Does one heavy load back squat set lead to postactivation performance enhancement of three-point explosion and sprint in third division American football players?
blocking
conditioning contraction
postactivation potentiation
sprint performance
squat
Journal
BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation
ISSN: 2052-1847
Titre abrégé: BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101605016
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 Jun 2021
07 Jun 2021
Historique:
received:
20
01
2021
accepted:
18
05
2021
entrez:
8
6
2021
pubmed:
9
6
2021
medline:
9
6
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
American football players need the ability to provide maximal muscular power in a modicum of time. Postactivation performance enhancement (PAPE), which is characterized by an acute improvement of a performance measure following conditioning contractions, could be of value for American football players. The aim of the present study was to determine the effect of a heavy load back squat PAPE protocol on three-point explosion (TPE; an essential blocking technique and drill) and 40-yard dash (40YD) performance compared to a traditional warm-up in American football players. In a crossover study design, eighteen male competitive regional league American football players (mean ± SD: body mass 93.9 ± 15.5 kg, height 181.4 ± 6.8 cm, age 24.8 ± 3.9 years) performed a TPE on a double blocking sled (weight: 150 kg) and a 40YD (36.6 m with a 5 and 10 m split) 8 min after two different warm-up conditions. One condition was a traditional, football specific warm-up (TWU) consisting of game related movements (e.g. backward lunges, lateral power steps), whereas the other condition (PAPE) consisted of three explosive back squats with a load of 91 % one-repetition maximum. There was no significant difference in TPE between TWU and PAPE. For the 40YD, we found significantly shorter sprint times in the PAPE condition with medium effect sizes for the 5 m (p = 0.007; r = 0.45) and 10 m (p = 0.020; r = 0.39) but not for the whole 36.6 m distance (p = 0.084; r = 0.29) compared to the TWU condition. The used heavy load back squat PAPE protocol improved sprint performance over short distances (≤ 10 m) but not complex movements like the three-point explosion.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
American football players need the ability to provide maximal muscular power in a modicum of time. Postactivation performance enhancement (PAPE), which is characterized by an acute improvement of a performance measure following conditioning contractions, could be of value for American football players. The aim of the present study was to determine the effect of a heavy load back squat PAPE protocol on three-point explosion (TPE; an essential blocking technique and drill) and 40-yard dash (40YD) performance compared to a traditional warm-up in American football players.
METHODS
METHODS
In a crossover study design, eighteen male competitive regional league American football players (mean ± SD: body mass 93.9 ± 15.5 kg, height 181.4 ± 6.8 cm, age 24.8 ± 3.9 years) performed a TPE on a double blocking sled (weight: 150 kg) and a 40YD (36.6 m with a 5 and 10 m split) 8 min after two different warm-up conditions. One condition was a traditional, football specific warm-up (TWU) consisting of game related movements (e.g. backward lunges, lateral power steps), whereas the other condition (PAPE) consisted of three explosive back squats with a load of 91 % one-repetition maximum.
RESULTS
RESULTS
There was no significant difference in TPE between TWU and PAPE. For the 40YD, we found significantly shorter sprint times in the PAPE condition with medium effect sizes for the 5 m (p = 0.007; r = 0.45) and 10 m (p = 0.020; r = 0.39) but not for the whole 36.6 m distance (p = 0.084; r = 0.29) compared to the TWU condition.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The used heavy load back squat PAPE protocol improved sprint performance over short distances (≤ 10 m) but not complex movements like the three-point explosion.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34099030
doi: 10.1186/s13102-021-00288-y
pii: 10.1186/s13102-021-00288-y
pmc: PMC8183040
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
64Références
J Strength Cond Res. 2014 Mar;28(3):706-15
pubmed: 23965945
Front Physiol. 2019 Nov 01;10:1359
pubmed: 31736781
J Sports Sci Med. 2007 Mar 01;6(1):149-50
pubmed: 24137083
J Sports Sci. 2008 Jun;26(8):795-802
pubmed: 18569545
J Strength Cond Res. 2015 Feb;29(2):343-50
pubmed: 25187244
J Strength Cond Res. 2007 Nov;21(4):1134-8
pubmed: 18076243
Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2008 Mar;3(1):55-67
pubmed: 19193949
J Strength Cond Res. 2015 Jun;29(6):1640-7
pubmed: 26010798
J Strength Cond Res. 2009 Sep;23(6):1780-5
pubmed: 19675483
Sports (Basel). 2019 Feb 18;7(2):
pubmed: 30781654
J Hum Kinet. 2017 Mar 12;56:167-175
pubmed: 28469755
J Strength Cond Res. 2015 Feb;29(2):336-42
pubmed: 25330084
J Strength Cond Res. 2010 May;24(5):1285-91
pubmed: 20393352
J Hum Kinet. 2018 Mar 23;61:189-197
pubmed: 29599871
J Strength Cond Res. 2013 Mar;27(3):854-9
pubmed: 22580978
Sports Med. 2020 Sep;50(9):1559-1565
pubmed: 32495254
J Strength Cond Res. 2008 Nov;22(6):1811-5
pubmed: 18815568
J Strength Cond Res. 2010 Feb;24(2):358-69
pubmed: 20072064
Eur J Appl Physiol. 2006 Nov;98(4):402-10
pubmed: 16969639
Sports Med. 2016 Feb;46(2):231-40
pubmed: 26508319
J Sports Sci. 2013;31(5):459-67
pubmed: 23140550
J Strength Cond Res. 2004 May;18(2):201-5
pubmed: 15142025
J Strength Cond Res. 2018 Sep;32(9):2510-2520
pubmed: 29401203
J Strength Cond Res. 2010 Mar;24(3):701-5
pubmed: 20145565
J Hum Kinet. 2016 Sep 10;52:95-106
pubmed: 28149397
J Strength Cond Res. 2021 Jan 1;35(1):91-96
pubmed: 29481453
J Sports Sci Med. 2011 Sep 01;10(3):577-83
pubmed: 24150636
J Strength Cond Res. 2003 May;17(2):342-4
pubmed: 12741875
J Strength Cond Res. 2017 Nov;31(11):3010-3017
pubmed: 29065077
J Strength Cond Res. 2003 May;17(2):345-9
pubmed: 12741876
Psychol Bull. 1992 Jul;112(1):155-9
pubmed: 19565683