Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
My cross country team implemented all of the core stuff, including the techniques for the squat, bench, rdl, pull up
in six weeks they gained 2.5-5.5 inches on their verts.
Great stuff, just goes to show how much learning how to move properly will help performance. WGF will be posting an article about it in a short while
Yeah, you're crazy, but I'm liking it. I would like to point out that studies indicate isometrics do result in better increases in tendon stiffness than do plyos. Neglecting calf ISOs would probably not be the best idea. And to reduce loading on your back, I'd do them one foot at a time and holding a heavy DB in hand.
Good luck, Andrew. I really want to see how this goes.
These data suggest that DJ performed before 1RM testing
may enhance squat performance in trained male athletes.
The response to a heavy resistance exercise stimulus designed to elicit postactivation potentiation appears to depend on training status. Recreationally trained individuals may exhibit fatigue in the 5 minutes following an acute heavy resistance exercise stimulus. In athletically trained individuals, however, this stimulus enhances power performance for 5 to 18.5 minutes.
It was concluded that contrast training is advantageous for increasing power output but only for athletes with relatively high strength levels.
Therefore, we examined the individual responses to the exercises and determined that 5 of the subjects did increase their vertical jumps after both squat exercises. It may be that the influence of prejump exercise on jump performance may be individualized. Nevertheless, the use of a strength ratio does not appear to predict who will benefit from posttetanic potentiation in this type of exercise situation.
The findings suggest that muscle performance during a countermovement jump can be markedly enhanced following bouts of heavy resistance training provided that adequate recovery (?8 min) is allowed between the heavy resistance training and the explosive activity.
However, an increase in force parameter during LCMJ was appeared in 80%1RM preload but not in 40%1RM. Moreover, an increase in power parameter with 80%1RM preload was remained longer than that of 40% 1RM. These results suggest that the effects of postactivation potentiation on muscular strength and power and its time course of recovery may be different from the intensity of preload.
The results showed a mean improvement of 0.098s (p<0.0001) when the second sprint was preceded by the back squats. This amounted to a 3.3% improvement on the precondition time. During the control condition, no improvement was observed between the first and second sprint. The improved sprint times observed during the E condition probably were due to a temporary increase in the efficiency of neuromuscular activation following the performance of heavy-load back squats.
The data from this study suggest that an acute bout of low-volume heavy lifting with the lower body may improve 40-m sprint times, but that loaded countermovement jumps appear to have no significant effect.
Training-induced improvements in SJ height, 80% 1 RM squat load, and maximum isometric LE force were observed (12%, 10%, and 7.7%, P<0.05). In conclusion, potentiated SJ performance occurred during a typical contrast loading protocol before the training period. However, potentiated SJ performance may alter through training, and therefore, the responsiveness of the individual should be periodically monitored and training protocols updated when necessary.
Reasons for the lack of performance enhancement can be attributed to postactivation potentiation stimulated by the SIS being insufficient in magnitude or dissipating before post-testing. This may have been due to a submaximal workload of 50% during the SIS, insufficient movement pattern specificity between the squat exercise and a CMJ, or rest intervals of excess duration.
The aim of this research was to assess the effect of a single set of contrast preloading on peak vertical displacement (PD) during a loaded countermovement jump (LCMJ) training session. These results suggest that a single set of preloading exercises enhances performance during a lower-body explosive power training session; however, the effects of a single preloading set may not peak until midway through the training session.
Results: The optimal strategy to optimize performance is a tapering intervention of 2-wk duration (overall effect = 0.59 +/- 0.33, P < 0.001), where the training volume is exponentially decreased by 41-60% (overall effect = 0.72 +/- 0.36, P < 0.001), without any modification of either training intensity (overall effect = 0.33 +/- 0.14, P < 0.001) or frequency (overall effect = 0.35 +/- 0.17, P < 0.001).
Conclusion: A 2-wk taper during which training volume is exponentially reduced by 41-60% seems to be the most efficient strategy to maximize performance gains. This meta-analysis provides a framework that can be useful for athletes, coaches, and sport scientists to optimize their tapering strategy.
These data indicated that DTR may induce larger declines in muscle power output than in maximal strength, whereas TAP may result in further strength enhancement (but not muscle power), mediated, in part, by training-related differences in IGF-1 and IGFBP-3 concentrations.
Results: The taper allowed performance gains if training was higher than a minimal level. The best performance without OT preceding the taper was reached with a load reduction of 30.8 +/- 11.8% and a duration of 19.3 +/- 2.3 d. The best performance with OT preceding the taper was significantly higher than without OT (P < 0.02) and was obtained with a significantly greater load reduction and duration, 39.3 +/- 9.9% and 28.0 +/- 5.1 d respectively. The best performance with a progressive load reduction was significantly higher than with a step reduction only with OT before the taper (102.2 +/- 1.7 vs 101.8 +/- 1.5% of performance with ODT, P < 0.005)
Conclusion: Greater training volume and/or intensity before the taper would allow higher performance gains, but would demand a greater reduction of the training load over a longer period. The results also pointed out the importance of training adaptations during the taper, in addition to fatigue dissipation.
nvm bad post
