Lower Repetition Induces Similar Postactivation Performance Enhancement to Repetition Maximum After a Single Set of Heavy-Resistance Exercise

ABSTRACT

Chen, C-F, Chuang, C-Y, Wang, C-C, Liu, S-A, Chang, H-W, and Chan, K-H. Lower repetition induces similar postactivation performance enhancement to repetition maximum after a single set of heavy-resistance exercise. J Strength Cond Res 38(5): 848-855, 2024-The study was divided into 2 parts to investigate the acute postactivation performance enhancement (PAPE) responses to lower repetitions at the same load of 87% 1 repetition maximum (1RM) in the upper and lower body. In part 1, 14 athletes performed plyometric push-up (PPU) after the conditioning activity (CA) of bench press (BP). In part 2, 13 athletes performed a countermovement jump (CMJ) after the CA of parallel squat (PS). Subjects completed 3, 4, or 5 repetitions (trials CA-3, CA-4, or CA-5) of BP or PS in randomized and counterbalanced order. The velocity of each movement of the trial was recorded. The PPU or CMJ was tested every 2 minutes after the trial up to 12 minutes to assess the Post-Max and optimal individual PAPE time. The mean velocity of the last movement of BP in CA-5 was significantly lower than that in CA-3 (0.23 ± 0.06 vs. 0.28 ± 0.06 m·second -1 , p < 0.05), and the velocity of PS in CA-4 or CA-5 was significantly lower than that in CA-3 (0.53 ± 0.07 and 0.50 ± 0.05 vs. 0.57 ± 0.07 m·second -1 , p < 0.05). The peak force of PPU and jump height of CMJ at Post-Max in the 3 trials were significantly greater than those at Pre ( p < 0.05). There were no significant differences among trials in the optimal individual PAPE times in either part of the study. A single set of 87% 1RM resistance exercises with 3 or 4 repetitions in both the upper body and the lower body induces similar PAPE to repetition maximum.

The Anaerobic Power Assessment in CrossFit® Athletes: An Agreement Study

Anaerobic power and capacity are considered determinants of performance and are usually assessed in athletes as a part of their physical capacities’ evaluation along the season. For that purpose, many field tests have been created. The main objective of this study was to analyze the agreement between four field tests and a laboratory test. Nineteen CrossFit^® (CF) athletes were recruited for this study (28.63 ± 6.62 years) who had been practicing CF for at least one year. Tests performed were: (1) Anaerobic Squat Test at 60% of bodyweight (AST60); (2) Anaerobic Squat Test at 70% of bodyweight (AST70); (3) Repeated Jump Test (RJT); (4) Assault Bike Test (ABT); and (5) Wingate Anaerobic Test on a cycle ergometer (WG). All tests consisted of 30 s of max effort. The differences among methods were tested using a repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) and effect size. Agreement between methods was performed using Bland–Altman analysis. Analysis of agreement showed systematic bias in all field test PP values, which varied between −110.05 (AST60_PP—WG_PP) and 463.58 (ABT_PP—WG_PP), and a significant proportional error in ABT_PP by rank correlation (p < 0.001). Repeated-measures ANOVA showed significant differences among PP values (F(1.76,31.59) = 130.61, p =< 0.001). In conclusion, since to our knowledge, this is the first study to analyze the agreement between various methods to estimate anaerobic power in CF athletes. Apart from ABT, all tests showed good agreement and can be used interchangeably in CF athletes. Our results suggest that AST and RJT are good alternatives for measuring the anaerobic power in CF athletes when access to a laboratory is not possible.

Reliability and Validity of a New Portable Tethered Sprint Running Test as a Measure of Maximal Anaerobic Performance

Limmer, M, Berkholz, A, de Marées, M, and Platen, P. Reliability and validity of a new portable tethered sprint running test as a measure of maximal anaerobic performance. J Strength Cond Res 34(8): 2197-2204, 2020-The purposes of this study were to develop a new portable tethered sprint running (PTSR) test for field-based anaerobic performance testing with restricted spatial conditions and the logistical challenge of carrying test equipment, and to determine reliability of the PTSR test. For validity, performance measures were compared with the cycle ergometer Wingate Anaerobic Test (WAnT) power outputs. Twelve recreationally active men and women (24.3 ± 1.6 years; 1.77 ± 0.07 m; 73.3 ± 12.5 kg) performed one familiarization trial followed by 3 randomly assigned experimental 60-second all-out effort trials consisting of one WAnT and 2 PTSR tests. All trials were performed in a randomized order on different days separated by at least 48 hours. Heart rate (HR) and maximum blood lactate concentration were recorded for each experimental trial to determine the physiological responses to the maximal efforts. Correlation coefficients indicated significant relationships between mean force (MF) and peak force (PF) in the PTSR test and mean power (MP) (r = 0.651, p = 0.022) and peak power (PP) (r = 0.877, p = 0.002) in the WAnT, but not for the fatigue index (r = 0.280, p = 0.379). In addition, both PTSR trials showed no significant differences (p > 0.05) between trials and a high reliability for the performance variables MF (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.98, coefficient of variation [%CV] = 7.7), PF (ICC = 0.98, %CV = 8.4), and HR (ICC = 0.92, %CV = 3.1). In conclusion, our results suggest that despite insufficient stimulation of anaerobic metabolism in some subjects resulting from poor implementation of test instructions, the PTSR is a reliable and valid test for an easy and practical assessment of maximal anaerobic performance under different field conditions.