over-

speed, and combinations of these (Wilson et al., 1993). These training protocols will

now be discussed for their significance in the development of explosive performance.

The training schemes will be separated into two sections, single and mixed methods.

Single Focus Training Protocols

Slow Movement Velocity Training Protocols
Slow movement velocity training protocols (maximal strength training) are associated

with relatively high loads (80-90% 1RM) that are lifted for few repetitions (4-8)

(Wilson et al., 1993). This method of training is seen to improve both muscular

strength and power output (Brown et al., 2007). The observed increases in power
24
production following heavy strength training may be due to the result of two main

factors. Firstly: type II muscle fibre adaptations. During explosive muscular

contractions (jumping, sprinting, maximal lifting etc), type II fibres are recruited more

so than type I fibres, therefore adaptations (morphological) occur predominately

within the type II fibres (Campos et al., 2002). These resulting adaptations within the

type II muscle fibres (increased emzyme activity, conversion to type II fibres from

type I, etc) have shown to increase strength and power output (Costill, Coyle, Fink,

Lesmes, & Witzmann, 1979). Secondly, increases in the speed of muscular

contraction due to neural adaptations include: increased motor unit activation, co-

ordination, and motor unit synchronisation (Baker, Wilson, & Carlyon, 1994).

Although maximal strength training involves slower movement velocities, power

output can still be enhanced provided the intention to move the resistance is quick

(Behm & Sale, 1993).

The use of maximal strength training to improve an individual’s strength is very

consistent throughout the literature (Table 1). Of the reviewed studies only

Kotzamanidis, Chatzopoulos, Michailidis, Papaiakoyou, & Patikas (2005) failed to

measure strength. Strength was measured by one repetition maximum (1RM) leg

press (Sayers, 2007), 1RM squat (Brown et al., 2007), or maximal isometric force

(Wilson et al., 1993) tests in the other reviewed studies. The reported increases in

strength ranged from 6% (0.2 effect size [ES]) to 32% (1.6 ES) (Neils, Udermann,

Brice, Winchester, & McGuigan, 2005; Brown et al., 2007). Interestingly, the many

variations in this training protocol (sets, reps, frequency etc) made no difference to

the effectiveness of the protocol on strength development. For example the

researchers who reported the greatest gains in strength utilized the shortest and the

longest training periods of six and 12 weeks (Brown et al., 2007; Vissing, Brink,

Lonbro, et al., 2008).

25
Table 1: Maximal strength training protocols and their influence on lower body explosiveness.

Author Subjects Training Status Study length Tests Results (Effect Size)

Brown et al, 2007 18 FM Untrained 6 wk 1RM LP, VJ HT *↑ 32% (1.6), #↑ 4.0%(0.16) 1RM Leg Press and Vertical Jump Height

30 sec WG PP, MP #↑ 4.0%(0.5), *↑ 6.0%(0.3) Wingate Peak Power and Mean Power

Harris et al, 2000 51 M Recreational 9 wk 1RM Squat *↑ 10%(1.7) 1RM Squat Strength

VJ HT, MP, PP #↑ 2.0%(CC), #↑ 3.0(0.6), #↑ 3.0%(0.6) Vertical Jump Height, Mean, Peak Power

30m sprint ↔(0.0) 30m sprint

Jones et al, 2001 26 M Trained 10 wk 1RM Squat *↑ 16%(1.7) 1RM Squat Strength

30 and 50% 1RM JS PP #↑ 5.0(0.2) and 2.9%(0.19) in 30 and 50% Jump Squat Peak Power

Kotzamanidis, et al, 2005 35 M Untrained 13 wk CMJ #↑ 1.0%(0.07) Counter Movement Jump

30 m Sprint ↔(0.12) 30m sprint

Neils et al, 2005 16 MX Recreational 8 wk 1RM Squat *↑ 6.0%(0.2) 1RM Squat Strength

CMJ, HT and P #↓ of 2.0%(0.06) , *↑ 8.4%(0.16) in Counter Movement Jump Height and Power

Sayers, 2007 12 OMX Untrained 12 wk 1RM LP ↑ 21% (CC) 1RM Leg Press

KE PP at 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, and 90% 1RM ↑ 9.0 - 22% (CC) Knee extensor Peak Power

Vissing et al, 2008 16 M Untrained 12 wk 1RM LP *↑ 29.0%(CC) 1RM Leg Press

CMJ HT and PP ↔(CC) Counter Movement Jump Height and Peak Power

Wilson et al, 1993 64 NM Recreational 10 wk Max Iso Force, CMJ HT *↑ 14%(0.6) Max Isometric Force, *↑ 5.0%(0.2) Counter Movement Jump Height

6 sec PP Cycle *↑ 5.0%(0.2) Peak Power Cycle

M = Male; FM = Female; MX = Mixed Gender; O = Older; OMX = Older Mixed Gender; NM = Not Mentioned; wk = weeks; P = Power; PP = Peak Power; MP = Mean Power; VJ = Vertical Jump; DJ = Depth Jump; SJ =
Squat Jump; CMJ = Counter Movement Jump; HT = Height; KE = Knee Extension; SJ = Squat Jump; JS = Jump Squat; MK = Margaria-Kalamen; WG = Wingate; ↑ = Increase; *↑ = Significant Increase; #↑ = Non Significant
Increase; ↔ = No difference / No Change; *↓ = Significant Decrease; #↓ = Non Significant Decrease; CC = Couldn’t Calculate.

26
For the purpose of this review to distinguish between the level of training the

following categories were used: untrained = subjects with no resistance training

experience and/or sedentary individuals; recreationally trained = subjects who play

recreational sports and/or up to one year resistance training experience; trained =

subjects who play competitive sports and have greater than one year resistance

training experience; elite = subjects who compete in either national or international

sport.

Of the reviewed literature the researcher that recruited the less trained subjects i.e.

untrained, found the greater magnitudes of improvement compared to the literature

involving more trained subjects. For example, Vissing et al., (2008), Sayers (2007),

and Brown et al., (2007) all recruited untrained subjects and found after 12 and six

weeks of strength training between 21 – 32% (1.6 ES Brown et al., 2007) increases

in strength. Those studies with more trained subjects (recreationally trained) found 6

– 14% (0.2 - 1.7 ES) improvements in strength (Harris, Stone, O’Bryant, Prolux, &

Johnson, 2000; Neils et al., 2005; Wilson et al., 1993) and trained subjects found a

16% (1.7 ES) increase in strength (Jones, Bishop, Hunter, Fleisig, 2001).

Strength training schemes have been investigated with the intent of increasing power

output by increasing maximal strength (Jones et al., 2001; Vissing et al., 2008;

Sayers, 2007). This type of training has been somewhat successful in improving

power output (Table 1). For example, Jones et al., (2001) found high load

intervention groups improved 1RM squat strength by 16% (1.7 ES) with a concurrent

increase in power output of 5.0% (0.2 ES) compared to controls. Not surprisingly

the increases in power output were seen at the intensities similar to that of the

training loads, i.e. greater power outputs at load ranges of 35% to 90% 1RM. Some

27
researchers have not recorded similar improvements in power output following high

load / maximal strength training protocols (Vissing et al., 2008).

Of the eight research articles that were found, three utilised bi-weekly training

(Brown et al., 2007; Wilson et al., 1993; Harris et al., 2000) and four trained tri-

weekly (Vissing et al., 2008; Kotzamanidis et al., 2005; Sayers, 2007; Neils et al.,

2005) and one trained four times per week (Jones et al., 2001). Research results

seem mixed after twice a-week training with results showing significant

improvements in cycling power (Wilson et al., 1993; Brown et al., 2007). Vertical

jumping however was not so favorable after bi weekly strength training, with only

Wilson and colleagues (1998) showing significant improvement in both squat jump

(SJ) and counter movement jump (CMJ) jump height of 6 and 5% (0.2 ES)

respectively. Training tri weekly, researchers found a 4% improvement in ballistic

leg press peek power (PP) (Vissing et al., 2008), 8.4% (0.16 ES) CMJ PP (Neils et

al., 2005) and between 9-22% knee extensor (KE) PP through a 40-90% 1RM

(Sayers, 2007). Training four times a week saw no significant improvements in

power output during drop jumps (DJ) or 30 and 50% 1RM jump squats (JS) (Jones et

al., 2001).

Two investigations utilized untrained subjects (Sayers, 2007; Vissing et al., 2008),

three used recreational trained subjects (Brown et al., 2007; Kotzamanidis et al.,

2005; Neils et al., 2005), two had trained subjects (Wilson et al., 1993; Harris et al.,

2000), and one used elite subjects (Jones et al., 2001). Of these studies only Wilson

and colleagues (1993), using trained subjects, showed significant increases in all

power measures (CMJ, SJ height (HT), 6 sec PP Cycle). It is interesting that no

consensus regarding training age and improvements in power exist when training at

28
high loads. Researchers have found untrained subjects, who would expect to gain

the most, not to improve CMJ HT and PP but increase ballistic leg press PP by 6.0%

(Vissing et al., 2008). However, untrained subjects did improve PP output during KE

through a range of intensities (Sayers, 2007). The inconsistent effects of maximal

strength training exist with more trained subjects as well. No improvements were

found within the reviewed literature on sprint speed after strength training. Both

studies (Harris et al., 2000; Kotzamanidis et al., 2006) reported no improvement in

sprint tests.

The training variables (sets, reps, frequency etc) within this training protocol were

varied within the reviewed literature. Four of the studies used a straight set design

(sets and repetitions do not vary and stay the same throughout the programme)

(Sayers, 2007; Harris et al., 2000; Neils et al., 2005; Brown et al., 2007), four utilised

a linear periodization model (increasing load and volume decreases, changes

roughly every four weeks [Fleck, 1999]) (Kotzamanidis et al., 2005; Vissing et al.,

2008; Wilson et al., 1993; Jones et al., 2001). As before no one training protocol

was better than the other within maximal strength training schemes to improve power

output. Results varied from no change, decreases (Neils et al., 2005), to significant

and non significant increases (Wilson et al., 1993; Harris et al., 2000) with no

consistency within the training protocols.

Plyometric Training Protocols

Plyometric training is another training scheme utilised to develop muscular power

and to enhance jumping ability. In addition it is a method of choice for practitioners

when developing lower body explosiveness in performance utilising the stretch

29
shortening cycle (SSC) (Fatourus et al., 2000). Training in this manner involves

individuals to exert maximal effort to move a sub-maximal load as fast as possible;

resulting in the load becoming airborne (Kreamer & Newton, 2000) moreover it

negates the negative deceleration aspect of traditional resistance training (Newton,

Kraemer, & Hakkinen, 1999). Lower body plyometric exercises are similar to the

movement patterns of athletic performance. The exercises include: bounding,

hopping, and various jumping activities on one and two legs (Potteiger et al., 1999).

Plyometric training is defined more so by the amount of foot contacts within a training

session, which is dependent on the level of the athlete. For example, a novice

athlete would perform approximately 80 – 100 foot contacts, an intermediate athlete

would perform 100 - 120 foot contacts, and an advanced athlete would perform 120

– 140 foot contacts per session (Potach & Chu, 2000). Plyometric training is

believed to improve explosive performance by enhancing the coordination of the

neural control of the SSC (Newton et al., 1999). Although sometimes called ballistic

training (Newton et al., 2006) because of similarities between the two training

protocols, ballistic training can involve elements of both plyometric and traditional

weight lifting (McEvoy & Newton, 1998). For example, ballistic training exercises

could include; jumping movements or only involve concentric only elements like a

squat jump.

Plyometric training appears to be an effective means to either maintain or improve

lower body strength (Table 2). Of the reviewed studies, six measured strength by

1RM leg press (Brown et al., 2007; Vissing et al., 2008), 1RM squat (Fatouros et al.,

2000), knee extensor MVC (Kyrolainen, Avela, & McBride, et al., 2005), maximum

isometric force (Markovic et al., 2007). All but one study (Markovic et al., 2007)

30
found improvements in strength after training with magnitudes between 12 (2.5 ES)

and 37% (1.9 ES). None of the subjects within the reviewed literature were

experienced weight lifters and therefore it is not surprising to see the large gains.

The largest magnitude of change (37%) occurred in only six weeks of training

(Brown et al., 2007) whereas the smallest magnitude of change (12%) occurred after

a longer training intervention period of 12 weeks (Fatourus et al., 2000).

Plyometric training has been effective to improve a variety of explosive performance

measures, e.g. vertical jump ability and power output (Vissing et al., 2008; Fatouros

et al., 2000; Markovic et al., 2007) (Table 2). Within the reviewed literature,

untrained subjects undertaking plyometric training improved jumping performance

between 8.0 (0.9 ES) – 35% (1.8 ES) (Brown et al., 2007; Fatouros et al., 2000;

Kotzamandis, 2006; Vissing et al., 2008). Recreational trained subjects improved

from 4.6 – 35% (0.9 ES) in jump height (Kyrolainen et al., 2005; Potteiger et al.,

1999; Salonkidis & Zafeiridis, 2008) and trained subjects improved between 6.3 (0.5

ES) – 8.0% (0.4 ES) (Saunders et al., 2006; Markovic et al., 2007; Thomas, French,

& Hayes, 2009). Within these studies, only two involved subjects with a resistance

training background and currently training (Markovic et al., 2007; Potteiger et al.,

1999). Interestingly these subjects saw the least magnitude of improvement in jump

height, 4.6 – 6.3% (0.5 ES). Also Subjects with no or recent resistance training

experience prior to training with a plyometric protocol significantly improved between

8 (0.4 ES) – 35% (1.8 ES) (Salonkidis & Zafeiridis, 2008; Thomas et al., 2009;

Saunders et al., 2006; Kyrolainen et al., 2005; Kotzamandis, 2006; Vissing et al.,

2008; Fatouros et al., 2000).

31
Table 2: Plyometric training protocols and their influence on lower body explosiveness.

Author Subjects Training Status Study length Tests Results (Effect Size)

Brown et al, 2007 18 FM Untrained 6 wk 1RM LP, VJ HT *↑ 37%(1.9) 1RM Leg Press, *↑ 8.0%(0.9) Vertical Jump Height

30 sec WG PP MP #↑ 4.0% (0.12), *↑ 6.0%(0.2) in Wingate Peak and Mean Power

Fatouros et al, 2000 41 M Untrained 12 wk 1RM Squat *↑12%(2.5) 1RM Squat Strength

VJ HT P *↑ 17%(1.7), *↑ 11%(2.6) in Vertical Jump Power and Height

Kotzamanidis, 2006 30 M Untrained 10 wk VJ, 30m Sprint *↑ 35%(1.8) Vertical Jump Height, *↓ 2.5% (0.3) 30m Sprint

Kyrolainen et al, 2005 23 M Recreational 15 wk MVC KE #↑ 25%(0.6) Maximal Voluntary Contraction of Knee Extensors

DJ *↑ 23%(1.2) Depth Jump Height

Markovic et al, 2007 93 M Trained 10 wk Max Iso Force, ↔(0.04) Max Isometric Force,

SJ and CMJ HT, 20m Sprint *↑ 6.5%(0.5), *↑ 6.3%(0.5) for Squat Jump and Counter Movement Jump Height, #↓ ~1.5%(CC)
20m Sprint

Potteiger et al, 1999 19 M Recreational 8 wk VJ HT, PP, MP *↑ 4.6% (CC), *↑ 2.8%(1.4), and *↑ 5.5%(1.5) in Vertical Jump Height, Peak and Mean Power

Salonkidis & Zafeiridis, 2008 64 MX Recreational 9 wk Unilateral 20 cm Drop Jumps *↑ 35%(0.9) Depth Jump Height

Saunders et al, 2006 15 M (T) Trained 9 wk 5 VJ MHT ↑ of 8.0%(0.4) Vertical Jump Mean Height

SJ RFD ↑ 16%(0.7) in Squat Jump Rate of Force Development

Thomas et al., 2009. 12 YM Trained 6 wk CMJ HT, 20 Sprint *↑ of ~8.0%(CC) Counter Movement Jump Height , ↔0.6%(0.09) 20m Sprint

Vissing et al, 2008 16 M Untrained 12 wk 1RM LP *↑ 22%(CC) 1RM Leg Press

CMJ HT *↑ 10%(CC) Counter Movement Jump Height

M = Male; FM = Female; MX = Mixed Gender; Y = Younger; wk = weeks; P = Power; PP = Peak Power; MP = Mean Power; VJ = Vertical Jump; DJ = Depth Jump; SJ = Squat Jump; CMJ = Counter Movement Jump; HT =
Height; MHT = Mean Height; SJ = Squat Jumps; 1RM = One Repetition Maximum; LP = Leg Press; MVC = Maximum Voluntary Contraction; Max Iso = Maximum Isometric; WG = Wingate; ↑ = Increase; *↑ = Significant
Increase; #↑ = Non Significant Increase; ↔ = No difference / No Change; *↓ = Significant Decrease; #↓ = Non Significant Decrease; CC = Couldn’t Calculate

32
Training frequency had no impact on improvements as subject who trained twice a

week improved jump height between 8.0 (0.9 ES) – 35% (1.8 ES) (Brown et al.,

2007; Kotzamandis, 2006) and those subjects who trained three time per week

improved to a similar magnitude of between 4.6 – 35% (0.9 ES) (Potteiger et al.,

1999; Salonkidis & Zafeiridis, 2008). Researchers utilising jumping tests that

allowed a CMJ and arm swing produced increases ranging from 8.0 (0.9 ES) – 11%

(1.7 ES) (Brown et al., 2007; Fatouros et al., 2000), CMJ jumps without an arm

swing between 8.0 – 35% (0.9 ES) (Salonkidis & Zafeiridis, 2008; Thomas, French,

& Heyes., 2009), and SJ of 6.5% (0.5 ES) (Markovic et al., 2007).

Horizontal explosiveness has been investigated in three of the reviewed literature

with mixed results. Kotzamanidis and colleagues (2006) found a 2.5% (0.3 ES)

increase in 30m sprint time and Markovic et al., (2007) found a 1.5% improvement in

20m sprint performance. However Thomas and colleagues (2009) found a small

0.6% (0.09 ES) improvement in performance. Given that only a small number of the

reviewed literature measured explosive performance in this manner (sprinting) it

would be speculative of the authors to say that plyometric training protocols are

effective to improve this type of performance.

Improvements in power after completing plyometric training protocols have been

attributed to increases in power output and maximum rate of force development

(RFD) (Newton et al., 1999). Within the reviewed literature four researchers

measured PP and mean power (MP) by way of the Wingate cycle test (WG) and

estimation equations from vertical jump (VJ) performance (Potteiger et al., 1999;

Fatouros et al., 2000; Brown et al., 2007; Vissing et al., 2008). Plyometric training

protocols lead to improvements in all four studies. A 4.0% (0.12 ES) and 6.0% (0.2

ES) improvement were found in WG PP and MP respectively (Brown et al., 2007),

33
VJ PP increases of 26% (2.6 ES) (Fatouros et al., 2000) and 2.8% (1.4 ES) and

5.5% (1.5 ES) improvement in VJ PP and MP respectively (Potteiger et al., 1999).

Plyometric training protocols have also shown to improve RFD by 17% (0.7 ES) with

a concurrent 10% (0.4 ES) increase in VJ height (Saunders et al., 2006). Increases

in CSA have also been found following plyometric training suggesting muscle

morphology may play a role in dynamic explosive activity (Potteiger et al., 1999).

Dynamic Training Protocols

Another resistance training method that has been developed is dynamic training.

This can be further split into two protocols, maximum power (Pmax) and high

velocity. Pmax is defined as the % load of 1RM (or isometric force) that induces the

maximum amount of power output (Baker et al., 2001). There is still much debate

over what load maximal power is achieved. The range of load in which generates

maximal power output has been inconsistent, with loads ranging between 0-70%

1RM, (Cormie, McCaulley, Triplett, & McBride, 2007; Siegel, Gilders, Staron, &

Hagerman, 2000) and appears to be movement specific. Training at Pmax is

believed to improve RFD, and the intra- and inter-muscular co-ordination (Harris et

al., 2000). Both Pmax and high velocity training protocols require lifting a sub-

maximal load as quickly as possible. However, during high velocity training

protocols the velocity of movement is emphasized while the load lifted is not

specifically the load that maximises power output (Harris et al., 2000). These

training schemes are reported within the literature as a session consisting of three to

seven sets of five to 15 repetitions of the corresponding loads as mentioned

previously (Cormie et al., 2007; Wilson et al., 1993; Jones at al., 2001; Harris et al.,

2000; Lyttle, Wilson, & Ostrowski, 1996).

34
Dynamic training protocols have consistently improved subject’s strength

performance as all of the reviewed literature reported magnitude of improvement

between 2.0 (0.1 ES) and 15% (0.6 ES) (Cormie et al., 2007; Lyttle et al., 1996)

(Table 3). The magnitude of improvement is less compared to the magnitude of

change reported in the literature involving maximal strength (6.0 [0.2 ES] to 32% [1.6

ES]) and plyometric training (12 [2.5 ES] to 37% [1.9 ES]) protocols.

Dynamic training protocols have been found to be successful in improving power

performance (Table 3). Untrained (Sayers, 2007), recreational (Lyttle, Wilson,

Ostrowski, 1996; Cormie, McCaulley, & McBride, 2007), and trained subjects

(Newton et al., 2006; Wilson et al., 1993; Harris et al., 2000; Jones et al., 2001) have

benefited from dynamic training protocols. Training improvements in jumping ability

were reported in recreational and trained subjects ranging from 7.9 (0.4 ES) – 19%

and 2.6 (0.3 ES) – 17% (1.0 ES). Power output ranged from 18 – 29%, 9.0 (0.9 ES)

– 27% and 2.4 (0.8 ES) – 11% (1.0 ES) in untrained, recreational and trained

subjects respectively. From the reviewed studies, only two measured sprint

performance (Harris et al., 2000; Lyttle et al., 1996). Non significant decreases of

0.6% (0.7 ES) (Harris et al., 2000), and 1.7% (0.2 ES) (Lyttle et al., 1996) were found

in 30m and 40m sprint performance respectively.

From the reviewed dynamic training schemes, four utilised a Pmax (Newton et al.,

2006; Lyttle et al., 1996; Wilson et al., 1993; Cormie et al., 2007) and three used

high velocity with loads around 20 - 40% of 1RM (Harris et al., 2000; Jones et al.,

2001; Sayers, 2007). Pmax training schemes improved CMJ HT between 2.6 (0.3

ES) – 17% (1.0 ES) (Newton et al., 2006; Wilson et al., 1993), whereas the high

velocity training protocols improved VJ HT by 3.6% (0.5 ES) (Harris et al., 2000).

35
Table 3: Dynamic training protocols and their influence on lower body explosiveness.

Author Subjects Training Status Study length Tests Results(Effect Size)

Cormie et al., 2007 26 M Recreational 12 wk 1RM Squat ↑ 2.0%(0.1) 1RM Squat Strength

JS HT PP *↑19% (CC), *↑27% (CC) Jump Squat Height and Peak Power

Harris et al, 2000 51 M Trained 9 wk 1RM Squat *↑ 3.6%(0.5) 1RM Squat Strength

VJ HT, PP, MP, 30m Sprint *↑ 3.8%(CC), *↑ 2.4%(0.8), *↑ 2.1% (0.6) Vertical Jump Height, Peak Power,
Mean power, #↑ ~0.6%(0.7) 30m Sprint

Jones et al, 2001 26 M Trained 10 wk 1RM Squat *↑ 12%(0.7) 1RM Squat Strength

30 and 50% 1RM JS *↑ 5.9(0.4) and *↑ 12%(0.6) 30 and 50% Jump Squat

Lyttle et al,, 1996 33 M Recreational 8 wk 1RM Squat, CMJ HT *↑ 15%(0.6) 1RM Squat Strength, *↑7.9%(0.4) Counter Movement Jump Height

6 sec cycle, 40m sprint *↑ 9.0%(0.9) Peak Power Cycle, #↑1.7%(0.2) 40m Sprint

Newton et al., 2006 14 F Trained 4 wk CMJ HT ↑2.6%(0.3) Counter Movement Jump Height

MP PP #↑11(1.0), *↑ 10%(0.9) Counter Movement Peak and Mean Power

mRFD *↑ 28%(0.8) maximum Rate of Force Development

Sayers, 2007 12 OMX Untrained 12 wk 1RM LP ↑ 14%(CC) 1RM Leg Press

KE PP at 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, ↑ 18 - 29%(CC) Knee Extensor Peak Power across ranges
and 90% 1RM

Wilson et al., 1993 64 NM Trained 10 wk CMJ HT *↑ 17% (1.0) Counter Movement Jump Height

6 sec cycle PP *↑ 5.0%(0.18) cycle Peak Power

M = Male; F = Female; MX = Mixed Gender; OMX = Older Mixed Gender; NM = Not Mentioned; wk = weeks; PP = Peak Power; MP = Mean Power; VJ = Vertical Jump; CMJ = Counter Movement Jump; HT = Height; KE
= Knee Extension; JS = Jumps Squat; BM = Body Mass; RM = Repetition Maximum; mRFD = Maximum Rate of Force Development; ↑ = Increase; *↑ = Significant Increase; #↑ = Non Significant Increase; ↔ = No difference
/ No Change; *↓ = Significant Decrease; #↓ = Non Significant Decrease

36
Training frequency within the dynamic training protocols ranged from two (Lyttle et

al., 1996; Wilson et al., 1993; Cormie et al., 2007; Jones et al., 2001), three (Sayers,

2007) and four (Harris et al., 2000) days per week. Training frequency resulted in

differing results in reported jump height performance. Subjects who trained twice a

week showed the greatest improvements in CMJ HT of 7.9 (0.4 ES) - 17% (1.0 ES)

(Lyttle et al., 1996; Wilson et al., 1993).

Variations of the dynamic training protocols have been used within the literature

including, linear periodisation (Jones et al., 2001; Wilson et al., 1993) and straight

set designs (Sayers, 2007; Harris et al., 2000; Cormie et al., 2007; Lyttle et al.,

1996). These protocols have also displayed varied improvements with no protocol

being better than the other. For example Wilson and colleagues (1993) found a 17%

(1.0 ES) increases in CMJ HT after 10-weeks of Pmax training whereas Lyttle and

colleagues (1996) similarly found 7.9% (0.4 ES) in CMJ HT.

Over-Speed Training Protocols

The over-speed training protocols reported in the literature have involved five to 12

repetitions of various sprinting distances, 20 to 90 m (Kristensen et al., 2006; Tinning

& Davis, 1978; Paradisis & Cooke, 2006; Majdell & Alexander, 1991). Over-speed

training involves training at speeds that are greater than are possibly attainable by

normal biological means by way of artificial help (Majdell & Alexander, 1991).

Typical techniques include wind-assistance, downhill running, high speed treadmill

running, the use of rubber tubing, and towing by either a winch type device or motor
37
vehicle (Mero, Komi, Rusko, & Hirvonen, 1987; Girold, Calmels, Maurin, Milhau, &

Chatard, 2006). Over-speed training protocols are also referred to as supra-maximal

and assisted training. To date research utilizing over-speed stimulation has focused

on sprinting performance (Mero & Komi, 1986; Mero et al., 1987; Majdell &

Alexander, 1991; Tinning & Davis, 1978). The mechanisms behind adaptation to

over-speed are unclear but theories include increased force output during ground

contact, decreased ground contact, increased used of fast twitch muscle fibres, and

enhanced firing of the nerves to the active muscles (Mero et al., 1987; Tinning &

Davis, 1978).

From the five studies reviewed, all found significant improvements in speed

performance via various sprinting distances (Table 4). The variation of improvement

was between 0.5 – 3.0% (1.1 ES). Only two of the five researchers utilized a power

measurement, power output. Of the five studies, three had recreational subjects

(Hammett & Hey, 2003; Paradisis & Cooke, 2006; Kristensen et al., 2006), which

included the studies that tested power and two used trained subjects (Majdell &

Alexander, 1991; Tinning & Davis, 1978). Hammett and Hey (2003) were the only

researchers to utilize a machine (Howse III Speed system) to generate specific hip

and knee over-speed stimulation, whereas Kristensen et al., (2006), Tinning & Davis

(1978), Paradisis & Cooke (2006), Majdell & Alexander (1991) all used strategies

that allowed for subjects free range of movement during training, i.e. towing, pullies,

or downhill running. Irrespective of the methods used for creating the over-speed

stimulus, all appeared to improve speed of movement either through movement

velocity (Kristensen et al., 2006) or sprint time (Hammett & Hey, 2003).

38
Table 4: Over-speed training protocols and their influence on lower body explosiveness.

Author Subjects Training Status Study length Tests Results(Effect Size)

Hammett & Hey, 2003 38 MX Recreational 4 wk VJ P #↑ 1.0%(0.04) Vertical Jump Power

36.6m Sprint *↓ 2.7%(0.4) 36.6m Sprint time

Kristensen, et al., 2006 19 MX Recreational 6 wk 20m Sprint Velocity *↑ 0.5%(CC) 20m Sprint Velocity

Majdell & Alexander, 1991 18 M Trained 6 wk 40m Sprint *↓ 1.7%(0.3) 40m Sprint Time

Paradisis & Cooke, 2006 35 NM Recreational 6 wk 6 sec WG PP #↓ 0.5%(0.01) in Wingate Peak Power

35m Sprint Speed *↑ 1.1(0.15) in 35m Sprint Speed

Tinning & Davis, 1978 10 M Trained 5 wk Flying 50m Sprint *↓ 3.0%(1.1) 50m Sprint Time

M = Male; MX = Mixed Gender; NM = Not Mentioned; wk = weeks; P = Power; PP = Peak power; VJ = Vertical Jump; VEL = Velocity; ↑ = Increase; *↑ = Significant Increase; #↑ = Non Significant Increase;
*↓ = Significant Decrease; #↓ = Non Significant Decrease; CC = Couldn’t Calculate

39
Power measures used in the reviewed literature included calculated vertical jump

peak power and Wingate cycle test. There appears to be a lack of consistency of

improvement of power output using over-speed sprint training as slight or no

differences were found after four weeks (Hammett & Hey, 2003) or six weeks

(Paradisis & Cooke, 2006) of training respectively. Measures of power output were

scarce within over-speed training protocols. This highlights the need for further

investigation into the effectiveness of over-speed training on power output. No

measures of strength were used in any of the reviewed literature of this kind of

training protocol.

Mixed Methods Training Protocols

Mixed method training protocols (combination training) are based on the idea that

training with more than one type of training method at the same time (strength,

plyometric etc) may improve more desired adaptations, therefore providing a more

complete stimulus for changes in both muscle and nervous systems. In addition

such training schemes have resulted in a greater transfer of the training effect to a

wider range of performance skills, especially those relying on power and strength

(Baker, 1996; Newton & Kraemer, 1994). Two major types of combination training

exist within the literature: compound and complex training. Compound training

schemes are where resistance and plyometric exercise are performed during

separate sessions (Mihalik et al., 2008). For example, leg training is performed on

one day and then depth jumps are formed on another day. This type of training is

thought to improving the stretch reflex of a muscle while increasing contractile

proteins (Fatouros et al., 2000; Kotzamanidis et al., 2005). Complex training differs

40
by alternating between resistance exercises and biomechanically similar plyometric

exercises within the same session (Mihalik et al., 2008). Complex training is thought

to be more effective than other training schemes because of an enhanced

neuromuscular environment (Masamoto, Larson, Gates, & Faigenbaum, 2003).

Compound training protocols have shown to improve power output following differing

lengths of training from four to 12 weeks (Mihalik et al., 2008; Ingle et al., 2006)

(Table 5). The training status of the subjects within these studies ranged from

untrained (Fatouros et al., 2000), recreational (Newton et al., 2002), or trained

(Harris et al., 2000; Mihalik et al., 2008). Two groups of subjects had no prior

resistance training experience (Fatouros et al., 2000; Newton et al., 2002), one had a

minimum of one year strength training (Harris et al., 2000) and one carried out

regular plyometric training as part of their normal training (Mihalik et al., 2008). The

less trained subjects improved to a greater extent than the more trained subjects

during jumping tasks. Peak power output increased 39% (3.5 ES) during a VJ

(Fatouros et al., 2000) and jump squat performance saw a 26 - 33% increased

power output in younger males and 25 - 36% increases in older men (Newton,

Hakkinen, Hakkinen, et al., 2002). Trained subjects were also able to improve their

power output but to a lesser degree: 2.9%; 2.8% (0.5 ES); 2.6% (0.7 ES) in VJ HT,

MP and PP respectively (Harris et al., 2000) and 9.1 (0.6 ES) and 7.5% (0.4 ES)

increases in VJ HT and MP respectively (Mihalik et al., 2008). Interestingly both

Fatouros et al., (2000) and Newton et al., (2002) both used a non linear approach,

daily undulation periodised protocol, with their training programmes whereas Harris

and colleagues (2000) and Mihalik et al., (2008) both used a straight set design.

Moreover Fatouros et al., (2000) and Newton, et al., (2002) used the same training

41
Table 5: Mixed method training protocols and their influence on lower body explosiveness.

Author Subjects Training Status Study length Tests Results(Effect Size)

Complex

Ingle et al., 2006 47 M Untrained 12 wk 10RM Squat, 30 sec WG PP *↑ 49%(2.2) 10RM Squat Strength, *↑ 3.6%(0.2) Wingate Peak Power

VJ HT, 40m Sprint *↑ 5.2%(0.2) Vertical Jump Height, *↓ 3.1%(0.4) 40m Sprint

Lyttle et al., 1996 33 M Recreational 8 wk 1RM Squat, CMJ, 6 sec cycle *↑15%(0.8) 1RM Squat Strength, *↑13%(0.5) Counter Movement Jump Height

PP, 40m Sprint *↑ 7.8%(0.6) Peak Power, ↓ 0.8%(0.19) 40m Sprint

Marques & Gonzalez-Badillo, 2006 16 M Trained 12 wk 4RM Squat, CMJ HT *↑ 43%(2.4) 4RM Squat Strength, *↑ 13%(0.9) Counter Movement Jump Height

30m Sprint *↓ 3.1%(0.7) 30m Sprint

Mihalik et al, 2008 31 MX Trained 4 wk VJ HT MP *↑ 5.4%(0.3) *↑ 4.8%(0.2) Vertical Jump Height and Mean Power

Compound

Fatouros et al, 2000 41 M Untrained 12 wk 1RM Squat VJ HT PP *↑29%(9.1) 1RM Squat Strength, *↑ 39%(3.5) Vertical Jump Peak Power,
*↑15%(2.1) Vertical Jump Height

Harris et al, 2000 51 M Trained 9 wk 1RM Squat, *↑ 12%(1.4) 1RM Squat Strength

VJ HT, MP, PP *↑ 2.9%(CC), 2.8%(0.5), 2.6%(0.7) Vertical Jump Height, Mean and Peak
Power
30m Sprint
*↑ 1.4%(0.7) 30m Sprint

Mihalik et al, 2008 31 MX Trained 4 wk VJ HT MP *↑ 9.1%(0.6) , *↑ 7.5%(0.4) Vertical Jump Height and Mean Power

Newton et al, 2002 91 O and Y M Recreational 10 wk Iso Squat, *↑ 23%(1.3) (Younger Men) and *↑ 40%(0.5) (Older Men) Isometric Squat,

JS 30 and 60% 1RM *↑ 33%(CC), and *↑ 26%(CC) (Younger Men), *↑ 36%(CC), and *↑ 25%(CC)
(Older Men) 30, 60% 1RM Jump Squats

M = Male; MX = Mixed Gender; O = Older; Y = Younger; wk = weeks; PP = Peak Power; MP = Mean Power; VJ = Vertical Jump; CMJ= Counter Movement Jump; JS = Jump Squat; Iso = Isometric; RM = Repetition Maximum;
HT = Height; WG = Wingate; ↑ = Increase; *↑ = Significant Increase; *↓ = Significant Decrease; CC = Couldn’t Calculate.

42
frequency during their research of three days a week compared to either two days

(Harris et al., 2000) and four day (Mihalik et al., 2008).

Compound training protocols have also provided greater improvements in

performance measures, when compared to single focus training protocols. For

example, Harris et al., (2000) found subjects performing a combination of high force

and high velocity training improved equally or better in VJ HT (2.9%), MP (2.8% [0.5

ES]), and PP (2.6% [0.7 ES]), compared to either a high force (2.0, 3.0 [0.6 ES], and

3.0% [0.6 ES] respectively), or high power groups (3.8, 2.4 [0.8 ES), and 2.1% [0.6

ES] respectively). Similarly Fatouros et al., (2000) found significant differences in

their compound group between both a plyometric and strength training groups of

15% (2.1 ES) and 39% (3.5 ES) in VJ HT and VJ PP respectively compared to 11%

(2.6 ES) and 17% (1.7 ES), and 9.0% (3.3 ES) and 25% (2.9 ES) improvement of the

plyometric and strength training groups respectively.

Researchers investigating the benefits of complex training protocols on power output

have also found favourable results from training in this manner (Table 5). The

training age of the subjects ranged from untrained (Ingle et al., 2006), recreational

(Lyttle et al., 1996) and trained (Mihalik et al., 2008; Marques & Gonzalez-Badillo,

2006). The trained subjects improved their jumping ability by 5.4 (0.3 ES) -13% (0.9

ES) during CMJ and VJ jumping while the less trained subjects improved similarly

between 5.2 (0.2 ES) – 13% (0.5 ES) during CMJ and VJ performance. Cycle PP

was also improved in the less trained subjects between 3.6 (0.2 ES) – 7.8% (0.6

ES).

43
Training frequency seemed to have little effect on performance, as those

researchers that reported the greatest gains (Lyttle et al., 1996; Marques &

Gonzalez-Badillo, 2006) trained both twice, and three times per week. Untrained

subjects appeared to improve their performance when a straight set design was

utilised (Lyttle et al., 1996), whereas more trained subjects benefited more from a

mixed linear and undulating training protocols (Marques & Gonzalez-Badillo, 2006).

Comparisons between complex training protocols and other methods have found

favourable results. Complex training has been shown to be just as effective as both

maximal power training (Lyttle et al., 1996) and compound training (Mihalik et al.,

2008). However within the current studies complex training was not seen as

superior to these other methods with increases of 13% (0.5 ES) CMJ, and 7.8% (0.6

ES) 6-sec cycle PP in complex training compared to 7.9% (0.4 ES) CMJ and 9.0%

(0.9 ES) 6-sec cycle PP after maximal power training (Lyttle et al., 1996). Compared

to compound training increases in power performance after complex training was

found to be similar and these improvements increased at similar rates, VJ 5.4% (0.3

ES), MP 4.8% (0.2 ES) for complex and VJ 9.1% (0.6 ES) and MP 7.5% (0.4 ES)

after compound training (Mihalik et al., 2008).

Summary
Many types of training protocols have been shown to be beneficial for improving

lower body explosiveness, including: maximal strength, plyometric, dynamic, over-

speed, complex, and compound. From these reviewed training methods all but one

training method, maximal strength, was shown to clearly improve power output.

Therefore speculating on which method of training protocol is best for developing

lower body explosiveness would be premature. The type of training protocol

44
implemented by the conditioning professional should by specific to the goals / needs

of the athlete. For example, if strength needs to be improved then a maximal

strength protocol should be used but if the athlete wants to jump higher, a plyometric

protocol maybe more appropriate.

There are many combinations, from the reviewed literature, that are possible within

combined method training including; strength and plyometric, strength and dynamic,

and strength and over-speed protocols. However, no research was found on the

effects of a strength and over-speed training protocol. Moreover the research

related to over-speed training has only been investigated in a horizontal plane and

mainly on the effect on sprint speed. What effect might there be of a vertical over-

speed protocol or a combined strength and over-speed protocol on various

performance measures?

Another issue found within the current literature is the wide use of non active control

groups. Using controls of this nature in essence is like comparing the active against

the inactive or less active versus the more active. In order to compare the

effectiveness of different training protocols future training studies should measure

training interventions against controls of similar training volumes and against another

training protocol/s.

45
Introduction

The ability to generate force quickly (power) is paramount during actions involving

changes in direction, sprinting, and jumping (McClenton et al., 2008). As such,

power training has received intense investigation over the years to aid athletes in

running faster, jumping higher and throwing further. As illustrated by the force-

velocity-power relationship, maximal power output is obtained when an optimal

combination of force and velocity have been reached (Kraemer & Newton, 2000).

Researchers have used this principle to improve power output by designing training

strategies that either maximizes strength (force) (Brown et al, 2007) or the speed of

the contraction (velocity) (Cormie, McCaulley & McBride, 2007) or both (Marques &

Gonzalez-Badillo, 2006). However, the load, and therefore the velocity, that

maximizes power output has been inconsistent, with loads ranging between 0-70%

of one repetition maximum (1RM), (Cormie et al., 2007; Siegel et al., 2002) and

appears to be movement specific.

In the pursuit of improving lower body power output, many forms of training have

been utilized and proven successful. These include; slow velocity (Brown et al,

2007) and fast velocity training (McClenton et al., 2008), ballistic/plyometric protocols

(Kotzamanidis, 2006; Markovic et al., 2007), over-speed training (Kristensen, Tillaar,

& Ettema, 2006; Hammett & Hey, 2003), as well as complex (Marques & Gonzalez-

Badillo, 2006), and compound training protocols (Mihalik et al., 2008; Fatouros et al.,

2000). These training methods aim to improve either singular (slow / fast velocity,

ballistic/dynamic, or over-speed) or multiple (Baker, 1996; Newton & Kraemer, 1994)

(complex and compound) power variables, i.e. slow velocity strength, high velocity
46
strength, rate of force development, the stretch shortening cycle, and inter-muscular

co-ordination and skill (Newton & Kraemer, 1994). Researchers are in agreement on

the effective use of combined protocols, compound or complex, as a means to

improve power output (Newton, Rogers, Voleck, Hakkinen, & Kraemer, 2006;

Markovic et al., 2007; Fatouros et al., 2000). However, since many protocols are

used, researchers have not yet determined the “ideal” training stimulus in which

power production is best improved by combined protocols, and furthermore, whether

there is indeed a “ideal” stimulus or simply a plethora of combinations dependant on

the athlete, phase, and competition specific variables (e.g. implement, bodyweight

etc).

It has been stated that if athletes want to improve high-velocity force (power) then

they should perform exercises at high movement speeds (Blazevich & Jenkins,

2002). Faster than “normal” movement velocities can be achieved when artificial

assistance is given from either, towing, bungee apparatuses etc (Majdell &

Alexander, 1991). This assisted speed stimulation has been shown to improve

athlete velocity during sprinting (Hammett & Hey, 2003; Kristensen et al., 2006) and

swimming activities (Girold, Calmels, Maurin, Milhau, & Chatard, 2006). Sporting

activities are not only limited to the horizontal plane, but can also occur in the vertical

plane as well, e.g. jumping. To date no attention has been given to an assisted

velocity stimulus in the vertical plane.

Since many sporting codes require a degree of both strength and velocity and high

movement speeds are desirable for the development of power, the investigation of a

combined strength and high-velocity stimulus is warranted. Therefore the aim of this
47
investigation was to compare the effectiveness of a combined strength and assisted

jumping stimulus (fast) against a similar training stimulus, i.e. combined strength and

plyometric vertical jumping (slow). Moreover, this study will aim to build upon

previous research within the area of combined training methods, which are

associated with greater improvements in power output and functional performance

compared to single method designs. If encouraging results are observed, this may

provide an alternative or compliment the standard training practice of a traditional

combined strength and plyometric exercise stimulus.

48
Methods
Design
This randomized longitudinal study comprised of seven weeks training split into one,

three week base strength phase and one, four week intervention phase (figure 1).

Subjects were pair – matched (as practically possible) with respect to their 3RM

squat strength, 20-metre sprint, and vertical jump test results of the second testing

session (see below). Subjects were then randomly allocated to either a strength and

plyometric jumping (SVJ) or a strength and assisted plyometric jumping (SAJ) group.

Subjects were tested during a familiarization session before the commencement of

the study (PRE1), during week three of the baseline strength phase (PRE2), and at

the completion of the training intervention during week nine (POST1). The tests

comprised of a vertical jump (power), a 20m sprint assessment (speed), and a 3RM

squat test (strength), in that order. Each test was separated by 10 minutes of rest.

The protocols and methods used in this study were approved by the Waikato

Institute of Technology’s (WINTEC) Human Ethics Research Committee prior to the

commencement of this study (see Appendix 1).

Week 1 Week 2-4 Week 4 Week 5-8 Week 9

Testing and Baseline Testing Intervention Testing

Familiarisation Training Training

Figure 1: Research design in chronological order outlining testing, baseline and intervention phases.

49
Subjects
Seventeen male athletes were recruited from local sports clubs, gyms and students

from WINTEC and agreed to participate in this study. Subjects were recruited

through either an advertisement flyer (see Appendix 2) or via recruitment

presentations. Subject characteristics are displayed in Table 6. All subjects had at

least six months prior weight training experience and currently training regularly

using heavy loads, i.e. ≤8RM. Subjects were excluded if they had current injuries to

the lower back, hip, or knees and screened via a health screening form (see

Appendix 3). Moreover subjects not completing 80% or more of the intervention

were excluded from statistical analysis. All subjects were informed of the procedures

of the study, through an information sheet (see Appendix 4), and gave their written

informed consent prior to the studies commencement (see Appendix 5). During the

course of the study 17 subjects withdrew for various reasons; 12 from non

compliance, three from individual sport injuries, and two from aggravating old

injuries. The 17 recruited subjects participate in a variety of sports including; rugby

(7), recreational resistance training (7), martial arts (2), parkour (1).

Table 6: Characteristics of subjects (means ± SD).

No of Age (years) Weight Height Training

subjects (kg) (cm) Experience

(months)

SVJ 8 20 ± 2 80 ± 14 177 ± 11 26 ± 17

SAJ 9 22 ± 4 88 ± 17 177 ± 8 20 ± 24

50
Training Protocols

Strength Training Protocol

All subjects completed the same strength training protocol during the seven week

training period. Subjects completed two supervised lower body resistance training

sessions per week and on average two other training sessions with their sporting

code. Each supervised training session was separated by a minimum of 48 hours to

ensure recovery between trainings. All sessions, both training and testing, began

with a standardised warm up consisting of five minutes of light jogging and self

directed stretching. Each training session comprised of four of the following

exercises;

Back Squats – as outlined by Earle and Baechle (2000) this exercise began with

placing an Olympic bar in a high bar position (position at the base of the neck resting

on the posterior deltoids). Subjects positioned their feet approximately shoulder

width apart. Whilst maintaining a neutral spine (neither hunched nor excessively

extended), chest up and out, and head looking slightly up subjects began to flex at

the hips and knees to lower themselves to a parallel position (thighs parallel to floor)

whilst maintaining heel contact with the floor. Once subjects reached the parallel

position or the heels of their feet lifted off the ground they began to extend their hips

and knees to raise themselves to a full standing position.

Box Squats – This exercise was performed the same as Back Squats except at the

bottom of the movement (parallel position) subjects sat on a box. The box height

was set approximately 900 knee flexion. During the time subjects were sitting on the

box they were instructed not to relax their neutral spin and not to rock back to gain

momentum for the lifting of the load.

51
Front Squats - as outlined by Earle and Baechle (2000) this exercise is similar to the

Back Squat with one difference. The bar was placed on top of the anterior deltoids,

instead of the posterior deltoids, using either using a parallel (hands were placed on

the bar in an pronated grip slightly wider than should width and upper arm parallel to

floor) or crossed (arms crossed in front of chest using an open grip on the bar to

maintain placement and elbows parallel to floor) arm position.

½ Squats - this exercise was similar to the Back Squat with one difference. While

lowering the bar and themselves, instead of lowering to a parallel thigh position,

subjects only needed to lower to a knee angle of approximately 900.

Static Lunges – as outlined by Earle and Baechle (2000) this exercise began by

placing an Olympic bar in a high bar position and taking a large step forward into a

split stance. Subjects then lowered the trailing leg until both knees were

approximately 900. Once the 900 had been reached subjects extended the front

knee to return to the split stance position. Subjects were instructed to keep the front

knee over the front foot and maintain a perpendicular body position to the floor.

Once the desired repetitions were completed on one leg subjects changed the lead

leg to the trailing leg.

Deadlift - as outlined by Earle and Baechle (2000) this exercise began with subject’s

feet in a shoulder to hip width stance approximately 1/3 under the bar. Subjects

began with their knees and hips flexed in a forward facing position with a neutral

back, chest up and out, head in line with spine, heels flat on floor, shoulders over the

bar, arms were in a fully extended position with hands slightly wider than shoulder

width on the bar. Subjects began to lift by extending the hips and knees while

keeping elbows fully extended, head looking slightly up, and back in a neutral

position. Subjects were instructed to keep the bar close to the shins and as the bar

52
moved passed the knees to move the hips forward. At the top position, standing,

subjects were also instructed not to excessively extend the back but to maintain a

normal erect position. Subjects then lowered the bar under control to the beginning

position. Those subjects with poor hand grip were allowed to used hand grips in

order to lift maximally.

Clean Pulls - as outlined by Newton (2006), this exercise begins in a Deadlift starting

position. The movement is the same for the Deadlift except towards the end of the

movement subjects “jumped” explosively, maintaining toe contact with the floor.

Subjects were also instructed to maintain “stiff arms” with as little flexion as possible.

Subjects with poor hand grip were allowed to use hand grips.

Clean Pulls from a Hang – as outlined by Newton (2006), this exercise is the last part

of the Clean Pulls, beginning from a semi upright (hanging) position. The bar was

positioned atop of boxes to make it easier for subjects to initially lift the bar to begin

the exercise. The exercise began after subjects lifted the bar from the boxes and

positioning the bar mid-way up the thighs. Subjects were instructed to explosively

extend their hips, and knees to effectively jump maintaining toe contact with the floor.

Subjects were also instructed to maintain “stiff arms” with as little flexion as possible.

Subjects with poor hand grip were allowed to use hand grips.

The training protocol and exercise order is outlined in table 7. The volume of training

completed by the subjects over the seven week study period ranged from three to

four sets of a three to five RM (repetition maximum) load. The sets and repetitions

were completed using an undulating periodised training model (see table 7). This

was chosen because undulating type programmes have shown greater increases in

power and strength adaptations compared to straight sets and linear type periodised

protocols (Rhea, Ball, Phillips, & Burkett, 2002).

53
 During the baseline training phase subjects were instructed not to perform exercises

to failure but instead to lower training loads to approximately 80% effort. However

during the intervention phases, subjects were instructed to lift maximally and to

failure. Throughout this study subjects were still permitted to continue with their

normal upper body training but no lower body training was allowed.

Interventions

Plyometric Group Training

Eight subjects completed the strength and vertical jumping protocol (SVJ). The

subjects completed their resistance and jumping exercises in a contrasting manner

(refers to a workout that involves the use of alternating sets between heavy and light

resistances [Duthie, Young, & Aitken, 2002]). Six jumps were performed after the

first three sets (for a total of six sets of jumps for each day) of the back squats and

lunges during day 1 and after box squats and dead lifts during day 2.

Table 7: Training exercises, intensities and rest for the two protocols over each of the seven week
periods.

Day 1 Day 2

Exercises Clean Pulls Clean Pull from Hang

Back Squats Box Squat

Front Squats ½ Squats

Static Lunges Dead Lifts

Base Strength Phase Intervention Phase

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7

Intensity for 3 x 4RM 3 x 3RM 3 x 4RM 3 x 3RM 3 x 5RM 4 x 4RM 3 x 4RM

exercises

Rest periods 3 min 3 min 3 min 3 min 3 min 3 min 3 min

54
Subjects were instructed to jump as high and as quickly as possible with a

countermovement and minimal rest between jumps. The rest period between a

strength set and the plyometric jump set was 90 seconds. Although researchers

have investigated the optimal rest length between complex training sets (4 minutes)

(Comyns, Harrison, Hennessy, & Jensen, 2006), in “real life” this is unrealistic. That

is, if a strength training session comprising of four exercises with alternating power

exercises with three sets of six repetitions, it would take in excess of 70 minutes (not

including a warm up, warm down, and exercise time). Therefore performing the

jumping exercise mid-way through a typical strength training rest period i.e. 3-mins,

makes a training session that is approximately 55 min long and more appropriate in

“real life”.

The SVJ protocol served as the control for this study. The decision to use the

plyometric jumping group as the control was due to the combination of strength and

plyometric training being common practice when developing explosive power in

activities involving the SSC, such as jumping and sprinting (Newton et al., 2006;

Markovic et al., 2007; Fatouros et al., 2000). The authors want to test the

experimental procedures (assisted jumping) against more traditional procedures of

power development.

Assisted Group Training

While completing the strength and assisted jumping protocol (SAJ), subjects (n=9)

completed the same contrasting training programme as outlined in the plyometric

jumping protocol section, i.e. six jumps performed after each of the first three sets of

core exercises only. The jumping procedure was identical to the SVJ group differing

only by the subjects wearing a climbing harness / weight belt attached to a 41inch

55
long strength band (Iron Woody LLC, Montana) via karabiners. The karabiners were

attached to the harness at each leg strap just behind the adjusting buckle and also

attached to the strength band. The strength bands were attached to a power rack in

the middle of the top support beams at a height of 2.1 m. An assistance level of -

25% bodyweight was chosen for the SAJ group. To reach a 25% level of assistance

subjects were weighed at the commencement of each training session to determine

the type of strength band required. For heavier and taller subjects a heavier/stronger

tensioned band was needed (medium #4 band) and a lighter/weaker tensioned band

was needed (super mini #2 or small #3 band) for shorter or lighter subjects. If the

assistance was too great or not enough the leg straps of the climbing harnesses

were adjustable and could be loosened off (lessening the assistance) or tightened

(increasing the assistance) in order to reach the desired -25% body weight of

assistance.

Testing Procedures

Vertical Jump Test

An adjustable vertical jump board, measuring to the nearest cm, (Vertech Inc,

Questtek Corp., Northridge, CA) was positioned next to a piezoelectric force plate

(Kistler Instruments Inc, Winterthur, Switzerland.) (Mihalik et al., 2008). After

subjects marked their starting heights, by reaching as far as they could up the

vertical board and keeping their heels flat on the ground, they performed three warm-

up jumps at a sub maximal effort. Subjects then performed three maximal effort

jumps (with counter movement and arm swing) using a 2-foot take off and landing.

Each effort was separated by three minutes of rest and the highest jump was used

for analysis (Potteiger et al., 1999, and Mihalik et al., 2008) (see Appendix 6).

56
Sprint Test Procedures
A 20m sprint test was used to measure horizontal speed and acceleration prior to

and after experimental procedures. Subjects ran the 20m sprint distance in an

indoor facility without the use of spikes. Subjects began from a standing static

starting position and measured by infra red light cells (Speedlight, Swift Performance

Equipment, Lismore, Australia) (Blazevich & Jenkins, 2002). The timing lights were

placed at 0, 10, and 20m intervals to gather speed data of the sprint test. Before the

maximal sprint test subjects were give three sub-maximal trials at self estimated

intensities of 50, 75 and 90% efforts. After which subjects completed three maximal

effort trials separated by five minutes rest and the fastest time was used for analysis

(Harrison, Keane, & Coglan, 2004) (see Appendix 6).

3RM Squat Test

The squat assessment was performed using procedures reported by Anderson,

Sforzo, and Sigg (2008) for 1-3RM squat testing. After the standardised warm up,

subjects performed the back squat exercise in a power rack. An Olympic bar was

placed upon the upper back approx around the C-7 vertebrae. Subjects performed

the downward phase of the squat until the knee reached a 90o angle and then

returned to a standing position. The depth of each subject’s squat was marked with

tape. For the lifts to be deemed successful, the subjects needed to lower the bar to

the position of the tape when an audible cue from the tester was heard. The foot

placement was at shoulder width and then marked, with tape, for each additional lift.

Subjects were given up to six attempts and progressively increasing their load during

each set until their 3RM was reached (see Appendix 6). Subjects were given three

(minimum) to five minutes (maximum) rest between attempts.

57
From the 3RM squat strength test a predicted 1RM value was attained using the

Epley formula. This method has been reported to correlate well compared to 1RM

tests, r = 92 (Wood, Maddalozzo, & Harter, 2002). Testing the exact 1RM would be

more accurate over predictive methods, however applying maximal loads to subjects

who may not be accustomed to such intensities may result in injury, therefore this

predictive method (using lighter loads) was used to minimise the injury risk while still

acquiring accurate 1RM values (McIntosh, 2005).

Data Analysis
The resultant ground force reaction (GFR) data was collected at 500 Hz, from a 15

second capture time, and passed through a AC/DC converter (Type 5606A, Kistler

Instruments Inc, Winterthur, Switzerland.) and analysed using force interpreting

software (Bio Ware 2, ver 3.06c, Kristal Systems Inc, Switzerland). The force data

was imported into a spreadsheet (Microsoft Office Excel 2007, Microsoft

Corporation) for further analysis (see Appendix 7). From the force data, subject’s

body weights were calculated by averaging the vertical force trace over 200 samples

during a period of motionlessness prior to the vertical jump. The GFR data was used

to determine the various variables of interest, including: total and average force, rate

of force development (RFD), velocity (peak, average, and takeoff), and power (peak

and average).

The process for calculating power and velocity from the force-time data is outlined in

Bartlett (1997). Firstly the original force-time curve was normalized by subtracting

subject’s body weight from the force data. This was then converted into an

58
acceleration-time curve by dividing the normalized force by subject’s body mass

(body weight / 9.81 (gravity)). Secondly, the acceleration-time curve was numerically
𝑡𝑡2
integrated to find the velocity-time curve using the formulae, ∫𝑡𝑡1 𝑎𝑎 ▲t = v2 - v1 for

each data point. Finally power was calculated from multiplying the initial force by

velocity (see Appendix 7).

Rate of force development was calculated from the peak force developed during the

concentric phase of the jump (from the point at which the change in velocity

becomes positive (i.e., end of the countermovement) to the point at which peak

concentric force occurred before takeoff [Cormie, McBride, & McCaulley, 2007]) and

determined as the change in force divided by the change in time taken to develop

the force. Peak force (PF), peak power (PP), peak velocity (PV), were determined

as the maximal value achieved during the concentric phase of the jump. Mean force

(MF), power (MP), and velocity (MV) were calculated as the average values during

the concentric part of the jump, i.e. point where change in velocity becomes positive

to the point of take off. Relative force (RF) and power were calculated from dividing

the PF and PV by the subject’s body mass (from the averaged 200 force plate

samples). Take off velocity was deemed to be the first point where the force-time

record from each jump zeroed.

Statistical Analysis
To make inferences about the effect being true about the population, the uncertainty

has been expressed as 95% confidence limits (CL) and as the likelihood of the true

value of the effect represented a beneficial, trivial, or harmful change (Hopkins,

2002).

59
In order to assess the magnitudes of the effect between the two experimental

training protocols with respect to VJ, 20 m sprint, 1RM, and kinetic variables, a

spreadsheet for the analysis of a pre-post controlled trial with adjustment for a

predictor (Hopkins, 2006) was used. The spreadsheet was used to log transform the

raw results into a standardized effect unit and interpreted using the Cohen scale of

magnitudes for standardized differences in the mean. The Cohen scale is

represented by 0.2 (small), 0.6 (moderate), 1.2 (large), 2.0 (very large), and 4.0

(extremely large) effect sizes (ES) (Hopkins, 2009) and have been used to quantify

the differences between conditions.

When results were not unclear, the probabilities of the reported effects were

qualitatively quantified using the following descriptors developed by Hopkins (2002):

• <1%, almost certainly not

• <5%, very unlikely

• <25%, unlikely / probably not

• <75%, possibly / possibly not

• >75%, likely / probably

• >95%, very likely

• >99%, almost certain

A result was deemed unclear if its confidence interval overlapped the threshold for

substantiveness (i.e. the smallest worthwhile effect); that is, if the effect could be

substantially positive, trivial and negative, or beneficial and harmful (Batterham &

Hopkins, 2006). The smallest worthwhile standardized change was set at 0.20

(Cohen, 1988), therefore changes below this threshold were interpreted as trivial.

60
In order to assess the magnitude of the effect within both training protocols with

respect to vertical jump, 10 and 20m sprint performance, and 1RM squat strength a

spreadsheet for the analysis of a post-only crossover trial, with adjustment for a

predictor was used (Hopkins, 2006). The interpretation of the results was conducted

in the same manner as mentioned above.

In order to compare the training effects between the groups with respect to the

difference within subject ability (i.e. was there a greater training effect between the

groups in subjects who were better performers, i.e. subjects who could jump higher,

sprint faster, or lift more etc), trend lines between changes in post and baseline

values were plotted. The above mentioned spreadsheet did this automatically.

From the trend lines various point of interest were identified. The spreadsheet was

then adjusted to the point of interested and analyzed in the same manner as above.

Correlations between improved jump height and the improvements in the measured

variables of peak force, peak velocity, peak power, predicted 1RM squat strength,

and maximum rate of force development were calculated using the Pearson’s

product moment method (Hopkins, 2000). Correlation values were represented by 0

– 0.1 (trivial), 0.1 – 0.3 (small), 0.3 – 0.5 (moderate), 0.5 – 0.7 (large), 0.7 – 0.9 (very

large), and 0.9 – 1.0 (nearly perfect) (Hopkins, 2000) relationship and have been

used to quantify the relationships between variables.

61
Results
Training Protocols
There were some clear differences between the SVJ and the SAJ jumping protocols.

The SAJ protocol was found to have a mean maximum velocity during a jump of 3.1

m.s-1 (± 0.4 m.s-1 SD) compared to the SVJ protocol of 2.6 m.s-1 (± 0.2 m.s-1 SD).

The difference between the two jumping protocols was very large at 18% (± 12%

SD). Similarly, the difference in take off velocity between the two jumping protocols

was also very large, 20% (± 13% SD). The SAJ protocol had a mean take off

velocity of 3.0 m.s-1 (0.5 m.s-1 SD) compared to the SVJ protocol of 2.5 (± 0.2 m.s-1

SD). There were unclear differences in the two jumping protocols with respect with

maximum force output. The SAJ protocol had a mean maximum force output of

1013 N (± 180 N SD) compared the SVJ protocol maximum force output of 1091 N

(± 362 N SD). The between protocol difference was 4.6% (± 25% SD).

Vertical Jump
There were trivial differences in the SVJ and SAJ groups between their vertical jump

ability before the training intervention (pre-2), 51 cm (± 7.9 cm SD) (SVJ) and 49 cm

(± 7.6 cm SD) (SAJ). At the completion of the training both training groups improved

their mean jumping performance by 1.6 cm or 3.9%; ±6.6% (SVJ) and 3.3 cm or

6.8%; 3.5% (SAJ) (figure 2). This was seen as a possible small and a likely small

effect with the SVJ and SAJ groups respectively. However the qualitative analysis of

the difference between the groups was unclear.

62
 65

60
Jump Height (cm)

55
SAJ

50
SVJ

45

40
Pre 2 Post
Time of Test

Figure 2: Mean (±SD) vertical jump performance of recreationally trained subjects before (pre-2) and
after (post) four weeks of either a strength and vertical jump (SVJ) or a strength and assisted vertical
jump (SAJ) training intervention.

15

10
Change in Jump Height (%)

5 SVJ
SAJ
SVJ Trendline
0 SAJ Trendline
35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70

-5

-10 Baseline (pre – 2) Jump Height (cm)

Figure 3: Percentage change (%) in jump height following four weeks of either a strength and vertical
jump (SVJ) or strength and assisted vertical jump (SAJ) training protocol intervention in recreationally
trained subjects with fitted trend lines.

63
Using the fitted trend lines (figure 3) we investigated the difference between the

groups at 43, 50, 55, and 60 cm jumping ability. An unclear effect was found at 43

cm but at 50.0 cm we found a small possible effect of 1.5% (± 2.7%). At 55.0 cm we

found a likely moderate effect of 3.1% (± 3.2%), and at 60 cm we found a likely

moderate effect of 4.8% (± 4.5%) of the SAJ group compared to the SVJ group. In

addition the point at which results become clear between the groups was at a 50 cm

jump height. These data suggest that the SAJ protocol was better suited to subjects

who could already jump in excess of 50 cm and was seen to be more effective than

the SVJ protocol to improve jump height in subjects who could already jump well≥(

50 cm).

Kinetic Variables
The mean baseline (pre – 2) performance measures of peak, average, relative force

and power, peak, mean and take off velocity, and maximal rate of force development

for the two training groups are presented in table 8. The analysis and between

group differences of these variables are shown in table 9.

Although no meaningful differences were found between the groups with respect to

force measures there were however clear differences when analyzed with trend lines

(figures 4, 5, 6). When peak force was investigated at 900, 1000, 1100, 1200, and

1300 N between the groups unclear results were found at 900 and 1000 N. However

at 1100, 1200, and 1300 N there were likely large effects of 26% ± 30%, very likely

large effects of 30% ± 25%, and very likely very large effects of 35% ± 23%

respectively. Mean force was further analyzed at 700, 750, 800, 850, and 900 N and

found unclear results between 700 and 800 N.

64
Table 8: Baseline (pre – 2) performance (mean ± SD) (pre-2) and differences between the strength
and vertical jump (SVJ) or strength and assisted vertical jump (SAJ), of peak (Max), mean, and
relative peak force and power, peak, average, and take off velocity, and maximal rate of force
development (mRFD).
SVJ SAJ Between Group
Difference (SAJ
to SVJ)
Force

Max (N) 1097 (188) 1411 (240) 29%

Mean (N) 751 (126) 975 (141) 30%

Relative Peak Force (N.kg-1) 13.66 (2.6) 16.42 (4.2) 20%

Velocity

Max (m.s-1) 2.92 (0.3) 2.85 (0.3) - 2.4%

Mean (m.s-1) 1.62 (0.2) 1.64 (0.2) 1.2%

Take off Velocity (m.s-1) 2.73 (0.3) 2.68 (0.3) - 1.8%

Power

Max (W) 4587 (822) 5172 (929) 6.9%

Mean (W) 2327 (419) 2733 (429) 17%

Relative Peak Power (W.kg-1) 57.01 (10) 59.27 (9.5) 3.9%

Rate of force development

mRFD (N.s-1) 2262 (1419) 2830 (1745) 25%

There were however clear likely very large effects of 24% ± 27% and 25% ± 27% at

850 and 900 N respectively. Moreover relative peak force was further analyzed at

12, 13, 14, 16, and 17 N.kg-1 and found unclear effects at 12 and 13 N.kg-1. Likely

large effects were found at 14 and 16 N.kg-1 of 19% ± 21% and 23% ± 25%

respectively and a likely very large effect was found at 17 N.kg-1 of 25 ± 30%. There

was no meaningful difference between the groups in terms of kinetic responses

although the SAJ group did show trends of greater improvement or at least not

worsening as much as the SVJ group.

65
Table 9: Changes within the mean, difference between the groups, confidence limits, and qualitative
outcomes between the strength and vertical jump (SVJ) and strength and assisted vertical jump (SAJ)
training groups in various kinetic variables.

Mean % change (± SD)

SVJ SAJ Difference Confidence Qualitative

between the limits (%) outcome
groups
Force

Max (N) -10% (20) -2.3% (23) 8.6% -12 to 34 unclear

Ave (N) -10% (16) -4.8% (23) 6.0% -13 to 29 unclear

Relative Peak -9.9% (21) -3.7% (24) 6.9% -14 to 33 unclear

Force (N/kg)

Velocity

Max (m.s-1) 1.6% (3.3) 3.4% (9.4) 1.9% -5.2 to 9.4 unclear

Ave (m.s-1) -0.2% (5.5) 1.2% (5.9) 1.4% -4.6 to 7.7 unclear

Take off Velocity 1.9% (3.6) 3.1% (9.6) 1.2% -6.1 to 9.0 unclear
(m.s-1)

Power

Max (W) -1.5% (9.3) 4.4% (12) 6.0% -5.0 to 18 unclear

Ave (W) -4.0% (10) 0.5% (13) 4.6% -6.8 to 18 unclear

Relative Peak -1.4% (10) 2.9% (11) 4.4% -6.6 to 17 unclear

Power (W.kg-1)

Rate of Force Development

mRFD (N.s-1) 9.1% (167) 15% (52) 5.0% -59 to 168 unclear

66
 30

20
Change in Peak Force (%)

10

0
700 900 1100 1300 1500 1700 SVJ
-10
SAJ
SVJ Trendline
-20
SAJ Trendline
-30
Baseline (pre - 2) Peak Force (N)
-40

-50

-60
Figure 4: Percentage change (%) in peak force following four weeks of either a strength and vertical
jump (SVJ) or strength and assisted vertical jump (SAJ) training protocol intervention in recreationally
trained subjects with fitted regression lines.

30

20

10
Change in Mean Force (%)

0
500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
-10
SVJ
-20
SAJ
-30 SVJ Trendline

SAJ Trendline
-40

-50 Baseline (pre – 2) Mean Force (N)

-60

Figure 5: Percentage change (%) in mean force following four weeks of either a strength and vertical
jump (SVJ) or strength and assisted vertical jump (SAJ) training protocol intervention in recreationally
trained subjects with fitted trend lines.

67
 30

20

10
Change in Relative Peak Force (%)

0
5 10 15 20 25 30
-10

-20

-30 SVJ
SAJ
-40
SVJ Trendline

-50 SAJ Trendline

-60
Baseline (pre – 2) Relative Peak Force (N.kg-1)

Figure 6: Percentage change (%) in relative maximum force (Rel) following four weeks of either a
strength and vertical jump (SVJ) or strength and assisted vertical jump (SAJ) training protocol
intervention in recreationally trained subjects with fitted trend lines.

The magnitude of difference between the groups with respect to power variables was

found to be unclear but further analysis using trend lines revealed clear trends within

peak power (figure 7). Upon further analysis at 4000, 4500, 5000, 5500, and 5750

W, we found likely large effects at 4000, 4500, and 5500 W of 12% ± 15%, 11% ±

12%, and 10% ± 13% respectively, while only a likely moderate effect was found at

5000 of 11% ± 10%. Analysis at 5750 W revealed an unclear effect. No other

trends were found between the groups with respect to mean and relative peak

power.

68
 35

30

25 SVJ

20 SAJ
Change in Peak Power (%)

SVJ Trendline
15
SAJ Trendline
10

0
2500 3500 4500 5500 6500 7500
-5

-10

-15
Baseline (pre – 2) Peak Power (W)

Figure 7: Percentage change (%) in peak power following four weeks of either a strength and vertical
jump (SVJ) or strength and assisted vertical jump (SAJ) training protocol intervention in recreationally
trained subjects with fitted regression lines.

We plotted trend lines (figure 8) to examine the difference between the groups at

various points of mRFD, 1200 N.s-1, 2000 N.s-1, 2800 N.s-1, 3600 N.s-1, and 4400

N.s-1. The magnitude of the difference at 1200, 2000, and 2800 N.s-1 was unclear

but at 3600 and 4400 N.s-1 the difference was seen as a likely very large effect of

116% (± 134%) and a very likely very large effect of 224% (± 208%) respectively in

favour of the SAJ group. No other trends were seen in the other kinetic variable

using trend lines. These data suggest that those subjects who had a greater mRFD

improved more so than those subjects who couldn’t.

69
 250

200
SVJ
150 SAJ
SVJ Trendline
100 SAJ Trendline
Change in mRFD (%)

50

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
-50

-100

-150
Baseline (pre – 2) mRFD (N.s-1)

Figure 8: Percentage change (%) in maximum rate of force development (mRFD) following four weeks
of either a strength and vertical jump (SVJ) or strength and assisted vertical jump (SAJ) training
protocol intervention in recreationally trained subjects with fitted regression lines.

Sprint Performance
The SVJ and SAJ groups had trivial differences between them before the

commencement of the intervention (pre-2) in 20 m sprint ability, 3.2 sec (± 0.1 SD)

and 3.2 sec (± 0.2 SD) in the SVJ and SAJ groups respectively. The mean 10 and

20 m sprint times at pre 2 and post intervention are depicted in figure 9. At the

completion of the intervention (post) both groups improved their 10 m times by 0.03

sec or 1.6%; ±2.0% (SVJ) and 0.02 or 1.2%; ±0.9% (SAJ). The groups also

improved their 20 m sprint performance by 0.03 sec or 0.9%; ±1.8% (SVJ) and 0.04

sec or 1.3%; ±1.2% (SAJ). There were likely moderate and an unlikely small

magnitude of effects within the SVJ and SAJ respectively, in 10m sprint performance

from baseline (pre – 2) to post testing and possible small effects in 20m performance

within both the SVJ and SAJ groups between baseline (pre – 2) and post testing.

70
 3.4 1.91

1.89
3.35
1.87

3.3 1.85
Sprint Time (sec)

1.83
3.25
1.81

3.2 1.79

1.77
3.15
1.75

3.1 1.73
Pre 2 Post
Time of Test

SAJ 20m SVJ 20m SAJ 10m SVJ 10m

Figure 9: Mean (± SD) 10 and 20m sprint times of recreationally trained subjects before (pre-1) and
after (post) four weeks of either a strength and vertical jump (SVJ) or a strength and assisted vertical
jump (SAJ) training intervention.

There was a 0.4% (± 2.1%) and 0.3% (± 2.0%) difference between the groups in 10

and 20m performance respectively. The qualitative outcome between the two

training protocols was unclear and demonstrated no real differences between the

groups at both distances. No differences were found between the SVJ and SAJ

groups when trend lines were used.

1RM Squat Strength

The SVJ and SAJ groups had moderate to large differences between their 1RM prior

to the intervention period (pre-2) with a mean load of 147 kg (± 22 kg) (SVJ) and 164

kg (± 33 kg) (SAJ). The mean predicted 1RM squat loads for both groups before

(pre-2) and after the training intervention (post) are presented in figure 10.

71
 220

200

180
1RM Squat Strength (kg)

SAJ
160

140 SVJ

120

100
Pre 2 Post

Time of Test

Figure 10: Mean (±SD) predicted 1RM squat strength of recreationally trained subjects before (pre-1)
and after (post) four weeks of either a strength and vertical jump (SVJ) or a strength and assisted
vertical jump (SAJ) training intervention.

The SVJ group improved their predicted 1RM squat strength from 147 kg to 159 kg

or 8.9%; ±5.6%. The SAJ improved from 164 kg to 179 kg or 10%; ±5.6%. There

was a likely small effect in the 1RM squat strength in the SVJ group and a very likely

moderate effect in the SAJ group between baseline (pre – 2) and post testing.

However there was an unclear magnitude of effect between the groups of 1% (± 6.9

%). When we plotted our trend lines (figure 11) and investigated the difference

between the groups at 120, 130, 140, 150, and 160kg we found a surprising trend.

At points of 120-140kg there were unclear magnitudes of difference but at 150 and

160 possible small effects were found of 2.8% (± 6.8%) and 3.2% (± 7.5%) in the

SAJ group compared to the SVJ group. These results indicate that stronger subjects

using a SAJ stimulus may improve more so than the similar subjects using a more

traditional stimulus of SVJ training.

72
 30

25
Change in Predicted 1RM Squat Strength (%)

20

15 SVJ
SAJ
10 SVJ Trendline
SAJ Trendline
5

0
50 100 150 200 250
-5
Baseline (pre – 2) Predicted 1RM Squat Strength (kg)

Figure 11: Percentage change (%) in maximum predicted 1RM squat strength following four weeks of
either a strength and vertical jump (SVJ) or strength and assisted vertical jump (SAJ) training protocol
intervention in recreationally trained subjects with fitted trend lines.

Relationships between Variables

There were trivial correlations between the improvements in vertical jump height and

the change in peak force (r = 0.06), peak velocity (r = -0.07), and peak power (r = -

0.07). There was however a moderate correlation between the change in predicted

1RM squat strength and VJ height improvements (r = 0.47) and a large correlation of

r = 0.54 between the change in mRFD and the change in VJ height.

Summary
Vertical jump, 20m sprint, and predicted 1RM squat strength were improved to

similar magnitudes following SVJ and SAJ training in recreationally trained athletes

when training twice a week (76 repetitions of jumping per week) over a four week

period. The strength and assisted jump stimulus was found to be as effective as the

73
traditional strength and vertical jump stimulus to improve strength, power and speed

performance. The main findings of this study have been summarized in table 10.

Table 10: Summarised results of subjects following four weeks of either a strength and vertical jump
(SVJ) or strength and assisted vertical jump (SAJ) training protocol intervention in recreationally
trained subjects.
Means percent change (± SD)

SVJ SAJ Qualitative

outcome

Vertical Jump ↑ 3.9% (6.6) ↑ 6.8% (3.5) Unclear

Peak Force ↓10% (20) ↓2.3% (23) Unclear

Peak Velocity ↑1.6% (3.3) ↑3.4% (9.4) Unclear

Peak Power ↓1.5% (9.3) ↑4.4% (12) Unclear

Maximum Rate of Force Development ↑9.1% (167) ↑15% (52) Unclear

20m Sprint Time ↓ 1.6% (2.0) ↓ 1.2% (0.9) Unclear

Predicted 1RM Squat Strength ↑ 8.9% (5.6) ↑ 10% (5.6) Unclear

74
Discussion
Summary
To the authors knowledge this is one of the first studies to evaluate and compare the

effects of a novel complex training stimulus utilising an assisted vertical jumping

stimulus against a more traditional complex training stimulus on strength, power and

speed variables. The main findings of this study were that the SVJ and the SAJ

training protocols were successful in inducing small effects in vertical jump, 20m

sprint in the SVJ and SAJ groups and small and moderate effects in 1RM squat

strength in the SVJ and SAJ groups respectively. However, neither training protocol

was more beneficial than the other. The unclear effects when comparing the

difference of the two groups indicates the need for further data collection. In

addition, trends found within the data of the present study indicated the more trained

subjects benefited more from the SAJ protocol than the SVJ protocol. Further

research is needed to clarify and validate these trends.

The current study differed from previous research, in the area of mixed method

training, in two main ways. Firstly, the current study utilised a short intervention

period of four weeks. Four weeks is short intervention period compared to the

reviewed literature but it is representative of a typical training cycle within a pre-

season training programme (Hammet & Hey, 2003). The four week intervention

period used in the current study was long enough to elicit positive substantial

improvements in the performance of our subjects. Previous studies utilising a four

week intervention have also reported substantial improvements (Newton et al., 2006;

Mihalik et al., 2008).

75
Other studies have utilised longer intervention periods of up to 12-weeks (Ingle et al,

2006; Newton et al., 2002; Lyttle et al., 1996). In the studies of Lyttle et al., (1996),

Marques and Gonzalez-Badillo (2006), and Fatourus et al., (2000) larger increases

in their primary power test, vertical jump were found, ~ 20, 13, and 39% respectively.

The intervention period in these studies were 8, 12, and 12 weeks respectively.

Does this mean that the longer the intervention period the greater the improvement?

Not necessarily as Ingle et al., (2006) found after 12 weeks, smaller comparable (to

the current study) results of ~ 4% improvements in vertical jump performance.

Secondly, the current study only used one type of plyometric exercise and a small

amount (36) of foot contacts per session. Marques and Gonzalez-Badillo (2006),

Lyttle et al., (1996), and Fatourus et al., (2000), reported larger improvements of 13,

20, and 39% in vertical jump height respectively. These researchers utilised a

greater number of foot contacts per training session. For example, Fatourus and

colleagues (2000) began their training with 80 foot contacts per session for the first

two weeks and then 220 contacts the first session and between 150-170 for the

second weekly session and continued for the remainder of the training intervention

(10 weeks). In contrast Mihalik et al (2008) found a similar (5.4%) improvement in

vertical jump height, compared to the current study, and used a similar amount of

foot contacts, 54 contacts per session.

One of the main findings in the present study was a 3.9% (SVJ group) and 6.8%

(SAJ group) improvement in vertical jump height after only four weeks of training.

Although a greater improvement was found in the SAJ group the difference between

the groups was unclear. The magnitude of our findings are consistent with the

previous research of Mihalik et al., (2008) and Ingle and colleagues (2006) who

found 5.4% and 3.9% improvements respectively in vertical jump height after either a

76
four (Milhalik et al, 2008) or 12 week (Ingle et al., 2006) complex training protocol. In

addition, the magnitude of our vertical jump improvements were approximately one

half found by Marques and Gonzalez-Badillo (2006) (13%) and one third of the

reported increases of and Lyttle and colleagues (1996) (20%).

The increased vertical jump performance may be explained by several possibilities.

Firstly, within the current study the improvement of vertical jump height (3.9 and

6.8% in SVJ and SAJ respectively) was accompanied by increases in maximal

predicted squat strength of 8.9% and 10.0% in the SVJ and SAJ group respectively.

Increases in vertical jump height with slow movement velocity strength training have

been reported to improve, decrease, or not change vertical jump ability by ~-2 to 5%

(Neils et al., 2005; Wilson et al., 1993) with concurrent increases in strength of ~6 to

9% (Neils et al., 2005; Wilson et al., 1993). These studies indicate that if the

increases in strength were responsible for the observed improvements in vertical

jump, the observed strength increases would need to be on average three times the

increase of vertical jump. Based on this, the improvements of strength in the current

study would have to have increased on average by 12 and 21% in the SVJ and SAJ

groups respectively. However, these estimated strength improvement were not

observed in the present study and would suggest that other mechanisms are in part

responsible for the increases in vertical jump performance.

Secondly, from a biomechanical standpoint, kinetic variables of force, velocity,

power, and mRFD were measured in order to help explain the observed changes of

the two group’s vertical jump performance. We observed no differences between the

group’s changes in any of the kinetic variables and improvements in vertical jump

performance. Both of the groups decreased their peak force, 10% and 2.3% in the

SVJ and SAJ group respectively. Both groups also improved their peak velocity,

77
1.6% and 3.4% in the SVJ and SAJ group respectively. We also found a decrease in

peak power in the SVJ of 1.5% and an increase in the SAJ of 4.4%. The observed

decrease in force is speculated to be from a shift in the force-velocity relationship.

This relations states, when velocity of a movement increases the amount of applied

force decreases and when velocity slows, the applied force is greater (Kawamori and

Haff, 2004; Kraemer and Newton, 2000). This was seen within the current study with

both of the training groups decreasing their amount of applied force by 10% (SAJ)

and 2.3% (SVJ). The decrease in force was associated with an increase in

movement velocity of 3.4% (SAJ) and 1.6% (SVJ).

Rate of force development (RFD) has been touted as an important factor to improve

jumping performance (Behm & Sale, 1993). Therefore athletes with a greater RFD

may jump higher compared with athletes with a lower RFD. This was demonstrated

within the current study with subjects in the SAJ group increasing their mRFD by

15% with a concurrent 6.8% improvement in their vertical jump performance,

compared to subjects in the SVJ group only improving their mRFD by 9.1% and

vertical jump performance by 3.9%. These data suggest that vertical jump

improvements seen in the present study were more likely to be due to increases in

strength (r = 0.47) and an increase in mRFD (r = 0.54) than changes in force (r =

0.06), velocity (r = -0.07), and power (r = -0.07) outputs.

Neils et al, (2005) stated that a short concentric contraction phase (fast movement

velocity) was important for explosive activities. Indeed the SAJ did in fact improve to

a greater degree than the SVJ but was not deemed to be different compared to the

SVJ group. The training between the two training groups in the current study only

differed by differences in movement velocity within the plyometric jumping exercise.

The peak movement velocity during vertical jumping utilised within the SAJ group

78
was measured 19% faster than the movement velocity during traditional vertical

jumping. The lack of a clear difference may be a result of small sample size and

large variations within change scores. In order to clarify any possible difference

between the two types of training used within this study further research is needed.

≥ 50 cm
Using the trend analysis we found that subjects who could already jump

benefited more from the increased movement velocity of the SAJ protocol compared

to the SVJ training protocol. This may be due to trained subjects have the ability to

activate a greater proportion of their motor units (Del Balso & Cafarelli, 2007; Higbie

et al., 1996; Pensini et al., 2002) compared to less trained subjects. In addition the

activation of the motor units can be enhanced by increasing the velocity of

movement in similarly trained subjects (Aagaard et al., 2000). The SAJ groups

mean training age was greater than the SVJ by three months and trained using

greater movement velocities. These data offer a possible insight to why there were

slightly greater improvements in the more trained SAJ subjects compared to the

more trained SVJ subjects.

The concurrent use of the force plate and Vertec as used in the current study may

have restricted the full potential of the subjects. A few subjects did mention the

Vertec was not in a good position and was awkward to perform the jumping task.

This may have influenced the kinetic response results by some subjects not able to

perform to their potential. However this possible limitation was the same for all

subjects during each testing session.

79
Another finding in the present study was improved 20 m sprint times. The SVJ and

SAJ groups improved their 10 m times by 1.6% and 1.2% respectively. The groups

also improved their 20 m sprint performance by 0.9% (SVJ) and 1.3% (SAJ)

respectively. However the magnitude of the difference between the two group’s

performance at the 10 m distance and 20 m was unclear. The magnitude of

improvements in the present study were approximately half of the magnitude found

by Marques and Gonzalez-Badillo (2006) who reported 2.4% increases in 15 m

sprint time and 3.1% over a 30 m distance. In contrast Lyttle and colleagues (1996)

found a decrease in 20 m sprint times of 0.4% after an intervention of complex

training.

The relatively small improvements found by the researchers in the current study may

be due to a lack of training specificity towards sprinting. Indeed the training protocol

used within the current study were vertical in nature, both in the resistance and

plyometric exercises, and no emphasis on horizontal movements were made.

Previous research involving predominantly vertical movements, both plyometric and

resistance training, have resulted in either no significant difference or small

decreases in sprinting ability (Wilson et al., 1993; Lyttle et al., 1996). However when

a combination of both vertical and horizontal training has been used (Marques &

Gonzalez-Badillo, 2006) larger significant changes have been reported.

The third finding in the present study was an increased predicted 1RM squat

strength. The SVJ group improved their predicted 1RM squat strength by 8.9%

(small effect), whereas the SAJ improved by 10% (moderate effect). Once again the

magnitude of the difference between the groups was unclear. Our results are

comparable with those of Lyttle and colleagues (1996) who found increase of 14.8%.

80
In addition our results were a quarter of those found by Marques and Gonzalez-

Badillo (2006) who found their subjects improved 43% in squat strength.

Because of the four week intervention training period used in the current study it is

likely that improvements in 1RM squat strength were due to mainly neurological

improvements. Indeed neural adaptations have been reported to play a major role

in the early stages of resistance training (Gabriel, Kamen, & Frost, 2006). The

improvements in muscular strength may be a result of but not limited to increased

muscle fibre recruitment, inhibition of antagonists, increased co-contraction of

synergists, increased motor unit firing rate, increased motor unit synchronisation

(Lyttle et al, 1993; Bassa et al., 2005; Milner-Brown et al., 1975; Kamen & Knight,

2004; Potteiger et al., 1999). Although body composition was not measured in the

present study the recent work of Seynnes and colleagues (2006) and Blazevich and

colleagues (2003) who have found significant growth in muscle fibres, in as little as

three to five weeks of resistance training, the contribution of morphological

mechanisms such as hypertrophy cannot be overlooked.

Limitations
Although there were improvements within the two training groups in their explosive

performance measures there were no clear effects of the training interventions

between the two training groups. However, the SAJ training group improved to a

greater extent in the vertical jumping and 1RM squat strength test than the SVJ

training group. The unclear results found within the current study may have resulted

from the following limitations.

• The length of the training intervention

• The number of subjects

• The number of foot contacts

81
Practical Applications

• We found small – moderate improvements in a number of explosive

performance measures in the SAJ group. These improvements were of a

similar magnitude to that of the SVJ group. The results found in the current

study indicate that the SAJ training protocol is an effective means to improve

explosive performance and therefore could be used by the conditioning

professional as tool to train his/her athletes.

• We found trends towards a greater improvement in the more skilled

performers, those who could jump higher. If the conditioning professional

were to use a combined strength and assisted jump training protocol then the

use of such a protocol should be limited to those athletes who can jump ≥50

cm and/or be able to squat ≥ 150kg or 1.7 times body weight.

Future Directions
• Due to the relative infancy of this novel training stimulus further research is

warranted to further explore the potential benefit of a strength and assisted

jumping stimulus on various performance measures. Future research in this

area should focus on but not limited to the following aspects:

 The effectiveness of assisted jump training alone

 Examine the differences between trained and untrained subjects

 Explore a dose response, e.g. number of foot contacts and level of

assistance

82
  Explore the differences in kinetic and kinematic responses of assisted and

non-assisted jumps

 Explore the effect of the periodization of the level of assistance

 Explore the effects of assistance during different jumping techniques, i.e.

depth jumps, bounding etc.

Conclusion
Complex training utilising assisted vertical jumping is an effective training stimulus to

improve a variety of performance measures. The strength and assisted vertical jump

protocol was as effective compared to a more traditional complex training stimulus of

strength and plyometric jumping. The results from this current research provide the

conditioning professional with an alternative, fun method in which to aid the

development of their athletes. However, the use of this novel training protocol

should be restricted to more experienced athletes.

83
References
Aagaard, P., Simonsen, E. B., Andersen, J. L., Magnusson, P., & Dyhre-Poulsen, P.

(2002). Increase rate of force development and neural drive of human skeletal

muscle following resistance training. Journal of Applied Physiology, 93, 1318-

1326.

Abe, T., Kumagai, K., & Brechue, W. F. (2000). Fasicle length of leg muscles is

greater in sprinters than distance runners. Medicine and Science in Sports

and Exercise, 32(6), 1125-1129.

Adam, A., & De Luca, C. J. (2005). Firing rates of motor units in human vastus

lateralis muscle during fatiguing isometric contractions. Journal of Applied

Physiology, 99, 268-280.

Adams, G. R., Hather, B. M., Baldwin, K. M., & Dudley, G. A. (1993). Skeletal muscle

myosin heavy chain composition and resistance training. Journal of Applied

Physiology, 74(2), 911-915.

Andersen, J. L., & Aagaard, P. (2000). Myosin heavy chain IIX overshoot in human

skeletal muscle. Muscle and Nerve, 23(7), 1095-1104.

Andersen, L. L., Andersen, J. L., Magnusson, S. P., Suetta, C., Madsen, J. L.,

Christensen, L. R., & Aagaard, P. (2005) Changes in the human muscle force-

velocity relationship in response to resistance training and subsequent

detraining. Journal of Applied Physiology, 99, 87–94.

Anderson, C. E., Sforzo, G. A., & Sigg, J. A. (2008). The effect of combining elastic

and free weight resistance on strength and power in athletes. Journal of

Strength and Conditioning Research, 22(2), 567-574.

84
Appell, H. J. (1990). Muscular atrophy following immobilization: A review. Sports

Medicine, 10(1), 42-58.

Babault, N., Pousson, M., Ballay, Y., & Van Hoecke, J. (2001). Activation of human

quadriceps femoris during isometric, concentric, and eccentric contractions.

Journal of Applied Physiology, 91, 2628-2634.

Baker, D. (1996). Improving vertical jump performance through general, special, and

specific strength training: A brief review. Journal of Strength and Conditioning

Research, 10(2), 131-136.

Baker, D., Nance, S., & Moore, M. (2001). The load that maximizes the average

mechanical power output during jump squats in power-trained athletes.

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 15(1), 92-97.

Baker, D., Wilson, G., & Carlyon, R. (1994). Periodization: The effect on strength of

manipulating volume and intensity. Journal of Strength and Conditioning

Research, 8(4), 235-242.

Bartlett, R. (1997). Introduction to Sports Biomechanics. Oxford, England: Alden

Press.

Bassa, H., Kotzamanidis, C., Siatras, T., Mameletzi, D., & Skoufas, D. (2002).

Coactivation of the knee muscles during isokinetic concentric and eccentric

knee extensions and flexions in prepubertal gymnasts. Isokinetics and

Exercise Science, 10, 137-144.

Bassa, E., Patikas, D., & Kotzamanidis, C. (2005). Activation of antagonist knee

muscles during isokinetic efforts in prepubertal and adult males. Pediatric

Exercise Science, 17, 171-181.

85
Batterham, A. M., & Hopkins, W. D. (2006). Making meaningful inferences about

magnitudes. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance,

1(1), 50-57.

Behm, D. G. (1995). Neuromuscular implications and applications of resistance

training. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 9(4), 264-274.

Behm, D. G., & Sale, D. G. (1993). Intended rather than actual movement velocity

determines velocity-specific training response. Journal of Applied Physiology,

74(1), 359-368.

Belanger, A. Y., & McComas, A. J. (1981). Extent of motor unit activation during

effort. Journal of Applied Physiology, 51, 1131-1135.

Blazevich, A. J., Cannavan, D., Coleman, D. R., & Horne, S. (2007). Influence of

contractile and eccentric resistance training on architectural adaptations in

human quadriceps muscles. Journal of Applied Physiology, 103(5), 1565-

1575.

Blazevich, A. J., Gill, N. D., Bronks, R., & Newton, R. U. (2003). Training-specific

muscle architecture adaptation after 5-wk training in athletes. Medicine and

Science in Sports and Exercise, 35(12), 2013-2022.

Blazevich, A. J., & Jenkins, D. G. (2002). Effect of the movement speed of resistance

training exercises on sprint and strength performance in concurrently elite

junior sprinters. Journal of Sports Sciences, 20(12), 981-990.

Brown, A. C., Wells, T. J., Schade, M. L., Smith, D. L., & Fehling, P. C. (2007).

Effects of plyometric training versus traditional weight training on strength,

power, and aesthetic jumping ability in female collegiate dancers. Journal of

Dance Medicine and Science, 11(2), 38-44.

86
Burke, R. E., Rudomin, P., & Zajac, F. E. (1970). Catch property in single

mammalian motor units. Science 168, 122–124.

Cameron-Smith, D. (2002). Exercise and skeletal muscle gene expression. Clinical

and Experimental Pharmacology and Physiology, 29(3), 209-213.

Campos, G. E. R., Luecke, T. J., Wendeln, H. K., Toma, K., Hagerman, F. C.,

Murray, T. F., Ragg, K. E., Ratamess, N. A., Kraemer, W. J., & Staron, R. S.

(2002). Muscular adaptations in response to three different resistance-training

regimes: Specificity of repetition maximum training zones. European Journal

of Applied Physiology, 88(1-2), 50-60.

Christie, A., & Kamen, G. (2006). Doublet discharge in motorneurons of young and

older adults. Journal of Neurophysiology, 95, 2787-2795.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.)

Hillsdale, N.J.:Lawrence Erlbaum.

Comyns, T. M., Harrison, A. J., Hennessy, L. k., & Jenson, R. L. (2006). The optimal

complex training rest interval for athletes from anaerobic sports. Journal of

Strength and Conditioning Research, 20(3), 471-476.

Connelly, D. M., Rice, C. L., Roos, M. R., & Vanervoort, A. A. (1999). Motor unit

firing rates and contractile properties in tibialis anterior of young and old men.

Journal of Applied Physiology, 87(2), 843-852.

Cormie, P., McBride, J. M., & McCaulley, G. O. (2007). Validation of power

measurement techniques in dynamic lower body resistance exercises. Journal

of Applied Biomechanics, 23, 103-118.

87
Cormie, P., McCaulley, G. O., & McBride, J. M. (2007). Power versus strength-power

jump squat training: Influence on the load-power relationship. Medicine and

Science of Sports and Exercise, 39(6), 996-1003.

Cormie, P., McCaulley, G. O., Triplett, N. T., & McBride, J. M. (2007). Optimal

loading for maximal power output during lower-body resistance exercises.

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 39(2), 340-349.

Costill, D. L., Coyle, E. F., Fink, W. F., Lesmes, G. R., & Witzmann, F. A. (1979).

Adaptations in skeletal muscle following strength training. Journal of Applied

Physiology, 46(1), 96-99.

Croce, R. V., Miller, J. P., & Horvat, M. (2008). Alterations in torque and hamstrings

agonist and antagonist activity over repeated maximum effort, reciprocal

isokinetic flexion-extension movements. Isokinetics and Exercise Science, 16,

139-149.

Datta, A. K., & Stephens, J. A. (1990). Synchronization of motor unit activity during

voluntary contraction in man. Journal of Physiology, 422, 397-419.

Del Balso, C., & Cafarelli, E. (2007). Neural changes associated with training:

Adaptations in the activation of human skeletal muscle induced by short-term

isometric resistance training. Journal of Applied Physiology, 103, 402-411.

Duthie, G. M., Young, W. B., & Aitken, D. A. (2002). The acute effects of heavy loads

on jump squat performance: An evaluation of the complex and contrast

methods of power development. Journal of Strength and Conditioning

Research, 16(4), 530-538.

88
Earle, R. W., & Baechle, T. R. (2000). Resistance training and spotting techniques.

In Baechle, T. R., & Earle, R. W, (eds) Essentials of Strength Training and

Conditioning (2nd ed., pp. 343-394). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Fatouros, J. G., Jamurtas, A. Z., Leontsini. D., et al. (2000). Evaluation of plyometric

exercise training, weight training, and their combination on vertical jumping

performance and leg strength. Journal of Strength and Conditioning

Research, 14(4), 470-476.

Fleck, S. J. (1999). Periodized strength training: A critical review. Journal of Strength

and Conditioning Research, 13(1), 82-89.

Folland, J. P., & Williams, A. G. (2007). The adaptations to strength training:

Morphological and neurological contributions to increased strength. Sports

Medicine, 37(2), 145-168.

Gabriel, D. A., Kamen, G., & Frost G. (2006). Neural adaptations to resistance

exercise: Mechanisms and recommendations for training practices. Sports

Medicine, 36(2), 133-149.

Gardiner, P., Dai, Y., & Heckman, C. J. (2006). Neural changes associated with

training: Effect of exercise training on α-motoneurons. Journal of Applied

Physiology, 101(4), 1228-1236.

Girold, S., Calmels, P., Maurin, D., Milhau, N. & Chatard, J-C. (2006). Assisted and

resisted sprint training in swimming. Journal of Strength and Conditioning

Research, 20(3), 547-554.

Girold, S., Maurin, D., Dudue, B., Chatard, J-C., & Millet, G. (2007). Affects of dry-

land vs. resisted- and assisted-sprint exercises on swimming sprint

89
 performances. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 21(2), 599-

605.

Goldspink, D. F. (1970). The proliferation of myofibril during muscle fibre growth.

Journal of Cell Science, 6, 593-603.

Gonyea, W., Ericson, G. C., & Bonde-Petersen, F. (1977). Skeletal muscle fiber

splitting induced by weight-lifting exercise in cats. Acta Physiologica

Scandinavica, 99(1), 105-109.

Grimby, L., & Hannerz, J, (1977). Firing rate and recruitment order of toe extensor

motor units in different modes of voluntary contraction. Journal of Physiology,

264, 865-879.

Grobler, L., Collins, M., & Lambert, M. I. (2004). Remodelling of skeletal muscle

following exercise-induced muscle damage. International SportMed Journal,

5(2), 67-83.

Hakkinen, K., Alen, M., Kallinen, M., Izquierdo, M., Jokelainen, K., Lassila, H.,

Malkia, E., Kraemer, W. J., & Newton, R. U. (1998). Muscle CSA, force

production, and activation of leg extensors during isometric and dynamic

actions in middle-aged and elderly men and women. Journal of Aging and

Physical Activity, 6, 232-247.

Hammett, J. B., & Hey, W. T. (2003). Neuromuscular adaptation to short-term (4

week) ballistic training in trained high school athletes. Journal of Strength and

Conditioning Research, 17(3), 556-560.

Harris, R. T., & Dudley, G. (2000). Neuromuscular anatomy and adaptations to

conditioning. In Baechle, T. R., & Earle, R. W, (eds) Essentials of Strength

90
 Training and Conditioning (2nd ed., pp. 15-25). Champaign, IL: Human

Kinetics.

Harris, G. R., Stone, M. H., O’Bryant, H. S., Prolux, C. M., & Johnson, R. L. (2000).

Short-term performance effects of high power, high force, or combined

weight-training methods. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research,

14(1), 14-20.

Harrison, A. J., Keane, S. P., & Coglan, J, (2004). Force-velocity relationship and

stretch-shortening cycle function in sprint and endurance athletes. Journal of

Strength and Conditioning Research, 18(3), 473-479.

Hass, C. J., Feigenbaum, M. S., & Franklin, B. A. (2001). Prescription of resistance

training for healthy populations. Sports Medicine, 31(14), 953-964.

Henneman, E., Somjen, G., & Carpenter, D.O. (1965). Excitability and inhibitability of

motoneurons of different sizes. Journal of Neurophysiology, 28, 599-620.

Higbie, E. J., Cureton, K. J., Warren III, G. L., & Prior, B. M. (1996). Effects of

concentric and eccentric training on muscle strength, cross-sectional area,

and neural activation. Journal of Applied Physiology, 81(5), 2173-2181.

Hopkins, W. D. (2000). A new view of statistics. Correlation coefficients [Electronic

Version]. SportScience. Retrieved 17 February, 2010, from

http://sportsci.org/resource/stats/index.html.

Hopkins, W. D. (2002). Probabilities of clinical or practical significance [Electronic

Version]. SportScience, 6. Retrieved 24 August, 2009, from

http://www.sportsci.org/jour/0201/wghprob.htm.

91
Hopkins, W. D. (2006). Analysis of a pre-post controlled trial with adjustment for a

predictor. SportScience, 10, 46-50. Retrieved 13 September, 2009, from

http://www.sportsci.org/2006/wghcontrial.htm.

Hopkins, W. D. (2006). Analysis of a post-only crossover trial with adjustment for a

predictor. Sportscience, 10, 46-50. Retrieved 13 September, 2009, from

http://www.sportsci.org/2006/wghcontrial.htm.

Hopkins, W. G., Batterham, A. M., Marshall, S. W., & Hanin, J. (2009). Progressive

statistics for studies in sports medicine and exercise science. Medicine and

Science in Sports and Exercise, 41(1), 3-13.

Ingle, L., Sleap, M., & Tolfrey, K. (2006). The effect of a complex training and

detraining programme of selected strength and power variables in early

pubertal boys. Journal of Sports Sciences, 24(9), 987-997.

Jones, K., Bishop, P., Hunter, G., & Fleisig. G. (2001). The effects of varying

resistance-training loads on intermediate- and high-velocity-specific

adaptations. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 15(3), 349-356.

Kamen, G. (2005). Aging, resistance training, and motor unit discharge behavior.

Canadian Journal of Applied Physiology, 30(3), 341-351.

Kamen, G., & Knight, C. A. (2004). Training related adaptations in motor unit

discharge rate in young and older adults. Journal of gerontology, 59a(12),

1334-1338.

Kawakami, Y., Ichinose, Y., Kubo, K., Ito, M., Imai, M., & Fukunaga, T. (2000).

Architecture of contracting human muscles and its functional significance.

Journal of Applied Physiology, 16(1), 88-97.

92
Kawamori, N., & Haff, G. G. (2004). The optimum training load for the development

of muscular power. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 18(3),

675-684.

Kellis, E. (1998). Qauntification of quadriceps and hamstring antagonist activity.

Sports Medicine, 25(1), 37-62.

Knight, C. A., & Kamen, G. (2008). Relationships between voluntary activation and

motor unit firing rate during maximal voluntary contractions in young and older

adults. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 103, 625-630.

Komi, P. V., Viitisalo, R., Rauramaa, V., & Vihko, V. (1978). Effect of isometric

strength training on mechanical, electrical and metabolic aspects of muscle

function. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 40, 45-55.

Kotzamanidis, C. (2006). Effect of plyometric training on running performance and

vertical jumping in prepubertal boys. Journal of Strength and Conditioning

Research, 20(2), 441-445.

Kotzamanidis, C., Chatzopoulos, D., Michailidis, C., Papaiakoyou, G., & Patikas, D.

(2005). The effect of a combined high-intensity strength and speed training

program on the running and jumping ability of soccer players. Journal of

Strength and Conditioning Research, 19(2), 369-375.

Kraemer, W. J., & Newton, R. U. (2000). Training for muscular power. Physical

Medicine and Rehabilitation Clinics of North America, 11(2), 341-368.

Kristensen, G. O., van den Tillaar, R., & Ettema, G. J. C. (2006). Velocity specificity

in early phase sprint training. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research,

20(4), 833-837.

93
Kubo, K., Tsunoda, N., Kanehisa, H., & Fukunaga, T. (2004). Activation of agonist

and antagonist muscles at different joint angles during maximal isometric

efforts. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 91, 349-352.

Kyrolainen, H., Avela, J., McBride, J. M., et al. (2005). Effects of power training on

muscle structure and neuromuscular performance. Scandinavian Journal of

Medicine and Science in Sports, 15(1), 58-64.

Lyttle, A. D., Wilson, G. J., & Ostrowski, K. J. (1996). Enhanced performance:

Maximal power versus combined weights and plyometrics training. Journal of

Strength and Conditioning Research, 10(3), 173-179.

Majdill, R., & Alexander, M. J. L. (1991). The effect of overspeed training on

kinematic variables in sprinting. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 21, 19-

39.

Marsden, C. D., Obeso, J. A., & Rothwell, J. C. (1983). The function of the

antagonist muscle during fast limb movements in man. Journal of Physiology,

335, 1-13.

Masamoto, N., Larson, R., Gates, T., & Faigenbaum, A. (2003). Acute effects of

plyometric exercise on maximum squat performance in male athletes. Journal

of Strength and Conditioning Research, 17(1), 68-71.

Markovic, G., Jukic, I., Milanovic, D., & Metikos, D. (2007) Effects of sprint and

plyometric training on muscle function and athletic performance. Journal of

Strength and Conditioning Research, 21(2), 543-549.

Marques, M. A. C., & Gonzalez-Badillo, J. J. (2006). In-season resistance training

and detraining in professional team handball players. Journal of Strength and

Conditioning Research, 20(3), 563-571.

94
Maxwell, L. C., Faulkner, J. A., & Hyatt, G. J. (1974). Estimation of number of fibers

in guinea pig skeletal muscles. Journal of Applied Physiology, 37(2), 259-264.

McClenton, L. S., Brown, L. E., Coburn, J. W., & Kersey, R. D. (2008). The effect of

short-term vertimax vs. depth jump training on vertical jump performance.

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 22(2), 321-325.

McEvoy, K. P., & Newton, R. U. (1998). Baseball throwing speed and base running

speed: The effect of ballistic resistance training. Journal of Strength and

Conditioning Research, 12(4), 216-221.

McIntosh, A, S. (2005). Risk compensation, motivation, injuries, and biomechanics in

competitive sport. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 39, 2-3.

Mero, A., & Komi, P. V. (1986). Force-, EMG-, and elasticity-velocity relationships at

submaximal, maximal and supramaximal running speeds in sprinters.

European Journal of Applied Physiology, 55(5), 553-561.

Mero, A., Komi, P. V., Rusko, H., & Hirvonen, J. (1987). Neuromuscular and

anaerobic performance of sprinters at maximal and supramaximal speed.

International Journal of Sports Science, 8, 55-60.

Mihalik, J. P., Libby, J. J., Battaglini, C. L., & McMurray, R. G. (2008). Comparing

short-term complex and compound training programs on vertical jump height

and power output. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 22(1), 47-

53.

Milner-Brown, H. S., Stein, R. B., & Lee, R. G. (1975). Synchronization of human

motor units: Possible roles of exercise and supraspinal reflexes.

Electroencephaography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 38, 245-254.

95
Milner-Brown, H. S., Stein, R B., & Yemm, R. (1973). The orderly recruitment of

human motor units during voluntary isometric contractions. Journal of

Physiology, 230, 359-370.

Moritani, T., & DeVries, H. A. (1979). Neural factors versus hypertrophy in the time

course of muscle strength gains. American Journal of Physiology and

Medicine, 58, 115-130.

Neils, C. M., Udermann, B. E., Brice, G. A., Winchester, J. B., & McGuigan, M. R.

(2005). Influence of contraction velocity in untrained individuals over the initial

early phase of resistance training. Journal of Strength and Conditioning

Research, 19(4), 883-887.

Newton, H. (2006). Explosive Lifting for Sports. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Newton, R. U., Hakkinen, K., Hakkinen, A., et al. (2002). Mixed-methods resistance

training increases power and strength of young and older men. Medicine and

Science in Sport and Exercise, 34(8), 1367-1375.

Newton, R. U., & Kraemer, W. J. (1994). Developing explosive muscular power:

Implications for a mixed methods training strategy. Strength and Conditioning

Journal, October, 20-31.

Newton, R. U., Kraemer, W. J., & Hakkinen, K. (1999). Effect of ballistic training on

preseason preparation of elite volleyball players. Medicine and Science in

Sports and Exercise, 32(2), 323-330.

Newton, R. U., Rogers, R. A., Voleck, J. S., Hakkinen, K., & Kraemer, W. J. (2006).

Four weeks of optimal load ballistic resistance training at the end of season

attenuates declining jump performance of women volleyball players. Journal

of Strength and Conditioning Research, 20(4). 955-961.

96
Paradisis, G. P., & Cooke, C, B. (2006). The effects of sprint running training on

sloping surfaces. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 20(4), 767-

777.

Patterson, S., & Goldspink, G. (1976). Mechanism of myofibril growth and

proliferation in fish muscle. Journal of Cell Science, 22, 607-616.

Pensini, M., Martin, A., & Maffiuletti, N. A. (2002). Central versus peripheral

adaptations following eccentric resistance training. International Journal of

Sports Medicine, 23(8), 567-574.

Pette D., & Staron R. S. (2001) Transitions of muscle fiber phenotypic profiles.

Histochemesty and Cell Biology, 115, 359–372.

Potach, D. H., & Chu, D. A. (2000). Plyometric training. In Baechle, T. R., & Earle, R.

(eds.). Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning (2nd ed., pp. 427-471).

Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Potteiger, J. A., Lockwood, R. H., Haub, M. D., et al. (1999). Muscle power and fibre

characteristics following 8 week of plyometric training. Journal of Strength and

Conditioning Research, 13(3), 275-279.

Pucci, A. R., Griffen, L., & Cafarelli, E. (2005). Maximal motor unit firing rates during

isometric resistance training in men. Experimental Physiology, 91(1), 171-178.

Rhea, M. R., Ball, S. D., Phillips, W. T., & Burkett, L. N. (2002). A comparison of

linear and daily undulating periodized programs with equated volume and

intensity for strength. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 16(2),

250-255.

97
Rich, C., & Cafarelli, E. (2000). Submaximal motor unit firing rates after 8 wk

isometric resistance training. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise,

32(1), 190-196.

Sale, D. G. (1988). Neural adaptation to resistance training. Medicine and Science in

Sports and Exercise, 20(5), S135-S145.

Salonikidis, K. & Zafeiridis, D. (2008). The effects of plyometric, tennis-drills, and

combined training on reaction, lateral and linear speed, power, and strength in

novice tennis players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 22(1),

182-191.

Saunders, P. U., Telfoed, R. D., Pyne, D. B., et al. (2006). Short-term plyometric

training improves running economy in highly trained middle and long distance

runners. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 20(4), 947-954.

Sayers, S. P. (2007). High-speed power training: A novel approach to resistance

training in older men and women. A brief review and pilot study. Journal of

Strength and Conditioning Research, 21(2), 518-526.

Schiaffino, S., Gorza, L., Sartore, S., Saggin, L., Ausoni, S., Vianello, M.,

Gundersen, k., & Lomo, T. (1989). Three myosin heavy chain isoforms in type

2 skeletal muscle fibres. Journal of Muscle Research and Cell Motility, 10(3),

197-205.

Semmler, J. G., Kornatz, K. W., Dinenno, D. V., Zhou, S., & Enoka, R. M. (2002).

Motor unit synchronization is enhanced during slow lengthening contractions

of a hand muscle. Journal of Physiology, 545(2), 681-695.

98
Semmler, J. G., & Nordstrom, M. A. (1998). Motor unit discharge and force tremor in

skill- and strength-trained individuals. Experimental Brain Research, 119, 27-

38.

Semmler, J. G., Steege, J. W., Kornatz, K. W., & Enoka, R. M. (2000). Motor-unit

synchronization is not responsible for larger motor-unit forces in old adults.

Journal of Neurophysiology, 84(1), 358-366.

Seynnes, O. R., de Boer, M., & Narici, M. V. (2007). Early skeletal muscle

hypertrophy and architectural changes in response to high-intensity resistance

training. Journal of Applied Physiology, 102(1), 368-373.

Siegel, J. A., Gilders, R. M., Staron, R. S., & Hagerman, F. C. (2002). Human muscle

power output during upper- and lower-body resistance exercises. Journal of

Strength and Conditioning Research, 16(2), 173-178.

Sjostrom, M., Lexell, J., Eriksson, A., & Taylor, C. C. (1991). Evidence of fibre

hyperplasia in human skeletal muscles from healthy young men?: A left-right

comparison of the fibre number in whole anterior tibialis muscle. European

Journal of Applied Physiology, 62(5), 301-304.

Smilios, I., Pilianidis, T., Sotiropoulos, K., Antonakis, M., & Tokmakidis, S. P. (2006).

Short-term effects of selected exercise and load in contrast training on vertical

jump performance. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 19(1),

135-139.

Staron, R. S., Karapondo, D. L., Kraemer, W. J., Fry, A. C., Gordon, S. E., Falkel, J.

E., Hagerman, F. C., & Hikida, R. S. (1994). Skeletal muscle adaptations

during early phase of heavy-resistance training in men and women. Journal of

Applied Physiology, 76(3), 1247-1255.

99
Staron, R. S., Malicky, E. S., Leonardi, M. J., Falkel, J. E., Hagerman, F. C., &

Dudley, G. A. (1990). Muscle hypertrophy and fast fiber type conversions in

heavy resistance-trained women. European Journal of Applied Physiology

and Occupational Physiology, 60(1), 71-79.

Thomas, K., French, D., & Hayes, P. R. (2009). The effect of two plyometric training

techniques on muscular power and agility in youth soccer players. Journal of

Strength and Conditioning Research, 22(1), 332-335.

Tinning, R., & Davis, K. (1978). The effectiveness of towing in improving sprinting

speed. The Australian Journal for Health, Physical Education and Recreation,

March, 19-21.

Van Cutsem, M., Duchateau, J., & Hainaut, K. (1998). Changes in single motor unit

behavior contribute to the increase in contraction speed after dynamic training

in humans. Journal of Physiology, 513(1), 295-305.

Vissing, K., Brink, M., Lonbro, S., et al. (2008). Muscle adaptations to plyometric vs.

resistance training in untrained young men. Journal of Strength and

Conditioning Research, 22(6), 1799-1810.

Williamson, D. L., Gallager, P. M., Carroll, C. C., Raue, U., & Trappe, S. W. (2001).

Reduction in hybrid single muscle fibre proportions with resistance training in

humans. Journal of Applied Physiology, 91, 1955-1961.

Wilson, G. J., Newton, R. U., Murphy, A. J., & Humphries, B. J. (1993). The optimal

training load for the development of dynamic athletic performance. Medicine

and Science in Sports and Exercise, 25(11), 1279-1286.

Wood, T. M., Maddalozzo., G. F., & Harte, R. A. (2002). Accuracy of seven

equations for predicting 1-RM performance of apparently healthy, sedentary

100
 older adults. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 6(2),

67-94.

Yildiz, Y., Aydin, T., Sekir, U., Kiralp, M. Z., Hazneci, B., & Kalyon, T. A. (2006).

Shoulder terminal range eccentric antagonist/concentric agonist strength

ratios in overhead athletes. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in

Sports, 16, 174-180.

Young, W. B. (2006). Transfer of strength and power to sports performance.

International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 1, 74-83.

101
Appendices
Appendix 1: Letter of Ethical Approval

16 May 2008 email: [email protected]

Paul Croucher
56 Spinnaker Drive
Flagstaff
Hamilton

Dear Paul
Human Ethics Research Application
Can vertical over-speed training improve explosive performance?
Thank you for your application which was considered at the Human Ethics in
Research committee meeting held on 15 May 2008 and it is with pleasure I advise
ethics approval for your project was granted.
The Human Ethics Committee wishes you every success with this project. The
committee would also like to congratulate you on the quality of your application,

Kind Regards

Pamela Tait
C/o Hon Katherine O’Regan QSO JP
Chairperson
Wintec Human Ethics in Research Committee

C.c. Katherine O’Regan

Research leader or HOS

102
Appendix 2: Subject Recruitment Flyer

Want To Get Stronger, Faster, or Jump

Higher?

I am looking for some resistance trained males to volunteer to take part in this
investigation of a new exciting and fun method to increase explosive
performance (jumping, sprinting etc).

PROJECT TITLE

“Can Vertical Over-Speed Training Improve Explosive

Performance?”
The basics of what you will do:

• Complete 3 laboratory based strength, jump and sprint assessments.

• Train twice a week, at your convenience, over seven weeks that will
comprise of strength and jump exercises at WINTEC.

If you are interested and would like further details please contact the principal
investigator Paul Croucher (Master of Sport and Exercise Science student)

Contact Details

Ph. 854-6482 or 027-443 2384

Email: [email protected]

103
Appendix 3: Subject Information Sheet

Can vertical overspeed training improve explosive

performance?

Principle Investigator

Paul Croucher

Masters of Science Research Student

Waikato Institute of Technology

Phone (home) 07 854 6482

(mob) 027 443 2384

Email: [email protected]

Project Supervisor

Dr Nicholas Gill

Senior Lecturer in Exercise Physiology

Centre for Sport and Exercise Science

Waikato Institute of Technology

Phone (work): 07 834 8800

Email: [email protected]

104
Introduction

You are invited to be part in a study to find out whether vertical overspeed training
can improve explosive performance. If you decide to participate you will be asked to
participate in a set training programme for seven weeks attending two sessions per
week at WINTEC. During this seven week period you will be tested three times for
vertical jump height, 20m sprint ability and 3RM squat strength.

You will have several days in which to decide whether you want to be part of this
study. In this time you can talk things over with your family, your coach, your G.P,
and any one of us (Paul or Nick).

If you do agree to take part you are free to withdraw at any time for any reason.
Withdrawal from the study will not affect the quality of the help you receive from your
sports club nor affect your relationship with WINTEC should you study there
currently or decide to study there in the future.

105
Who will be in the study?

There will be approximately 30 participants in the study.

How will I know if I am suitable for the study?

If you are male with at least 6 months resistance training experience and regularly
train with between four and eight reps then you may be able to participate or if you
regularly train in a sport that jumping is part of your training. You should also be free
of any injury to the lower body.

Where will the study be held?

The study will be conducted at the Centre for Sport and Exercise Science, Wintec,
Avalon Drive Campus. The School of Sport and Exercise Science is a Sport and
Exercise Science New Zealand accredited laboratory, which means all equipment,
and protocols are of an approved standard.

How long will the study take?

The study will last seven weeks. We will require you to travel to Wintec two times
per week to conduct training session which will last approximately one to one and a
half hours.

Will everybody be treated the same?

Yes. Everybody participating in the study will do the same training and tests. The
only difference will be some of you will be doing normal vertical jumping and some
will be doing assisted vertical jumping.

What will I do in a testing session?

106
During a familiarization period the overall procedure will be explained to you and any
questions answered that you may have. After this is done and if you decide to
participate and informed consent form will be filled out and signed. Next will be the
tests.

The three tests will follow a standard warm-up consisting of a 5min jog and self
selected lower body stretches. After the warm up the tests will include a 20m sprint
test in an indoor stadium, a vertical jump test, and a 3RM squat strength test. These
tests will be conducted three times over a nine week period (week 0, week 3, week
8).

What measurements will be taken?

Measurements that will be taken are 10 and 20m sprint times via infra red timing
lights.

Vertical jump height will be collected via a vertical slap board positioned next to force
plate. The force plate will measure the forces used during the jump and will also be
used to calculate other information (total and net force, impulse, mRFD, and take off
velocity)

Predicted 1RM will be estimated via a 3RM squat test. The 1RM will be calculated
using a mathematical formula (Epley equation). The 3RM test will use free weights
(barbell and weight plates) and be performed in a power rack for your safety.

Weight, height, age, and training age will also be measured.

What should I wear during testing?

Make sure you wear comfortable clothes for training i.e. the same as you would for a
normal weight training session.

What does the training involve?

107
 The training protocols involve a strength component where you will train twice a
week on non consecutive day with at least 48 hours between. The exercises and
training plan for the study is outlined below.

Day 1 Day 2

Exercises Clean Pulls Clean Pull from Hang

Back Squats Box Squat

Front Squats ½ Squats

Static Lunges Dead Lifts

Base Strength Phase Intervention Phase

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7

Intensity for 3 x 4RM 4 x 5RM 3 x 4RM 4 x 3RM 4 x 5RM 5 x 4RM 3 x 4RM

exercises

Rest periods

4 min 3 min 4 min 4 min 3 min 3 min 4 min

During each intervention period you will be assigned to either a plyometric jumping
or assisted plyometric jumping group. The plyometric jumping protocol (PJ) involves
vertical jumping after the core exercises only (see table). Six jumps were performed
after the first three sets (for a total of six sets of jumps for each day) of the core
exercises. During the jumping, you will be instructed to jump as high and as quickly
as possible with a countermovement and minimal rest between jumps. The rest
period between a strength set and the plyometric jump set will be 90 seconds.

The assisted jumping protocol (AJ) differs only by you will wear a climbing harness /
weight belt attached to bungee cords via karabiners. The karabiners will be attached
to the harness at each leg strap just behind the adjusting buckle and also attached to
a power rack at the top support beams at a height of 2.1 m. During pilot work in our
laboratory it was found that using the bungee and harness assisted each subject by
108
aiding the subject during the jump by effectively reducing the mass of the subject by
25%, which will increase the velocity of which each jump is performed compared to
velocities that could be produced by normal jumping.

Are there any risks associated with the procedures?

There are minimal risks associated with this study. These risks that are present are
common with normal resistance training i.e. torn / pulled muscles, stress fractures
dropped weights, muscle soreness etc. These risks have been minimized by limiting
subject participation to those persons who currently are involved with weight training,
moreover those that regularly use high loads. This will minimize the possibility of
injury as these subjects should already be accustomed to the forces and stress
involved with type of training. Familiarization of all procedures, exercises etc, will be
given to all subjects.

The possibility of tearing a muscle during the explosiveness of the different tests will
be reduced by ensuring adequate warm up and preparation prior to the
commencement of the test.

Will I be able to take supplements during the study?

During this study no supplement will allowed to be taken. This is to ensure that any
gain in explosive performance is associated with the training and not from other
sources.

Will I be able to continue training and participate with my sport?

You will be able to continue your upper body training and continue with week end
games without any problems. However you will not be able to conduct any further
training to the lower body. This will interfere with results when analyzing results, in
addition you will run the risk of over training and possible injury.

109
Will I suffer any inconvenience from participating?

There will be some inconvenience from participating in this study. You will have to
travel to Wintec twice a week for trainings. We would like to conduct these training
sessions at convenient times for you and are flexible in this.

What benefits will I gain from participating?

By being a participant in this study you will undergo three different physiological tests
which will be repeated three times over the course of the study. These tests will
provide you will information on the effectiveness of the training you are completing.
Since one type of training is experimental (not widely practiced) you will be one the
first to see how this new training could benefit your sport.

Will the information be kept confidential?

Any and all information collected about you will be kept in a secure filing cabinet that
only us will have access to. To protect your identification you will be identified as a
number rather than a name. This information will be kept on site at Wintec.

What will happen when the study is finished?

When the study is finished (which could be months after the final test date) We will
hold an information evening at a beneficial time for all, to inform you of results we
have found as a result of this study. During this session we will answer any
questions that you may have. The results from this study may be presented at a
national conference for sport. Your identification will still be kept confidential.

110
What are my rights as a participant?

If you have any queries or concerns about your rights as a participant you may wish
to contact a Health and Disability Advocate.

Telephone: 0800 11 22 33

You can stop participating at any time for any reason. Please let Paul or Nick know
of your decision.

Has this study been approved?

This study has received ethical approval from the Wintec Ethics Committee.

111
Appendix 4: Subject Health Screening Form

Pre-exercise Screening Questionnaire

Name

Address Occupation

Day Phone

Evening Phone

Contact Person Contact Person Phone

Today’s Date Doctor

Date of Birth

Gender H/R BP

Please answer the following questions by indicating yes or no next to the questions.

I Have you ever had a stroke or heart condition?

2 Have you ever had high blood pressure?
3 Have any family members had heart problems before age 60?
4 Have you experienced chest pain when engaged in physical activity?
5 Have you experienced chest pain when not engaged in physical activity?
6 Have you ever had, or do you currently have, high blood cholesterol?
7 Have you ever suffered from asthma or breathing difficulties?
8 Have you ever smoked cigarettes, pipes or cigars?
9 Have you been hospitalised within the last six months?
10 Are you currently taking any medication(s)?
11 Have you ever had, or do you currently have, diabetes, epilepsy, hernia,
dizziness or loss of consciousness?
12 Have you ever had any disease or injury of the back, joints, bones or muscles
that may be aggravated by exercise?
13 Are you aware of any other health-related issues that may affect your
participation in physical exercise?

112
 Pre-exercise Screening Questionnaire (part two)

Name

Details of “Yes” answers, medications, possible contraindications to

exercise, etc.

Please answer the following questions by placing a tick in the appropriate box.

Exercise Participation Yes No

I Have you been participating in regular physical activity’? If yes what

type?

How would you describe your current physical condition? (Tick one or more boxes).

Unwell Overweight Unfit Healthy Fit

I have understood all the questions and have answered them to the best of
my knowledge.

I certify that I have disclosed fully any conditions that may affect my
participation in physical exercise.

Date Staff Name

Client Signature Staff Signature

113
Appendix 5: Subject Informed Consent

Participant Informed Consent

“Can Vertical Over-Speed Training Improve Explosive
Performance?”
The purpose of this study is to compare two different training schemes on power
parameters. To date there has been no published research into the effects of
vertical over-speed training to improve explosive performance. This study aims to
identify whether vertical over-speed training has the potential to elicit increases in
power adaptation.

In choosing to participate in this study you understand that:

• You have read and understood the information sheet.

• You have the right to decline to participate and to withdraw from the research
once participation has begun at any stage without having to give reason.
• You will not suffer any foreseeable negative consequences as a result of
declining participation or withdrawing from participation including
discrimination from either The Waikato Institute of Technology or your club or
training provider.
• You understand that there are potential risks, discomforts, and adverse
effects associated with participation which has been explained to you in full
and minimized to a thorough and practicable level for your safety.
• Your confidentiality is maintained at all times via a numbering system, a
locked filing system and password protected computer, all of which is
contained in a locked room at WINTEC. You understand that records of data
will be kept on file for 5 years before being destroyed and you may request
access to these at any stage.
• You are free from medical contraindications or physical injuries that would
deem you ineligible to participate in this study.

I……………………..(please print name) have read, clarified and understood the

information sheet and above consent information and hereby give consent to
participate in the study entitled “Can Vertical Over-Speed Training Improve Jumping
Performance?”. I understand all inherent risks, requirements and rights that I have in
regards to being a participant in this study.

Signed……………………………Date……/…../…. Print name:………………….....

114
Appendix 6: Raw Subject Data for Pre – 2 and Post Testing for Vertical Jump, 10
and 20m Sprint, and Squat Strength

Vertical Jump

SAJ Pre - 2 Post

Subject a 61 62
Subject b 55 60
Subject c 49 53
Subject d 43 49
Subject e 44 50
Subject f 55 57
Subject g 42 43
Subject h 57 61
Subject i 43 44

SVJ Pre - 2 Post

Subject 1 54 54
Subject 2 47 51
Subject 3 41 47
Subject 4 42 45
Subject 5 58 55
Subject 6 44 46
Subject 7 54 60
Subject 8 64 59

10 and 20m Sprint

Pre - 2 Post
SAJ 10m 20m 10m 20m
Subject a 1.81 3.1 1.82 3.12
Subject b 1.93 3.28 1.89 3.22
Subject c 1.95 3.35 1.91 3.3
Subject d 1.69 2.95 1.64 2.88
Subject e 1.94 3.33 1.94 3.35
Subject f 1.83 3.08 1.8 3.03
Subject g 2.06 3.61 2.03 3.46
Subject h 1.77 2.99 1.75 2.96
Subject i 1.99 3.44 1.99 3.44

115
 Pre – 2 Post
SVJ 10m 20m 10m 20m
Subject 1 1.84 3.15 1.85 3.17
Subject 2 1.88 3.26 1.85 3.23
Subject 3 1.98 3.37 1.91 3.31
Subject 4 1.87 3.18 1.86 3.14
Subject 5 1.98 3.43 1.94 3.45
Subject 6 1.77 3.04 1.76 3.06
Subject 7 1.84 3.14 1.86 3.15
Subject 8 1.81 3.16 1.7 2.99

Squat Strength

SAJ Pre - 2 Post

Subject a 192 215
Subject b 124 160
Subject c 121 137
Subject d 121 126
Subject e 165 176
Subject f 165 181
Subject g 181 198
Subject h 204 203
Subject i 207 224

SVJ Pre - 2 Post

Subject 1 159 187
Subject 2 149 164
Subject 3 148 149
Subject 4 93 110
Subject 5 160 160
Subject 6 160 170
Subject 7 149 159
Subject 8 154 176

116
Appendix 7: Sample Raw Force, Zeroed Force, Acceleration, Velocity, and Power
Graphs

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500 Raw Force (N)

1000

500

0
1
290
579
868
1157
1446
1735
2024
2313
2602
2891
3180
3469
3758
4047
4336
4625
4914
5203
5492
5781
6070
6359
6648
6937
7226
-500

20 1500

15
1000

10

500 Acceleration (1
5
axis)

0
0
1
13
25
37
49
61
73
85
97
109
121
133
145
157
169
181
193
205
217
229
241
253
265
277

Zeroed Force
-5 (2 axis)
-500
-10

-15 -1000

117
 -1
0.5
1.5
2.5

-1.5
-0.5
0
1
2
3

-2000
-1000
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000

0
1 1
12 12
23 23
34 34
45 45
56 56
67 67
78 78
89 89
100 100
111 111
122 122
133 133
144 144
155 155
166 166
177 177
188 188
199 199
210 210
221 221
232 232
243 243
254 254
265 265
276 276
287

118
Velocity

Power