PREVIOUS DYNAMIC AND BALISTIC CONDITIONING CONTRACTIONS CAN ENHANCE SUBSEQUENT THROWING PERFORMANCETheodoros M. Bampouras1, Alex Gill2, Irini Tzidimopoulou3, Dr Joseph I. Esformes2

1 Faculty of Health and Wellbeing, University of Cumbria, Lancaster, UK2 Cardiff School of Sport, University of Wales Institute, Cardiff, Cardiff, UK 3 Tae-Kwon-Do Athletic Club Egaleo, Athens, Greece

19th International Congress of Physical Education and SportDemocritus University of ThraceKomotini, Greece, 20-22 May 2011

black only version

black with green leaves version

white with green leaves version

white only version

IntroductionPrevious muscle activity can potentiate subsequent muscle performance, a phenomenon known as postactivation potentiation (Tillin and Bishop, 2009). Although heavy load dynamic exercise has been successfully used to acutely enhance subsequent explosive performance (Esformes et al, 2010), little information exists for ballistic activity as a conditioning contraction (CC). The purpose of this study was to determine whether throwing performance could be enhanced if preceded by heavy dynamic (DYN) or ballistic (BAL) CCs.

MethodsEleven male, competitive rugby players (mean±SD: age 21.0±1.1; body mass 91.3±10.2 kg; height 179.7±3.7 cm) performed a ballistic bench press throw (pre-BBPT) at 40% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM) followed by a 10-min rest and one of the CCs. The CCs, applied on separate days and in counterbalanced randomized order, were 1 set of 3 repetitions of bench press (DYN) at ~85% of 1RM or BBPT at 30% of 1RM (BAL). After a 4-minute rest, the subjects performed another BBPT (post-BBPT). A schematic diagram of the experimental procedures can be seen in Fig. 1. Peak power (Ppeak), force (Fpeak), distance (Dmax), and velocity (Vpeak), and rate of force development (RFD), force at peak power (F@Ppeak), and velocity at peak power (V@Ppeak) were measured using a linear position transducer (Ballistic Measurement System, Fitness Technology, Skye, South Australia, Australia).

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the experimental procedures. Measures of performance during a ballistic bench press throw (BBPT) were taken before (baseline; pre-BBPT) and after (post-contraction; post-BBPT) the conditioning stimuli, which were either 1 set of 3 repetitions of bench press at ~85% of 1RM or a BBPT at 30% of 1RM performed on separate days and in randomised, counterbalanced order.

Statistical analysisAs some data were not normally distributed, Friedman’s test was employed to examine for differences within each variable, followed by Wilcoxon’s test when significant differences were identified. No correction for pairwise comparison was applied and significance level was set at 0.05.

ResultsNo significant differences were revealed for Fpeak, F@Ppeak, Ppeak, and RFD (P>0.05) for any CC (Table 1). However, significant differences were revealed for Dpeak for the BAL only (P<0.05), and for Vpeak (P<0.05) and V@Ppeak (P<0.05) for both interventions (Table 1).

Table 1. Pre- and post-BBPT performance variables scores (mean±SD) following heavy load dynamic (DYN) and ballistic (BAL) conditioning contractions.

DiscussionOur findings indicate that ballistic conditioning contractions can improve subsequent throwing performance, while performance improvements that relate to velocity can be enhanced by both ballistic and dynamic contractions. Although, on this occasion, the change in velocity was not sufficient to cause a change in power or indeed a shift of the power curve (Cormie et al, 2009), future studies should explore different loads and rest intervals, as power-curve changes have been shown to be of great importance in monitoring and performance.

ReferencesCormie P, McBride JM, McCaulley GO. (2009). J Strength Cond Res, 23, 177-186.Esformes JI, Cameron N, Bampouras TM. (2010). J Strength Cond Res, 24, 1911-1916.Tillin NA, Bishop D. (2009). Sports Med, 39, 147-166.

ContactTheodoros M. BampourasSenior Lecturer in Sport Mechanics and Performance Analysis

E-mail: theodoros.bampouras@cumbria.ac.uk

Pre-BBPT 10’ rest Conditioning Contraction

4’ rest Post-BBPT

BAL DYN

Variables Pre Post Pre Post

Ppeak (W) 378.7 ± 68.5 436.8 ± 71.5 350.1 ± 118.7 451.9 ± 103.2

Fpeak (N) 380.2 ± 75.6 413.3 ± 110.2 416.1 ± 71.7 390.8 ± 94.9

Dpeak (m) 0.20 ± 0.05 0.25 ± 0.05* 0.25 ± 0.14 0.26 ± 0.06

Vpeak (ms-1) 1.1 ± 0.4 1.2 ± 0.3* 1.0 ± 0.5 1.3 ± 0.2*

RFD (Ns-1) 9291 ± 1904 9563 ± 1980 10550 ± 1562 9441 ± 1866

F@Ppeak (ms-1) 319.0 ± 58.6 328.1 ± 63.0 349.5 ± 47.0 326.3 ± 70.1

V@Ppeak ((ms-1) 1.0 ± 0.4 1.2 ± 0.2* 0.9 ± 0.5 1.2 ± 0.2*

Ppeak, Peak power; Fpeak, peak force; Dpeak, maximal displacement; Vpeak, peak velocity; RFD, rate of force development; F@Ppeak, force at peak power; V@Ppeak, velocity at peak power. * indicates significant pre-post difference (P<0.05).

AGILITY PERFORMANCE IS CORRELATED TO POWER BUT NOT TO STRENGTH OR SPEED

Dr Joseph I. Esformes1, Duncan Fulling1, Theodoros M. Bampouras2

1 Cardiff School of Sport, University of Wales Institute, Cardiff, Cardiff, UK 2 Faculty of Health and Wellbeing, University of Cumbria, Lancaster, UK

black only version

black with green leaves version

white with green leaves version

white only version

IntroductionAgility is an important physical component for successful performance in many opposition sports, combining perceptual and decision-making abilities and rapid change of direction (Sheppard et al, 2006; Young et al, 2002). Although previous studies have examined the relationship between agility and other physical attributes (Jones et al, 2009; Young et al, 2002), the agility task used did not account for the decision-making component. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to investigate the relationship of agility to power, strength, and speed.

MethodsTwelve male, competitive rugby players (mean±SD: age 20.5±0.6 years, height 1.86±0.06 m, body mass 92.5±9.1 kg) performed an agility test (AGI), a half squat strength test (HS), a power test (5 rebound jumps test (5RJ), and a 40m sprint test (SPRINT). For AGI, subjects run a 15m course, passing through two sets of timing gates (Smartspeed Timing Gates, Fusion Sport, Brisbane, Australia). The first set was 5m away from the start and the second 5m away from the first set and the course end. The first left or right turn was unanticipated and the direction was indicated by a visual stimulus from the second set of timing gates once the first gate was broken (Oliver and Meyers, 2009; Fig.1). 5m splits and total time was recorded. Strength was assessed by 1 repetition maximum for the HS. 5RJ took place on a contact mat (Smartjump, Fusion Sport, Brisbane, Australia) and power output was calculated. Finally, SPRINT 0-10m, 10-40m, and 0-40m times were recorded.

Statistical analysisAs data was normally distributed, Pearson’s correlation (r) was used to examine for relationships between these measurements, with significance level for any correlation set at 0.05.

ResultsThe results obtained from the various tests can be found in Table 1.

Table 1. Results (mean±SD) for agility (all distances), sprint (all distances), strength (half squat, HS) and power (5 rebound jumps, 5RJ) tests.

Pearson’s correlation revealed a significant and high relationship between AGI 5-10m AGI total time (0-15m) (P=0.001, r=0.852) as well as a significant and moderate relationship between AGI 10-15m and power output (P=0.020, r=0.686). No other significant correlation was revealed (P>0.05).

DiscussionThese findings suggest that agility performance is related to quick decision-making. In addition, once that decision has been made, lower limb power is important to enable fast movement. Our findings disagree with previous studies reporting speed and strength as two factors related to agility performance (Jones et al, 2009; Sheppard et al, 2006). However, the use of decision-making in the current study could explain this discrepancy, indicating its significant role in agility performance (Sheppard et al, 2006; Young et al, 2002). Therefore, agility assessment should take this component into consideration.

ReferencesJones P, Bampouras TM, Marrin K. (2009). J Sports Med Phys Fitness, 49, 97-104. Oliver JL, Meyers RW. (2009). Int J Sports Physiol Perform, 4, 345-354.Sheppard JM, Young WB, Doyle TLA, Sheppard TA, Newton RU. (2006). J Sci Med Sport, 9, 342-349. Young WB, James R, Montgomery I. (2002). J Sport Med Phys Fit, 43, 282-288.

ContactDr Joseph I. EsformesLecturer in Physiology

E-mail: j.esformes@uwic.ac.uk

Distance (m) Agility (s) Distance (m) Sprint (s) HS (kg) 5RJ (W)

0-5 1.99±0.18 0-10 1.88±0.11 212.1±18.3 1125.5±157.3

5-10 1.57±0.19 10-40 3.72±0.20

10-15 1.15±0.88 0-40 5.70±0.37

0-15 4.71±0.37

5m

5m

5m

3m

4m

1m

Straight

RightLeft

Middletiming gate

Start

Photoelectric cell

Reflective cell

Foam barrier (70cm high x90cm long x 30cm wide)

Fig. 1. Experimental set up for the agility test (Taken by Oliver and Meyers, 2009).

5m

5m

5m

3m

4m

1m

Straight

RightLeft

Middletiming gate

Start

Photoelectric cell

Reflective cell

Foam barrier (70cm high x90cm long x 30cm wide)

5m

5m

5m

3m

4m

1m

Straight

RightLeft

Middletiming gate

Start

Photoelectric cell

Reflective cell

Foam barrier (70cm high x90cm long x 30cm wide)

19th International Congress of Physical Education and SportDemocritus University of ThraceKomotini, Greece, 20-22 May 2011